Recent content by karplas

I think that clears up why we disagreed: I thought you defined X as being the statement 'Thing is a Woozle', while, if I now understand correctly, you replaced the word 'Woozle' with 'X' and used '=' as meaning 'is/are' in a colloquial sense, meaning that according to your definitions X = Y, but...

Would you mind sharing with us a few sources to back up your claim ('The Netherlands' including Belgium and Luxembourg)?

Not quite actually. Let X denote 'thing is a Woozle', Y denote 'thing is a Twozzie', Z denote 'thing is a Twozzie'. Then X ==> Y ==> Z, so X ==> Z. However, the statements X Y, but not Y <== X). However, if you say X = Y you'd say something like 'All Woozles are Wozzies and all Wozzies are...

Here's one I really like:

Related to this I would like to ask you a question: I downloaded the file put up by LulzSec and tried to log in a few accounts. I succeeded twice. I then changed the account's password and sent it to the account owners' alternative email addresses so they could retrieve their accounts. This...

I haven't read the page you linked completely (yet?), but from what I've seen so far the proofs of 0.(9) =/= 1 have their flaws pointed out already. Could you please specify a proof which as of yet seems completely sound?

I agree the proofs which work with statements like 1/3=0.(3) do not actually give new insights, but only show that the statement 1/3=0.(3) is equivalent to 0.(9)=1. However, I'd like to know what proof(s) you (or the mathematicians (what are their credentials by the way?) you know) can give that...

If you're referring to the 1/3 = 0.(3) etc. proof, I would like to agree with a quote from Wikipedia: I'm in my first year of mathematics at university, so I can safely claim I have 'any math knowledge'. It doesn't make me a mathematician, but I've come to realise that many concepts we...

For me, this thread is not about the mathematics anymore. 0.(9) = 1, you can follow the links previous posters have posted for proofs. There is no room for opinion or 'personal beliefs'. How do people get the arrogance to answer a resolute 'no', while trained mathematicians have come to the...

I'd try to open up people's minds. Now that's some poetic shit right there huh?

Christopher Hitchens has something to say about the issue as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7izJggqCoA

Because you'd miss body language, facial expression, intonation, etc. as means of communication. Does the phrase 'sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet' sound familiar to you?

If it were a 'So, I drew Miffy'-topic, you definitely would :).

That's Batman alright. With floating eyes.

I've never heard of this before nor am I an expert at mathematics, so please don't take my interpretation as an expert's. Anyway from what I can understand from this website: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/G/Grahams_number.html I might be able to clarify a thing or two. (Once again...