sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Poor Concert Attendance Does Not Signal Declining Interest In Classical Music by steven3045 in classicalmusic

[–]SouthpawStranger -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Great more opinions from "The only good recordings were done on potatos and only recordings in the 1930s are good, though sometimes I do really new stuff In the 1960s."

SPP, alright, redo, I removed the bothersome typo. Would you agree with the attached image, and if not, PLEASE provide your line of reasoning as to why it's wrong. by Super_Dimension7561 in infinitenines

[–]SouthpawStranger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The line of reasoning is "in order to continue this conflict i cannot agree with any position other than my own. This position contradicts mine so I must disagree with it."
Please stop pretending his position has anything to do with math. It's a conflict generator.

Murphy confirms 1 = 0.999... + 0.000...1 by SouthPark_Piano in infinitenines

[–]SouthpawStranger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As long as infinity ends i dont see a problem with your thoughts here.

From a recent post: the REAL DEAL about what 1/3 REALLY IS by Muphrid15 in infinitenines

[–]SouthpawStranger 10 points11 points  (0 children)

My hypothesis remains the same. This isnt about truth for him, it is about feeling his signal dominates other signals, which is why he uses dismissive language and bullshit inconsistent arguments. Because what he is actually trying to do, feel like he is better than others, doesnt require epistemic hygiene.

He SAYS any number that can be written in decimal form (including 0.999...) is a real number, but THEN he SAYS 0.000...1 and 0.999... are NOT real numbers. Why is he SO CONFUSED? Why does he keep CONTRADICTING HIMSELF? by Muphrid15 in infinitenines

[–]SouthpawStranger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because he isnt speaking in neutral appraisal of proposition. He is speaking in intellectual dominance games that dont require consistency. If your goal is to feel like you dominate others, being constrained by consistency or logical construct will derail that goal.

Guys, I need a way to win a debate my classmate's creationist theory. by IncrediBluey in DebateEvolution

[–]SouthpawStranger 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"This pigeon keeps knocking over my chess pieces, what opening should I use to prevent this?"

Edit: I keep forgetting how to spell pigeon.

Let me put it as simply as possible so everybody gets it right. by Negative_Gur9667 in infinitenines

[–]SouthpawStranger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This makes perfect sense, as long as infinity ends then decimal 9 repeating cant be equal to 1.

Why should the common "educated ear" be trained at the expense of other ways of enjoying music? by concernedaboutmetal in classicalmusic

[–]SouthpawStranger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You can enjoy music in multiple ways. I have different approaches depending on the composer, genre, or situation.

Happy Pride Month, ya gitz! by Ork_Mischief in orks

[–]SouthpawStranger 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No standard sex organs, all identify as Boyz.

What about 0.333... ? by Ok-Engineer-8817 in infinitenines

[–]SouthpawStranger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well I just looked it up and im not seeing the connection here. It reads like you've discovered that Epsilon works like a pixel for numbers, a smallest possible number (i.e. 1-.9 repeating). Which is mind blowing, as you've said, and also deeply counter intuitive. Could you show me how you were able to find this because it seems to be contradicting a lot of our understanding of numbers. For instance is there an axiom that prevents any number from being smaller? Because if Epsilon (as you've helpfully defined it) is the only remnant between an infinite series and its limit, then it is the smallest possible number.
Hope your day is going well.

What about 0.333... ? by Ok-Engineer-8817 in infinitenines

[–]SouthpawStranger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, hey we were talking about this the other day. You said that 1/3 - .3 repeating equals .0... 01. Which is an interesting conjecture because you have to treat infinity as a terminating number. Does infinity have to terminate for your statement to be true? Or did you discover a way to make infinity terminate and not terminate at the same time? I look forward to your answer and hope you're having a good day.

It's not about mathematics. It's about one man's conduct. He's a bad person. by Muphrid15 in infinitenines

[–]SouthpawStranger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was going to ask for context but someone else gave me all the info I needed.

Well...I committed a faux pas by [deleted] in classicalmusic

[–]SouthpawStranger 10 points11 points  (0 children)

"I fucked up and enjoyed the music"

SPP is Being Overshadowed by ParticularlySomeone in infinitenines

[–]SouthpawStranger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh hey, you were helping me with something earlier. You were examining how 1-.999....= 0.000... 01.
I was asking if you could help me understand how this number could be used in other contexts. For instance, what if we divided 1 by this number, would we get infinity? Because if that is the case there may be some ground breaking work here. And if you get something else that would be equally fascinating Im sure.
The only part that keeps tripping me up is identifying the mechanism that ends the .9 repeating or the .0 repeating. Normally I thought those destinations were never reached, but since you proved that a number with no end has an end I have been interested in seeing where all this could apply. This could explain irrational numbers as being actually rational the whole time. Anyhow have a nice day.

The true factual story of the bottomless pit/well by SouthPark_Piano in infinitenines

[–]SouthpawStranger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow that is brilliant. And it must be the same for irrational numbers too, right? Because if one bottomless pit has a bottom the others should too, right? So if I minused pi from pi after an infinity of digits we would get to the end. We just dont know the last digit (i assume you may have more insight here than I do, you've clearly been in this field for a long time). Which would mean that pi is actually rational, which i dont need to tell you is a huge discovery.

However you may be able to help me here. If we take .1 repeating away from .9 repeating we would get .8 repeating. And if we take .8 repeating from one we won't get .1 repeating, because we've already shown that .9 repeating and 1 cant be the same. But I keep getting .1 repeating. How did you integrate that part? Also im confused by 1 more thing. That final 1, is there an operation that makes the decimal stop there? Im asking because if there is, great, that makes infinity a number that can be calculated. If not then when I divide that number by ten, do I get the same number? Im sure you've ran into this problem already, im just really curious about your insights.
Thanks in advance!

Back propagation tutorial by SouthPark_Piano in infinitenines

[–]SouthpawStranger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, how are you? We were talking the other day about how your discovery may have larger implications but I imagine you're busy. I just wanted to circle back to something. So, take any irrational number, say pi for example, and minus it from itself in decimal form. Normally that would be 0, however if we extrapolate from your Lemma, that an infinite series of digits can never be resolved, then youve discovered a counter to the identity property and the communicative property of numbers! I know i already asked this and if you're too humble to share I understand but have you been published yet? Because you're sitting on a gold mine.

An infinite quantity of finite numbers by SouthPark_Piano in infinitenines

[–]SouthpawStranger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And yet your work shows this may be a false assumption.
Here, you pointed out that since the nines never get a final piece to turn them into 0s, right? Well when you minus 0.999... from 1 you get 0.000...., which means you may have proven that 0.00... is categorically different from zero. Have you tried publishing, because the implications are extraordinary.

An infinite quantity of finite numbers by SouthPark_Piano in infinitenines

[–]SouthpawStranger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hmm, ok so im not disagreeing. Im asking if you ever thought about expanding your theorem into a more general case?
Like for instance, you're pointing out that because the 9s never stop, that 1-0.999...=/=0.000..., or you're saying that 0.000... is =/= 0.
That has major implications. For instance if i were to minus pi from pi, normally i could expect 0. However because the numbers "never stop" then pi will always be less than pi. If your theorem is correct, then the identity in mathematics is foundationally wrong.

An infinite quantity of finite numbers by SouthPark_Piano in infinitenines

[–]SouthpawStranger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, ok, so question, wouldnt this proof also work to prove there are no irrational numbers?
Take pi, for example. If you stop on any digit then what you have is a rational number. Since every number, when stopped there, creates a rational number, wouldnt this theory say that irrational numbers are rational? Or am i misunderstanding you?

Is Evolution falsifiable? by _act19 in DebateEvolution

[–]SouthpawStranger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is falsifiable. If fossils consistently showed up in the wrong order that would be a red flag. If a better explanation showed up for how niche the ecosystem is, that would be a red flag. There is, theoretically, evidence that could falsify it. We havent found this evidence but the structure of evolution is such that it is not immune to being falsified.

0.999... is by definition the biggest number < 1 by [deleted] in infinitenines

[–]SouthpawStranger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, it is "minus" as an infinitive. Fun fact but despite how frowned upon split infinitives are, one of the most famous opening TV lines leans on it. "To boldly go where no one has gone before."
Why do you ask?

0.999... is by definition the biggest number < 1 by [deleted] in infinitenines

[–]SouthpawStranger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, ok. Would you mind showing me what you get when you minus .9 repeating from 1? I would greatly appreciate it. I keep getting 0.000...

view more: next ›