• 0 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 9th, 2023

help-circle
  • Anti-trans works as an adjective in this sentence, so it is a ban that is anti-trans in nature, not a ban of anti-trans behaviour.

    Your commiting a logical falacy believing that a double negative automatically means the same as no negative. “You are not allowed to not run” doesn’t mean that you are merely allowed to run, it means you must run.

    Buuut again, I assume your logic means the downvotes to your comment acts like a negation to your comment and so I’m not sure what you meant.




  • Valthorn@feddit.nutoScience Memes@mander.xyzI just cited myself.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    While I agree that my proof is blunt, yours doesn’t prove that .999… is equal to -1. With your assumption, the infinite 9’s behave like they’re finite, adding the 0 to the end, and you forgot to move the decimal point in the beginning of the number when you multiplied by 10.

    x=0.999…999

    10x=9.999…990 assuming infinite decimals behave like finite ones.

    Now x - 10x = 0.999…999 - 9.999…990

    -9x = -9.000…009

    x = 1.000…001

    Thus, adding or subtracting the infinitesimal makes no difference, meaning it behaves like 0.

    Edit: Having written all this I realised that you probably meant the infinitely large number consisting of only 9’s, but with infinity you can’t really prove anything like this. You can’t have one infinite number being 10 times larger than another. It’s like assuming division by 0 is well defined.

    0a=0b, thus

    a=b, meaning of course your …999 can equal -1.

    Edit again: what my proof shows is that even if you assume that .000…001≠0, doing regular algebra makes it behave like 0 anyway. Your proof shows that you can’t to regular maths with infinite numbers, which wasn’t in question. Infinity exists, the infinitesimal does not.













  • It’s a march by Czech composer Julius Fučík called “Entry of the Gladiators”, written in 1897.

    Edit: It gets memeier! From Wikipedia:

    He originally titled it “Grande Marche Chromatique”, reflecting the use of chromatic scales throughout the piece, but changed the title based on his personal interest in the Roman Empire.


  • Valthorn@feddit.nutoMemes@lemmy.mlPoor dogo
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    10 months ago

    Acknowledging that they are obese is stating a fact. Claiming that they wouldn’t or couldn’t take good care of their dog because of their obesity is fat shaming. They’re not 600+lbs-can’t-leave-the-bed obese.