![](https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/d1879120-15ae-4c7c-a202-0dca9f7feccb.png)
![](https://lemmy.zip/pictrs/image/fbe4883b-64d2-4dbf-953d-789e884f5d6b.webp)
I can’t help but notice that there’s a lot of articles talking about how Joe Biden is bad when we just had a Supreme Court decision that destroys the balances of power. I wonder why.
I can’t help but notice that there’s a lot of articles talking about how Joe Biden is bad when we just had a Supreme Court decision that destroys the balances of power. I wonder why.
Accurate; I’m depressed.
Tbf, they clearly are thinking about children.
It is my opinion that repeating decimals cannot
Your opinion is incorrect as a question of definition.
I have never disagreed with the math
You had in the previous paragraph.
Is it possible to have a coversation about math without either fully agreeing or calling the other stupid?
Yes, however the problem is that you are speaking on matters that you are clearly ignorant. This isn’t a question of different axioms where we can show clearly how two models are incompatible but resolve that both are correct in their own contexts; this is a case where you are entirely, irredeemably wrong, and are simply refusing to correct yourself. I am an algebraist understanding how two systems differ and compare is my specialty. We know that infinite decimals are capable of representing real numbers because we do so all the time. There. You’re wrong and I’ve shown it via proof by demonstration. QED.
They are just symbols we use to represent abstract concepts; the same way I can inscribe a “1” to represent 3-2={ {} } I can inscribe “.9~” to do the same. The fact that our convention is occasionally confusing is irrelevant to the question; we could have a system whereby each number gets its own unique glyph when it’s used and it’d still be a valid way to communicate the ideas. The level of weirdness you can do and still have a valid notational convention goes so far beyond the meager oddities you’ve been hung up on here. Don’t believe me? Look up lambda calculus.
Any my argument is that 3 ≠ 0.333…
After reading this, I have decided that I am no longer going to provide a formal proof for my other point, because odds are that you wouldn’t understand it and I’m now reasonably confident that anyone who would already understands the fact the proof would’ve supported.
Wait, the mandelbrot set is two-dimensional.
OG-Wan Kenobi.
You’re welcome.
If I remember, I’ll give a formal proof when I have time so long as no one else has done so before me. Simply put, we’re not dealing with floats and there’s algorithms to add infinite decimals together from the ones place down using back-propagation. Disproving my statement is as simple as providing a pair of real numbers where doing this is impossible.
This has Animaniacs energy.
What, in this context, does “neutrality” mean?
By definition, mathematics isn’t witchcraft (most witches I know are pretty bad at math). Also, I think you need to look more deeply into Occam’s razor.
I’ve played Ark, and I think the places where Palworld is most similar to it are where it’s weakest.
I can’t help but notice you didn’t answer the question.
each digit-wise operation must be performed in order
I’m sure I don’t know what you mean by digit-wise operation, because my conceptuazation of it renders this statement obviously false. For example, we could apply digit-wise modular addition base 10 to any pair of real numbers and the order we choose to perform this operation in won’t matter. I’m pretty sure you’re also not including standard multiplication and addition in your definition of “digit-wise” because we can construct algorithms that address many different orders of digits, meaning this statement would also then be false. In fact, as I lay here having just woken up, I’m having a difficult time figuring out an operation where the order that you address the digits in actually matters.
Later, you bring up “incrementing” which has no natural definition in a densely populated set. It seems to me that you came up with a function that relies on the notation we’re using (the decimal-increment function, let’s call it) rather than the emergent properties of the objects we’re working with, noticed that the function doesn’t cover the desired domain, and have decided that means the notation is somehow improper. Or maybe you’re saying that the reason it’s improper is because the advanced techniques for interacting with the system are dissimilar from the understanding imparted by the simple techniques.
Fair, but that still uses logic, it’s just using false premises. Also, more than the argument what I’d be taking seriously is the threat of imminent violence.
There’s a way to prove it; we know how quickly pain signals propagate through our nerves and how quickly nukes disintegrate matter. The degree of skepticism you’d need to be uncertain about it would cause you to need to resolve solipsism before you allowed nukes to even exist. There’s a certain radius within which, if you don’t have sufficient shielding there’s no possibility of pain. There’s another smaller radius for which no amount of shielding will change the outcome.
It depends on the convention that you use, but in my experience yes; for any equivalence relation, and any metric of “approximate” within the context of that relation, A=B implies A≈B.
People generally find it odd and unintuitive that it’s possible to use decimal notation to represent 1 as .9~ and so this particular thing will never go away. When I was in HS I wowed some of my teachers by doing proofs on the subject, and every so often I see it online. This will continue to be an interesting fact for as long as decimal is used as a canonical notation.
don’t sipport infinite decimals properly
Please explain this in a way that makes sense to me (I’m an algebraist). I don’t know what it would mean for infinite decimals to be supported “properly” or “improperly”. Furthermore, I’m not aware of any arguments worth taking seriously that don’t use logic, so I’m wondering why that’s a criticism of the notation.
I’m not entertaining the idea that shifting to a critique of a specific aspect of the game is the same as claiming it’s “boring”.
Also, I think the way they paced out the increases in mobility is one of the game’s stronger aspects. In the context of a large explorable world, making walking speed too high will destroy the challenge and pacing of the game like nothing else. The overworld is enormous with appropriately scaled terrain that’s magnificent and glorious to behold. If you’re not taking the time to look around and appreciate the scenery, I can understand why you’d say it’s “boring”, but maybe consider that it’s not for you and move on instead of pretending your opinions are able to predict how appealing people find it.
Biden would make a better candidate than Trump if he were on life support and we knew he’d be dead within the first week. The important part is not if he’s fit for office, the question is if he’s the best candidate to beat Donald Trump. As someone who’s not Trump, he has an advantage that any Democrat can bank on. As the incumbent, he has an advantage that no one else can replicate. Who is popular enough to have more of an advantage than being the incumbent? Bernie Sanders? AOC? Their policies are far better than Biden’s and they have celebrity, but the DNC will never nominate them, and I don’t know if they’d pull in more people, because anyone who’d vote for them with any common sense would vote for Biden against Trump.
So who, exactly would he be replaced by? Understand that these pieces cause real damage to his chances if he isn’t replaced, so you’d best have even 1 person in mind.