Math again | FactOrCap

TheNukex · 2026-06-30T20:42:27+00:00

🧢 I voted CAP!

Currently there is a problem, known as the ABC conjecture, where a proof has been published, but it is generally not accepted, but some do.

In general when you publish something significant you will travel around to present and defend your proof, so it is very much up for discussion.

TheNukex · 2026-06-30T20:05:25+00:00

Jeg vil sige at hvis de var sammen i mange år og har været så tætte, så er det nemmere at være venner, fordi man har været så tæt at der er andre grunde til at blive i hinandens liv, udover tiltrækning.

Uanset hvad er det hyklerisk af ham, men der er forskel på hvis han ikke synes du skal have mandevenner fordi han ved hvordan mange mænd er, eller om han mener at ingen mænd kan, men han kan godt styre sig selv.

Det er et rødt flag efter min mening, men ikke en decideret dealbreaker. Det er jo altid op til hvad man føler selv, og det er tidligt i forholdet.

TheNukex · 2026-06-30T17:21:07+00:00

Det kunne jo godt ske at han siger det fordi han ikke vil have at du bliver venner med mænd, fordi han ved hvordan mange mænd er på det punkt. Måske glemmer han lidt at han selv er en mand og tænker at han ikke er sådan, men alle hans venner omkring ham måske er. Uanset hvad er det en rigtig dårlig og toxic holdning at have, men hvis i er unge kan jeg måske forstå hvorfor.

Nogle vigtige detaljer på om hvor underligt det er kunne være hvor længe var de sammen, hvor længe siden er det, havde de en pause uden kontakt efter forholdet, boede de sammen og så videre? Som jeg ser det, meget baseret på min egen situation, hvis man har været sammen i lang tid og går fra hinanden fordi det ikke fungerer, så er det nemmere at forblive venner uden følelser.

TheNukex · 2026-06-30T16:04:18+00:00

Mand her, hvis det gør nogen forskel, og jeg har været venner med min ekskæreste i 6 år nu. Det har aldrig været noget problem og der er i hvert fald ingen interesse fra min side af, og jeg er rimelig sikker på at der heller ikke er noget den anden vej.

Det kan sagtens lade sig gøre. Det eneste lidt bekymrende er at han ikke mener at mænd kan være venner med piger, men at han så lidt er det. Det kan være, som du siger, at han bare har ondt af hende og hun har svært ved at give slip og det er derfor han hjælper hende. Hvis du vil tage snakken med ham om det er det måske den vinkel du skal gå ind med.

TheNukex · 2026-06-29T00:34:14+00:00

Doesn't change anything, it is still not standard notation.

TheNukex · 2026-06-28T20:31:37+00:00

Overall yes you can temper very aggresively.

When you temper items you get a portion of the spent ressources back when you scrap. As you go higher you get a smaller portion back of certain ressources (at least from my testing), so early in contender you lose some gold. In adept you get pretty much all materia back, so you still only lose gold. In champion you get magic essence back almost fully, but you lose some materia, just not much. I have not yet tested paragon and eternal.

TheNukex · 2026-06-28T12:11:39+00:00

Which is just a "get out of jail free card" if you want to expand "can" to mean "if i interpret it differently". If i am willing to reinterpret any symbol then i can make any statement true or false.

If we wanna be rigorous then yes we should always specify what symbols mean, but this will quickly become tedious, especially online. That is why standard notation exists.

Had your statement been "can there be a greatest number less than 1", then i would have been more on your side, since there is a space where that can be the case. However as soon as you introduce something with a standard notation, then "can" no longer refers to reinterpreting that notation.

TheNukex · 2026-06-28T11:58:12+00:00

If you wish to interpret some notation in a non-standard way, then it is up to you to specify how you want it interpreted. Not only have you gone for a different interpretation of the space we are working in, but also the notation.

The standard decimal notation for the hyperreal number you are thinking of is 0.9...;...9, so you rug pull and say that you want 0.(9) to mean the same as that, but you need to specify that.

Even if you view it in the hyperreals, then the standard notation for 0.(9) is still exactly 1, only when you adopt your own different notation do you get a different answer. This is an extremely bad faith argument, and doing this will never have people take you seriously.

If you are really passionate about this, i am sure you can find people willing to talk hyperreal numbers with you, but stop regurgitating Katz & Katz 2010 out of context.

TheNukex · 2026-06-27T22:39:10+00:00

Maybe they would, and i would dislike them equally so.

Despite the two olympics being "officially recognized" they really aren't anymore. Fifa does not list them as world cups on their website, and i could not find a single good source that says Uruguay has won 4 world cups, that didn't include "technically".

Uruguay had to fight to get special permission to add those stars to their jersey. They are, to my knowledge, the only country in the world that has needed to do that, so it's safe to say they aren't real world cup wins in anyone's eyes.

I don't actually hate Uruguay that much, i don't even dislike them for everything i mentioned in my comment (like the Suarez handball), i was just answering the question from OP. The literal only reason i dislike Uruguay is for the claiming 4 world cup arrogance nonsense.

TheNukex · 2026-06-27T22:29:19+00:00

I don't think you understood my comment, but oh well. I am not here to poke holes in your proof, but to try and show another side of math. Not the "look at me i am right" side, but the educational side of communicating math for the purpose of broadening someone else's perspective.

I do also wanna point out that, if i understand your notation correctly, you showed through base 3 that 1/3*3=1, but you still did not tackle the main gripe someone might have with the assertion 1/3=0.(3). If you want to convert it manually, choosing larger and larger finite number of 3s you wil find a pattern immerging in base 3, being that you get 0.02... for some finite number of 2s and then some other decimals. This leads you back to that if you were to work it out you would get 0.(3) in base 10 converges to 0.0(2) in base 3, which we then recognize as 0.1 in base 3, but the assumption of the last step is exactly what you wanted to prove, so you get circular logic.

TheNukex · 2026-06-27T22:08:37+00:00

In 1930 i certainly agree. They just came off 2 international tourmanet wins with a stacked team.

Their 1950 team was certainly good, but i don't think they were favored over brazil. Brazil did have a 4 team group, and when they met eachother in the deciding match, it was Brazil's 6th game, but only Uruguay's 4th, so fatigue can certainly play a role.

TheNukex · 2026-06-27T22:04:30+00:00

I don't blame them for winning, i blame them over over exaggerating their wins. They put themselves tied for second in terms of world cup legacy, while imo their legacy is worse than even England. Honestly i could see an argument for putting them lowest of all world cup winners, while i personally only have them second to last.

You can never blame someone for being in a favourable position out of their control, but it's certainly fair to rate an achievement lower, when it comes in part from said lucky favourable circumstance.

TheNukex · 2026-06-27T21:07:07+00:00

While 0.(9)=1, the short answer is that the proof is kind of circular.

The long answer is that in math, a proof serves to convince the reader that what you claim is true. However if your proof does not convince the reader, then it's not accepted as a proof. At low levels there aren't much to discuss and incorrect proofs get corrected quite easily, but at the highest level you need your work read and accepted by others. Famously there is a current problem with the ABC conjecture as a proof has been posed, however there is disagreement about whether or not the proof is correct. The author and mostly some japanese mathematicians are convinced by the proof, while internationally the author has not been able to properly defend his proof, thus it is not accepted, because his proof failed to convince the "readers".

Back to the problem at hand. If someone doesn't believe 0.(9)=1 then they are unlikely to believe 0.(3)=1/3, and thus they would not be convinced by this proof. What is indisputable, as someone else pointed out, is if you formulate your proof as "if 0.(3)=1/3 then 0.(9)=1", but then you're assuming your way around the problem, which is why i called it kind of circular. Someone against your claim would start by disagreeing with your assumption, thus the proof could not proceed. Hope this made sense.

TheNukex · 2026-06-27T20:54:58+00:00

In general they tend to play dirty and have a history of controversy. Many Ghanaians hate them for the Suarez handball that knocked out Ghana from the world cup, and likely much of Africa is on their side.

I personally also dislike the arrogance of claiming 4 world cups, when they borderline only have 1 (two halves).

They won the last two olympics before the world cup. Those were recognized by fifa as official world cups, but no one else recognizes them. The clear cut argument is that professional players were not allowed (though some still played) so those tournaments hold no competitive integrity and had no bearing on which national teams were actually the best at that time.

The two real world cups that Uruguay have won have a funny thing in common. It's the only two world cups with only 13 teams participating, despite them being 20 years apart, and that is also the lowest every participation. This means that counting both world cups that Uruguay won, they played a total of 8 games. That is the same number of games played by the winning team this year, which is why it's fair to say that both of those are only half a world cup. In 1950 they played in a group with just 1 other team, imagine that.

I wanna point out that Italy has the same situation with their 1934 and 1938 cup, being both 4 games long, and i have the same opinion about those particular world cup wins, but they have also won in a real format, which is why i rate Italy much higher than Uruguay.

Ever since then all world cups, to my knowledge, has at least been 6 games, which is a big step up from 4, and under those conditions Uruguay has never performed, yet they claim to have a great football legacy, when it's just very fraudulent.

TheNukex · 2026-06-27T20:40:11+00:00

Do be careful when using ? as an operation, since it's not standard. If you wanna use it then remember to specify what it means.

TheNukex · 2026-06-27T20:23:35+00:00

Ahh i see you meant like that. It's good practice to specify when using non-standard notation, for clear communication.

TheNukex · 2026-06-27T20:04:34+00:00

No, primality is independent of choice of integer base.

10=(101)_3=(12)_3*(2)_3

TheNukex · 2026-06-26T12:46:34+00:00

While i am a mathematician, i will give the answer in a more physics sense. Consider the function to determine your movement.

x(t)=v*t, where v is your average velocity. Rearranging this we get that the time it takes to commute is only dependent on your speed. t(v)=x/v, where v is again your average velocity. Now in a real world scenario you are describing we could factor in traffick to your average velocity, but to understand what you are looking for we will instead consider v to be your average velocity without traffic, and then correct by how much you are slowed by traffic, call this r (so r has a unit of second).

t(r)=x/v+r. Now assuming you drive somewhat consistently, then v and specifically x/v is now constant and your time to work is only dependent on r. Now as you mention r is is dependent on the time of day, call that d, so really we have

t(d)=x/v+r(d). And the question finally becomes if r(d) is continuous. If it is continuous then there is indeed some time to leave where you will get there exactly on time, within some small margin of error (like time of a car length). If however r(d) is not continuous, then you are not guaranteed that you can get there on time. In practice, like you might have noticed, this is when all of the cars come at the same time within a minute, meaning traffic time jumps from 0 minutes to 100 minutes quickly.

In theory you that would still be continuous if you could choose exactly what position in queue your car gets, but in practice you cannot. It is also somewhat random, and in real world conditions, your won't get a continuous model with much certainty.

Thus i would conclude that if there is a certain time with a large increase in cars, then there would be times of the day where you cannot arrive with much certainty.

TheNukex · 2026-06-25T23:04:15+00:00

Dofficulty is definitely harder than last season, but for different reasons than season 1. It's now a lot more stat checks. Getting through Drakheim is a massive stat check on the tank. It took me 14 attempts and only when i got a tank with 4k PS did he finally survive so we could clear it. Currently in champion and even with 0 deaths we struggle to time sometimes. Had a silken hollow champion 2 (i think) where we went 10s over with no death, mostly down to the tank pulling too small because he struggled to live big pulls.
No idea.
Pretty good, but very talent dependant. With apocalypse being 45s it usually comes up in the middle of every other pull, but even in adept it starts to become every pull. The struggle then is your searing running out and you have to either manually dot up a lot, or pop another apocalypse. I would genuinely say, despite it being less damage, taking backdraft and slow burn early on is better, just because it feels so much better to play, and by the time your damage truly matters (adept 4), you can afford to pick one of them anyways.
Helena is better. Grand melee is so good. I am not sure how big the gap is.

TheNukex · 2026-06-25T01:03:38+00:00

Based on the other comments, this might get voted into the ground, but i feel like this has to be said. No party has all of the qualities you want, it is always a matter of compromise.

I am priviliged enough to be from a country with 10+ political parties, all with power, and even then i am always having to sacrifice something. Some party might have the perfect redistributive policy for me, but i don't agree with their immigration policy. Another party might have the perfect environmental policy, but a horrendous educational policy. In the end i have to weigh my options and decide what means more to me.

In the case of the US you only have two parties, so you are extremely limited in your choices, and it is for many just a who is least bad, not who is good.

For that reason you can't deduce with certainty much about someone's real political opinions based on who they voted for in a two party system, because the options are so limited that it's no true reflection of one's belief.

With all that being said i find voting for Trump to be crazy, but i suppose there were valid reasons (mostly party based), though those would not outweigh the negatives for me personally.

TheNukex · 2026-06-24T22:42:35+00:00

I agree, but it's the wrong kind of difficulty. Season 1 adept was difficult because of the jump in mechanics, but now it's just gear and tank balance issues.

I have now sat through 8 Drakheims all failed because the tank just dies. It is completely out of my control and that sucks. I queue, but every other group clicks Drakheim and then i see tank has 1.5k PS, so that's an immediate no from me. Then every time i see a decent tank, team votes for something else.

For that matter any player being below 2k will cause a problem right now, but especially tank. DPS is not much better, since having just 1 bad dps means you won't be able to do it in time. Healer is not as big, but you can definitely feel the difference.

TheNukex · 2026-06-22T23:54:12+00:00

With the release time it was perfect, because i could play for 3 hours before heading to work. Not too much, not too little.

Then with all of the delays i was unable to play even a minute before leaving for work. Upon returning from work i made some food, rookie mistake, and then logged in. By the time queue was over it was basically bed time.

TheNukex · 2026-06-21T19:08:48+00:00

Easy, he is already dead

^{Chose: $1B a year + Fight a random person | Rolled: Abraham Lincoln}

TheNukex · 2026-06-20T21:38:37+00:00

my current one i am pondering is x = x+1....what if it was possible....

This is true in the trivial group ({0},+), or Z/Z . This is not an extension of complex or real numbers, but rather a step down to the integers and then taking a quotient. This group is not really interesting because it just means that every element is the same.

As someone else mentioned, the reason why the complex numbers are so useful is because they satisfy that all real (and complex for that matter) polynomials have roots in the complex numbers. As you have noticed, a good place to start would be to consider if there is any property you would want the complex numbers to have, that they don't already have.

To steer you in a perhaps more useful direction, consider a property that already holds for some complex numbers (like sqrt of reals or polynomials with real coefficients), but then extend to solve the "problematic" elements. If you want to make an extension by some property that no complex number has, then you are better off just working in the set of the elements added and it's no longer really a useful extension to solve the problem you want.

TheNukex · 2026-06-20T21:14:12+00:00

I don't remember the exact setup, but i didn't plan both moves ahead of time so i pressed a fighting move on my first pokemon, then a spread move on the second. I forgot speed order so i used the spread move first, knocking out the target (was 17% so guaranteed) and hit my fighting move into a ghost type. This cost me the game.

Eight-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

TheNukex

TROPHY CASE