that's just silly.

1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 3/3 = 1

.333r + .333r + .333r = .999r != 1

1/3 ~ .999r (how well you can measure determines when to stop with the 9's)

1 ~ .999r

What you've demonstrated is the difficulty of measuring a piece of "1" not the precision of "1". good attempt, tho. It at least got my attention.

actions · 2012-May-30 11:55 am ·

Nick D
Premium Member
join:2010-02-04
Orange, CA

Nick D

Premium Member

2012-May-30 12:02 pm

.999r = 1, which is actually true because of infinity etc etc.
Wikipedia says so (in many, many ways)

But I do like immer's point on the matter. That's probably the right way to settle it without the maths.

THE INTERNETS WE HAS THEM

actions · 2012-May-30 12:02 pm ·

Arthritis
join:2011-10-20
Canada

Arthritis to Dillinja

Member

2012-May-30 12:11 pm

to Dillinja

I’ll put my guess in for the fall of this year; it just makes too much sense to release it in October / November.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the player base. My guildies tell me that our server (which is usually quite busy), is absolutely dead. I don’t know how they plan to appease the player base with a 4-6 month wait.

For myself, I’m using the muscle confusion theory on my mind and taking a bipolar WoW gaming strategy to cope. I haven’t played “live” in a while, splitting my time between arena and playing on a private TBC server. If you’ve ever levelled a mage or healed during TBC, you know my pain (even with 14x experience modifiers).

There’s a reason why mages make water…..gah.

But Good times....

actions · 2012-May-30 12:11 pm ·

Immer
Gentleman
Premium Member
join:2010-01-07
Evans, GA

1 edit

warcraft Immerweise

Immer to Nick D

Premium Member

2012-May-30 12:25 pm

to Nick D

said by Nick D:

fair enough. though from your own wiki (/shudder) reference, we need to look at the phrasing

The equality 0.999... = 1 has long been accepted by mathematicians and taught in textbooks

(emphasis mine).

They can be treated as equal, and should be treated as equal since their closeness is infinitesimally closer than we could hope to measure. However, if you are trying to use the limit to demonstrate that we cannot be assured of the precision of 1 (as was attempted by bTU), then we are dealing with absolute definitions.... which presents the conundrum of a false argument. You can't use the notion that ".999r = 1" to also disprove the notion that "1 = 1", much less the idea that "1 + 1 = 2".

this has been fun... thanks, bTU.

edit: Oh, and I'm no authority on the matter. Just a fan of math... and language... like ice-cream covered in hot fudge.

actions · 2012-May-30 12:25 pm ·

Skittles_t
join:2012-05-03

1 edit

Skittles_t

Member

2012-May-30 1:31 pm

Let x = y, then

xy+y=y
xyxy+y=yxy

xyxy+yxy=yxy
or

1+yxy=yxy
1=yxyyxy
1=0

Now we know that x = y or 1 = 1 is true and that 1 = 0 or 0 = 1 is true, we pose:

0 = 1
1 = 1
1 = 1

Adding these three equations we get:

0 + 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 + 1

or

1 + 1 = 3

of course this is a fallacy in and of itself, it's just bad math but it is used by some to credit the argument....

actions · 2012-May-30 1:31 pm ·

cymraeg
Thread Killer
Premium Member
join:2011-06-07
Dodge, NE

warcraft Myrthynn

cymraeg

Premium Member

2012-May-30 1:39 pm

where did the -yx come from?

actions · 2012-May-30 1:39 pm ·

Immer
Gentleman
Premium Member
join:2010-01-07
Evans, GA

warcraft Immerweise

Immer

Premium Member

2012-May-30 1:41 pm

said by cymraeg:

where did the -yx come from?

yes, something is indeed missing. I suspect, skittles_t will be found guilty of dividing by zero in this proof as well. I've seen similar attempts to prove 1 = 2. use more algebraic notation, pls.

edit: ah, I see the edit now (disengaging comment at the end). Maybe I can find a good (false) "proof" to share...

actions · 2012-May-30 1:41 pm ·

Goldheart
join:2002-06-09
Las Cruces, NM

warcraft Wratho

Goldheart to Dillinja

Member

2012-May-30 1:42 pm

to Dillinja

Judging by the current quality of the beta I think a November release is more likely. Far too much work to be done, especially for bugs, balancing the classes and quality of life issues.

actions · 2012-May-30 1:42 pm ·

Immer
Gentleman
Premium Member
join:2010-01-07
Evans, GA

warcraft Immerweise

Immer to Skittles_t

Premium Member

2012-May-30 1:47 pm

to Skittles_t

1=2: A Proof using Beginning Algebra

The Fallacious Proof:

Step 1: Let a=b.
Step 2: Then a^2 = ab,
Step 3: a^2 + a^2 = a^2 + ab,
Step 4: 2 a^2 = a^2 + ab,
Step 5: 2 a^2 - 2 ab = a^2 + ab - 2 ab,
Step 6: and 2 a^2 - 2 ab = a^2 - ab.

Step 7: This can be written as 2 (a^2 - a b) = 1 (a^2 - a b),
Step 8: and cancelling the (a^2 - ab) from both sides gives 1=2.

good times.

actions · 2012-May-30 1:47 pm ·

cymraeg
Thread Killer
Premium Member
join:2011-06-07
Dodge, NE

warcraft Myrthynn

cymraeg to Skittles_t

Premium Member

2012-May-30 1:49 pm

to Skittles_t

the third sentence is also incorrect

you would have x-y-y=yx-y the order of operations must be followed, if so then we have

x-2y=yx-y
x=yx+y

actions · 2012-May-30 1:49 pm ·

Skittles_t
join:2012-05-03

1 recommendation

Skittles_t to Immer

Member

2012-May-30 1:49 pm

to Immer

said by Immer:

said by cymraeg:

where did the -yx come from?

Yes, this like other math equations to prove fallacies usually leave something missing or assume something from the start that is in error.
In ordinary real number math, division by zero has no meaning, as there is no number which, multiplied by 0, gives a (a does not = 0), and so division by zero is undefined.

As for the edit, yes it is a disengaging comment but one I should have included from the start as that was my attempt ( to show how invalid math can look real to prove a false argument).

actions · 2012-May-30 1:49 pm ·

cymraeg
Thread Killer
Premium Member
join:2011-06-07
Dodge, NE

warcraft Myrthynn

cymraeg

Premium Member

2012-May-30 1:56 pm

ok its meant to be false, carry on then.

actions · 2012-May-30 1:56 pm ·

Goldheart
join:2002-06-09
Las Cruces, NM

warcraft Wratho

Goldheart

Member

2012-May-30 6:03 pm

How about 1 person marries 1 person. Thus 2 becomes 1!

Heh heh heh!

actions · 2012-May-30 6:03 pm ·

stonhinge
Premium Member
join:2003-07-28
Topeka, KS

1 recommendation

warcraft Shathak

stonhinge to bTU

Premium Member

2012-May-30 8:16 pm

to bTU

said by bTU:

Actually since it can be mathematically proven that 1 does not = 1 it is hard to say 1+1=2.

With the bugs and problems hitting D3 right now MoP may not be until fall or even holiday time frame. Plus, doesn't SC2 have an xpac coming out sometime? Heart of the swarm or something like that. Not to mention Titan's development. I'm not sure what Blizz's priority list is, but MoP may not be at the top.

D3, SC2, Titan, and WoW do not share dev teams. Problems in D3 don't slow down any work on MoP or vice versa. They are 4 completely different games, with 4 completely different game engines.

Pulling people from one game to work on another would be like asking a Freightliner mechanic to work on your Chevy Volt. Sure, he might be able to get it fixed eventually, but he's got to learn how it works first, since it's something completely different from what he's used to working on.

actions · 2012-May-30 8:16 pm ·

Vinceruos_t
join:2012-05-04

Vinceruos_t to Dillinja

Member

2012-Jun-1 2:19 pm

to Dillinja

Cataclysm's release date was announced on Oct 4th for a Dec 7th release. WOTLK's release date was announced on Sep 15th for a Nov 13th release. Therefore you can assume that Blizzard will usually give a 2 moth notice on release date announcements. So if MoP is going to be out this summer then there will be an announcement within the next few weeks. If they do announce the release date in the coming weeks then we can still hope for an August release. But if we dont hear anything soon then its not going to be until the fall/winter that we get MoP.

actions · 2012-Jun-1 2:19 pm ·

Forums → Tech / Special Interest → World of Warcraft	« need help with rep • Dolby Axom »
prev · 1 · 2