Laura

I actually have his work bookmarked, as it was relating to my studies in theoretical physics during high school.

Not to be cynical, but I believe that life would be better without people.

I was talking about your statement that logic cannot be overturned. I'm in Calc II for what it matters, as my last year of mathematics, though I'm not doing nearly as well as in High School - nowhere near in fact. I was taught that no definitive answer could be discerned without the use of these concepts such as infinity.

Detest - dislike intensely Dissent - to express an opinion at variance with those commonly stated While I would agree, that certainly doesn't mean I was never, and am not strong in the field of mathematics. I don't agree with these proofs though. I believe that it approaches 1 infinitely, yet you can use infinity to contradict this. How does that work? For that matter, it's a concept, not a real number, so how is it plugged in as substitutes in these equations? But the rest of the mathematics community apparently disagrees with me. I'll stop.

No, because the majorities ruling does not matter to me; I meant detest, as in, I I disagree immensely with your idea that logic cannot be overturned. I agree, that may not be done here but that doesn't change my stance. I see and understand why you believe that .999... is equal to one and the theorems regarding rational and irrational numbers. I do not agree however, that .333 or .999 extending in any direction is equivalent to any fraction; the fraction being the more accurate of the two. This explain all of these proofs. The number extends to infinity with 0 in front of it. It eventually will reach a value of one in any given decimal place should this infinity cease. Which, although it doesn't, would be greater than zero. The number you are trying to visualize is, in fact, 0. The number at the end is greater than a value of zero.

Again, I detest.

The number extends to infinity with 0 in front of it. It eventually will reach a value of one in any given decimal place should this infinity cease. Which, although it doesn't, would be greater than zero.

How about instead of joining just to be an annoyance and a jerk you could actually pitch in the conversation? And in my honest opinion, I think 1/3 =/= .333.... Mathematics is a crazy subject that no one knows the right answers in. Crazy subject maybe, however mathematics isnt subjective(with few exceptions such as the continuum hypothesis), your opinion is wrong and thats a fact. Facts can be true or false. I detest.

That assumes the 1/3 equals .333... which it cannot; 1/3 is almost negligibly more accurate. 1/3 is represented as .333... because 1/3 cannot be achieved. It's represented by what we can all agree is near equivalent. That law can go on to assume what we assume. I'm not saying it isn't represented, but that it cannot be represented in the accuracy that 1/3 can.

How about instead of joining just to be an annoyance and a jerk you could actually pitch in the conversation? And in my honest opinion, I think 1/3 =/= .333.... Mathematics is a crazy subject that no one knows the right answers in. Crazy subject maybe, however mathematics isnt subjective(with few exceptions such as the continuum hypothesis), your opinion is wrong and thats a fact. Why does 1/3 extent by .3 for infinity? Because we cannot reach 1/3 in decimal form. For if we move it one decimal at any given point then it goes over or under. .333... is a third of .999... not 1. How is it contradictory? You would get infinitely smaller until you reached an insignificant value.

If 3+3+3= 9, how is .333...+.333...+.333...= any different? Because .333... is 1/3, and 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1 No, it isn't. Any number of threes added vertically above each other will result in any number of nines. One third can only be represented as a fraction. so you dont believe 1/3 yields .333...? If so, its pointless to argue with you. If you think you can divide one into three equal parts represented by decmals, it's pointless to argue with you. I agree. .333... is a third of .999...not 1. 1/3 is a third of one, which cannot be represented in decimal form and is therefore rounded as .333...

But it eventually doesn't stop at one. It rests when the number beings subtracted stops, which it doesn't. So then I don't see how that equals one, should both stop at any given point, its value will equal ...1.

Then why does it continue? It's a representation of 1/3 in decimal form because we cannot achieve 1/3 in this manner. .999...=1 assumes that 1/3=.333... And .999...=/=1 assumes that 1/3=/=.333...

Didn't we state that .333... isn't 1/3 of 1? It would be 1/3 of .999... A mistake is a mistake.

I don't understand, you're saying you enjoy making your photos look good using other, more difficult to grasp software? And I said organize none-the-less. I never could grasp GIMP, because of layers, transparencies, and those checkerboard things representing the absence of color or something. Yet, I needed something better than MS Paint. iPhoto is pretty straight forward. It has to do with anti-aliasing and such. Some notice it, others don't.

Well if we are going to be scrutinizing over grammatical errors, sentences generally end with a form of punctuation.

But come on, custom themes? Who actually needs those? All this stuff (apart from the two you mentioned and a few other developer addons) just makes your browser even more bloated than it already is. +1 to Silver, Opera is probably the safest browser out there and it got loads of useful stuff already built-in like a torrent manager, mouse gestures, speed dial, and loads of stuff. Also you can go download themes to make your browsing less boring. Even if I try my best, I don't understand why people prefer Firefox so much compared to Opera, I just can't. Customization is important to people. Granted, I don't use it currently as I have to use the 3.1beta to get three finger support. But it seems like Opera falls behind a little on Javascript.[1]

It was a flaw on my part, but almost implied given the subject. In any case, thank you, I will correct that.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -George Orwell

I never understood this concept, even as my last course being AP Calc. If I walk precisely 99.999...% am I touching the wall? I assumed that I would begin walking infinitely closer to the wall, without ever touching it. Assuming that based on your proof that 99.999... also equals a value equal to that of 100. I understand the proof, don't get me wrong, I don't understand the application.

They can't, it's "unethical". I'll volunteer! For free! They'll need a woman willing to put your DNA into their womb. Probably more than one. Actually, a lot of women. :P

If that were the case then I'd agree. If your life truly is hopeless, such as not having food, water, family, shelter, good health, etc. then that means life really is a struggle and I think suicide is justifiable. But when we're talking about people with chronic depression - people who are sad even when good things happen - then all that is needed is a turnaround in their mentality. In other words, if life is a big struggle, suicide I think suicide is okay because it's just a means of speeding up the process. But if happiness is the struggle, then there is no need for suicide - there is a need for optimism. It's not always that easy though. This type of thinking becomes embedded and is essentially a lifestyle for these people.

It's not an exact science, which is why people have discrepancies with psychology. You shouldn't be the one categorizing them because it's their rationalization, not yours (without reference to anyone). In any case many signs should appear obvious. For example, the man who just found out that his girlfriend was cheating on him. Is that, or should that bring up suicide? Most likely not, though again, that's not your rationalization. Rather, it's those who feel that their experience of life is a downturn which is something you cannot solve without death. This is usually caused by a series of misfortunes or experiences over a long period of time.

With risk of sounding too +1ish, I concur.

For clarification, there are none in the "wild" for OS X at this time. How do you know that? Link please? LockerGnome Symantec I realize they're from about two years ago and I'm not trying to be a "fangirl" or whatever, but a wild virus would be a news story, similar to that trojan that affected Mac users in the torrent of iWork '09. Even if there were, it would only be superficial. You have to input your password on any installation or change and the user doesn't have access to the system roots at idle. I'm certainly not saying they're insuperable, for that would be ignorant and foolish to think.