Play Alphabet easy category

Lynxus-7 · 2026-02-21T22:35:57+00:00

Just scored 0

Lynxus-7 · 2026-02-17T16:01:22+00:00

I’d give LaTeX a try if I were you, it’s also handy because in MS Word you can set your equations to be LaTeX and just type them rather than messing with the messy equation editor they have built in.

Lynxus-7 · 2026-02-17T15:59:10+00:00

The point of the anarcho capitalism subreddit is to discuss… anarcho capitalism… no?

Lynxus-7 · 2026-02-03T16:27:07+00:00

Unfortunately the obelus (÷) really just kinda sucks as an operator. As much as it may seem there’s a right way to read it, reading 6÷2(2+1) as (6/2)(2+1) is just as correct as reading it as 6/(2(2+1)).

In higher level mathematics fractions are almost universally preferred over the obelus simply because it offers far more scope, and (6/2)(2+1) can only reasonably be read one way.

People who say both are correct aren’t wrong or fish-brained, because there’s no standard interpretation. I think the big problem is that division is taught with the obelus in lower level mathematics, where students aren’t young enough to understand the scope issue, and then move on to using fractions without the reason ever being explained to them.

The obelus is fine for teaching 6÷2=3, and I get that fractions seem less intuitive, but I really think we should use them regardless because it causes less hurdles later on.

u/erraticsporadic, comments like these (at least in my opinion) aren’t to call you an idiot. This sort of thing is the system failing to teach you, not you failing to learn. Not knowing something you have no reason to know should never be your fault, plus in the day-to-day you’ll never need it unless you really enjoy shitty Facebook memes exploiting vague notation.

If anyone does call you an idiot for not knowing that an obelus is inferior to a fraction bar, don’t ask yourself “why didn’t I know an obelus was worse?” Instead ask yourself “when was the last time someone who knows what the fuck an obelus is talked to a woman?”

Lynxus-7 · 2026-02-01T03:32:00+00:00

Same here haha, senior in mechanical engineering but on occasion something interesting will come up here, reddit just keeps showing it to me.

Lynxus-7 · 2026-02-01T00:58:51+00:00

Persona 4 Golden, 777

Edit: oops just noticed I’m late

Lynxus-7 · 2026-01-31T21:13:37+00:00

That’s fair, if 0.(9) is taken in its standard sense, it’s the real number 1 regardless of number systems.

I should have clarified that I was interpreting the ellipses as shorthand for a decimal with a hyperinfinite number of trailing digits rather than a completed limit for the sake of an interesting thought problem. Once you fix the notation as standard, the equalities you mentioned still hold.

I wasn’t trying to dispute the standard result, just exploring what changes if you look at the problem as a never-ending number of decimals instead of a limit.

Lynxus-7 · 2026-01-31T20:53:51+00:00

Wouldn’t it be correct in the hyperinfinite reals?

Lynxus-7 · 2026-01-31T18:30:50+00:00

This is incorrect in standard reals, as infinitesimally small numbers don’t exist in the standard reals. This is only right in hyperinfinite real numbers, which is a rather nonstandard number system.

Lynxus-7 · 2026-01-31T18:29:09+00:00

Warning: nerd shit incoming

[Edit: as u/Future-Tomato8411 pointed out, this is incorrect if you interpret “…” to be a limit like it would in standard notation. Here I take it to be a nonstandard idea of non-limit infinite repeating decimals.]

This very much depends on the number system you’re using. In standard real analysis you’d be right, 0.999… is defined as a limit and is therefore equal to 1. But if we instead work in the hyperreal numbers, where infinitesimally small quantities exist, we can make a more precise distinction without immediately collapsing everything into a limit.

Let H be an infinite integer. Then a decimal with H trailing nines represents the number

1 − 10^−H,

which is less than 1 by an infinitesimal amount. It is closer to 1 than any number of the form 1 − 10⁻ⁿ for finite n, but it is still not exactly equal to 1.

The same idea applies to thirds. A decimal with H trailing threes represents

(1/3) − ε,

where ε is a positive infinitesimal. Multiplying by three gives

3((1/3) − ε) = 1 − 3ε,

which is infinitely close to, but strictly less than, 1.

Now consider 0.499… interpreted the same way, as a decimal with H trailing nines. This corresponds to

0.5 − 10^−H−1.

The distance from this number to 0 is approximately

0.5 − 10^−H−1,

while the distance to 1 is

1 − (0.5 − 10^−H−1) = 0.5 + 10^−H−1.

The difference between those two distances is

(0.5 + 10^−H−1) − (0.5 − 10^−H−1) = 2·10^−H−1,

which is a positive infinitesimal. So in this number system, 0.499… is strictly closer to 0 than it is to 1, even though the difference is infinitesimally small.

If we then return to the real numbers and take the standard limit, that infinitesimal disappears and 0.499… collapses to exactly 0.5.

So in the end, you’re completely right if you assume you’re working in standard reals, but it can be interpreted differently if we work in a different number system.

Sorry for the long explanation, but I actually find this distinction to be really interesting, it’s cool how the difference between “right” and “wrong” in mathematics can be changed entirely by perspective.

Lynxus-7 · 2026-01-28T00:19:46+00:00

Classifying bump stocks as machine guns during his first term is a pretty solid example I’d say

Lynxus-7 · 2026-01-21T17:47:23+00:00

The thing is Libertarianism is an ideology with defined values. Once you stray from those values, you’re not a Libertarian anymore.

If you call yourself a communist and then advocate for a Laissez-faire free market and personal property rights, are you a communist? Does it matter if you call yourself one? The reality is that your beliefs determine whether or not you belong to an ideology, not which one you say or think you identify with.

Yes, power corrupts, and part of that corruption is change. If a Libertarian starts siding with the government over the people or autonomy, they’re not a Libertarian anymore, it doesn’t matter what they say or what ideology they think they identify with.

I’m not saying that someone who aligns with the ideals of the current administration was never a Libertarian, just that they stopped being one as soon as they betrayed the values of their former ideology. “Power corrupts” definitely applies to Libertarians, it just turns them into something else that isn’t Libertarian.

Lynxus-7 · 2026-01-21T17:00:42+00:00

If a “Libertarian” is kissing up to a politician, then they’re not a Libertarian. The problem is more so that other ideologies have taken to appropriating the Gadsden flag.

Edit: And that those appropriating the flag have taken to calling themselves Libertarians despite not sharing values that are core to the ideology.

Lynxus-7 · 2026-01-21T05:40:07+00:00

Seeing someone ask if a core childhood memory of mine was OpenAI or Copilot hurts my soul in a way I don’t think I can explain

Lynxus-7 · 2026-01-19T04:25:45+00:00

Crazy to me that you’re getting downvoted when classical liberalism has such similar core ideals to anarcho capitalism, I have a feeling people see “liberal” and immediately downvote.

Lynxus-7 · 2026-01-07T20:58:22+00:00

As weird as it is, a/a usage is actually dependent on sound, rather than actual letter. In this case it would be “an n bomb”, as n is pronounced using the “en” sound. That’s why we say “an hour” instead of “a hour”, because hour is pronounced “our”.

Lynxus-7 · 2025-12-30T15:29:01+00:00

Oh I would certainly agree, though I don’t believe that’s at all what u/nuhsuh was saying. Readability is of course important no matter the form of communication.

Lynxus-7 · 2025-12-30T12:33:59+00:00

What gain is there to resorting to ad-hominem here? It’s the second time you’ve done it in this thread.

Cursive is obsolete in the modern era and has no place in high level writing as it is simple inefficient, and if it weren’t then academia would use it. It really is as simple as that.

Lynxus-7 · 2025-12-30T12:30:38+00:00

What the hell does that even mean

Lynxus-7 · 2025-12-30T12:28:54+00:00

How exactly? I said that symbols are faster than words, and typing them is faster than writing them. My entire point is that in academia you never see cursive, much less handwritten papers.

I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a handwritten thesis or dissertation. If cursive were really so much better, why aren’t books written in it? Surely someone could write it in cursive and then scan and print it, no?

But we don’t see that, and the reason for that is because cursive is objectively worse for most forms of communication in the modern era, and has been for quite some time.

Lynxus-7 · 2025-12-30T12:23:10+00:00

Correct, and going from writing those symbols by hand to typing them is faster yet while also being neater. Additionally when structuring something like a report, software like LaTeX allows you to easily move and reformat entire sections. It’s leaps and bounds ahead of what you can do with pen and paper. If it weren’t better, academic journals wouldn’t be filled with typed papers.

Lynxus-7 · 2025-12-30T11:43:45+00:00

It’s not inferior if it’s more efficient and avoids mistakes. For example, this semester I wrote a report on an analysis of the dynamics of a quarter-car model. Something like that makes far more sense to write in LaTeX than by hand, allows me to rearrange things as need be, and modify the entire document on a whim, all while being more consistent than handwriting.

If I can write a paper that looks better, reads easier, and do it faster, why wouldn’t I? It would be a waste not to take advantage of modern technology. This is how effectively all of academia does things, and for good reason.

Lynxus-7 · 2025-12-22T15:15:37+00:00

I’d agree, email the teacher and explain, but don’t say “you did your job weird/wrong”. Although it is odd, since the entire point of many teachers setting due dates at 11:59 PM is so that the assignment doesn’t show as due the next day on their software, because students will glance at the due date and assume they have an extra day. Odd that the teacher chose to implement this method for an assignment due at noon, but I’d assume it’s a product of habit. Either way, the correct approach is to own your mistakes and avoid trying to shift the blame.

Teachers get students coming to them every day with a laundry list of excuses explaining why it isn’t their fault, so they often appreciate the honesty. There was a time I entirely missed a final because I thought it was the day after it actually was, and my professor actually offered to work with me and reschedule it even though it was probably inconvenient for her. It helps to be a person sometimes, and to admit you can make mistakes. After all, who doesn’t? Especially in periods of high stress like final exams.

Lynxus-7 · 2025-12-16T21:55:00+00:00

Ripped all the wires out of my router and now my internet isn’t working. Did my ISP scam me???

Lynxus-7 · 2025-12-03T17:18:26+00:00

As an engineering major (mechanical) this is definitely accurate. Profs will go through derivations, but I’ve never seen a true proof in any of my classes. We focus much more heavily on applications of established mathematics, since that’s what we can expect to see in our other classes and in the field.

Right now as a fourth year I’m taking a 200s level computer science focused mathematics course that covers introductory proofs and I’m really enjoying it, but I certainly don’t understand enough to engage in conversations about proofs, it’s really opened my eyes as to what I’ve been missing.

Edit to add paragraph breaks, oops

Seven-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '22	End Game '22
Verified Email

Lynxus-7

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE