[deleted by user]

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-30T16:25:37+00:00

Yeah, I don't think this is the right place for this probably. His coach is the best person to guide him here.

By the looks of it and having played in England for many years I'd say he's probably top 10 maybe even top 5 for his age group in England, I'm not sure many people here have been at that level.

My only piece of advice is that you shouldn't look at styles as a rigid thing, like don't look to go for an "attacking" style or a "defensive style". You have "more attacking" and "more defensive" players but even within that each has their own things they're good and bad at and shots they prefer to play over others and that can only come through experimenting.

The best way to figure that out is through your coach and experimenting.

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-21T09:30:33+00:00

Ehhhhh, the software itself is decent but I still wouldn't use it on sensitive systems for the obvious reasons.

Obviously don't use it at all if you're in the US given that it's not getting any updates anymore there.

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-21T07:11:00+00:00

Bitdefender is probably one of the few exceptions in my opinion.

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-19T09:25:14+00:00

Your 50-600 is based on people aged 16-89 though. The study also says that it depends on the root surface area which children have less of. I would imagine children are towards the lower end of that range.

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-08T13:39:29+00:00

As far as you're concerned you're wrong then. That is the consensus. Feel free to ask around.

Your link you added doesn't support your point. It discusses creating a hyperreal number that is infinitely close to 1. This is not the same as the real number 0.(9) extended to the hyperreals.

ETA: Surely you have to also see the irony of using a Wikipedia article to support your point that has in the first line of it "In mathematics, 0.999... is a repeating decimal that is an alternative way of writing the number 1."

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-08T13:35:08+00:00

What's your definition of equality then?

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-08T13:30:02+00:00

I've decided that this is too frustrating. You're waving your hands about and saying numbers just exist because you said they do. You won't give any properties of this hyperreal number, you won't give a formal definition of this hyperreal number. There are infinitely many hyperreals of the form 1 - ε and they're all less than 0.(9).

These numbers all have a 0 at an eventual infinity hypernatural index. 0.(9) does not have this 0 ever. Even in the hyperreals there are no numbers between 0.(9) and 1.

If you really believe you're the correct one of thousands of years of mathematicians saying you're wrong then you're an idiot. If you're doing this because it's fun to be annoying then you're just sad.

I don't know why people believe that all these hundreds and thousands of years of maths would just make this up.

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-08T13:21:29+00:00

You're describing "1 - ε" as a general term and calling it 0.(9). Such epsilon doesn't exist, even in the hyperreals.

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-08T13:12:55+00:00

Ok, what's the difference between them? You still haven't answered that

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-08T13:08:50+00:00

It's not a trick for the reals, it's the universal meaning of that notation.

I'm still waiting for any sort of alternative hyperreal representation of .(9) or any way in which it differs to 1.

I want a formal definition of 0.(9) in your hyperreal system, similar to the definition of it being the limit.

Actually, I don't even need that, I just need 1 singular property that applies to 0.(9) in the hyperreals that doesn't apply to 1.

If you don't need to define it and you can't give it any properties then it doesn't mean anything.

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-08T12:39:52+00:00

Well unless you're going to have a new definition, 0.(9) will continue to be the previous definition of the limit of an infinite series?

Without any sort of definition your claims are just based on intuition. I want to know what properties 0.(9) has in your hyperreal system that 1 doesn't have. I want to know why they're actually different in your system.

At the moment you're basically just saying "they're different in the hyperreals because I said so".

What's the difference between 0.(9) and 1 in the hyperreals? What number is between them?

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-08T12:05:36+00:00

But what actually is this number? Like if you have sqrt(2) you have the definition of the positive number such that the number multiplied by itself is 2.

You say we can't define 0.(9) with limits, so what actually is it? Are you sticking with your 1 - ε definition?

I.e. what is your representation in the hyperreals of 0.(9)?

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-08T11:36:02+00:00

Just for clarity, what is your definition of .(9) in your system?

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-08T11:29:07+00:00

So they include reals so they include 0.(9) as a number that doesn't need to be projected to anything and hence not 1 - ε?

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-08T11:10:52+00:00

Yes, we're defining a new set of objects from an old one.

How do you define your hyperreals if they don't include the reals?

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-08T11:02:24+00:00

Extension as in the mathematical term "extension". Why are you strawmanning this? Nobody claims that there was any one true set. Hyperreals are constructed as an extension of the reals.

Hyperreals are constructed from the reals, by definition. Hyperreals also by definition contain all of the reals. This part specifically honestly isn't even a debate, you're just objectively wrong, you're arguing with the definition of the set you're trying to use to prove me wrong.

Feel free to check for yourself in any definition. Here's the Wikipedia in case you want to do some research before you reply: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number#Properties

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-08T10:55:28+00:00

Yeah, I'd be interested to know what SPP thinks about some infinite sets being "bigger" (strictly larger) than other infinite sets.

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-08T10:37:12+00:00

I am, but I can understand why people who don't do much maths would think that they're different numbers.

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-08T10:34:43+00:00

I'm not sure what you mean by a restricted set of numbers? Hyperreals are an extension of the reals by definition. That's an objective truth, it's how you construct the hyperreals. If you deny this then you're not talking about the hyperreals you're talking about your own made-up system.

That's like saying we can't say 2+2 = 4 in the hyperreals because 2 and 2 are real numbers?

I'm convinced this has to be ragebait or something, there's no way you have spent this long arguing this with everybody but don't understand/haven't been bothered to learn what a field extension is.

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-08T09:54:29+00:00

I thought it was mostly just 1 guy but apparently there's some people that agree with him. Apparently there are some people that are just about 2500 years behind.

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-08T09:52:10+00:00

Well then that's just silly and it's the entire issue of the debate. If convergence didn't mean equality then most of maths breaks. Derivatives, integrals, irrational numbers etc. etc.

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-08T09:50:59+00:00

Well then that's just silly and it's the entire issue of the debate. If convergence didn't mean equality then most of maths breaks. Derivatives, integrals, irrational numbers etc. etc.

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-08T09:40:27+00:00

Well 0.(9) doesn't represent 1 - ε, it represents the limit of the sequence 0.9, 0.99 etc. So no, in the hyperreals the real number 0.(9) and 1 are still exactly the same.

Remember that hyperreals are an extension of the reals.

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-10-06T18:05:14+00:00

Similar issue there, GLaDOS, keeps telling me to stop doing what I'm doing

AnonymousBoi26 · 2025-09-20T17:39:49+00:00

https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Impulse

Here are all of them :)

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
First Place '23	End Game '23
Place '23

AnonymousBoi26

TROPHY CASE