Halo

What is your stance on abortions?

Although such a volatile topic may be a controversial choice for Nat to pick, I also massively respect that he's making a legitimate effort. Let's not actively discourage people taking on board others' advice and trying to contribute, eh?

As for the topic at hand, I'm pro-choice to a limited extent. I quite like the system we have here in the UK - it has to be before 24 weeks, and two different doctors have to agree that it would be damaging either physically or mentally to the mother. It can't just be an "emergency contraceptive", but if there is legitimate reason then an abortion can be carried out.
The thing I always struggle with in this debate is whether the mother should be able to have an abortion if she doesn't want the child because they feel they cannot provide a life of adequate quality - say, they're severely below the poverty line, or they're an addict or some shit like that, who knows. The obvious answer is that they give the child up for adoption, but it seems somewhat cruel to force a mother through pregnancy and childbirth, and then to depart with a child they're biologically hardwired to be emotionally attached to, all because they're trying to do a good thing for that child. This is the point in the argument where I just throw up my hands and give up, because I never feel like there's a right or wrong answer and it becomes an exercise in semantics (for me, at least.)

I just found

The Nexerus said
Every time I discover a new type of creepy bug I feel happier and happier to live in Saskatchewan. Everything up here that's capable of killing you is a big animal, not some tiny spider assassin with venom that turns human blood into nitroglycerine.

This is one area in which Britain excels. The only way I'm likely to be killed is if I run into a wild Glaswegian

Mathematics and Physics Questions

Lucian said
Hah, was this spurred because of that thread I started about the electron? On that subject, by the way, I really only meant what I said in the most rudimentary way. We've observed it's effects obviously, but not it and, in fact, it could be infinitesimally too small to ever observe. I wasn't saying it didn't exist, merely remarking on how it's impossible to see it.

It was, yes. I've had the idea for a while, but your thread reminded me of it. And I know that you meant we haven't visibly seen it - I was just pointing out that visibly seeing it is, in the scheme of things, a very arbitrary way of "observing" something, and that detecting, measuring, observing other properties is exactly the same thing.

K-97 said
Can anyone explain why 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 .... and so on to infinity = -1/12?

Numberphile did an excellent video demonstrating this, far better than I ever could. As for why , the answer will likely lie again in the nature of infinity. I'll get back to you on this one!

mdk said
Next I'll need someone to explain to me the mathematical difference between reading 1/3 of a post, and reading the full value...... lol. I clearly skipped this part.

It is a ridiculously dense wall of text, I don't blame you for missing a part.... I might go back and restructure some of it, thinking of it.

Jorick said
But the easiest way to approach it is with some simple fractions. Start with 1 = 1, split one side into thirds, then turn them into decimals.1 = 11 = (1/3) + (1/3) + (1/3)1 = 0.3333... + 0.3333... + 0.3333...1 = 0.9999...Even a middle school kid can understand it with this explanation, no wall of text or even knowledge of algebra needed.

But it does absolutely nothing to explain why.

TheMadAsshatter said
Given that you can make loopholes like these in math, is it possible that math is complete bullshit and the smart guys are wrong? If not, is it not true that math is flawed?

It isn't a loophole. That implies this is like some sort of accidental glitch in the system, than can be taken advantage of to prove untruths or some such. It isn't - it is factually, demonstrably true as per our definition of numbers. Saying that this is a loophole is like saying 1+1=2 is a loophole. 2 is defined by the fact that it is equal to 1+1. Similarly, the way we construct the real numbers, or "how we define numbers", means we have the same definition for both 0.999... and 1, and so they are equal.
Can mathematics be flawed? I don't think so, but it's more a philosophical question - mathematical philosophy, that is. Some believe numbers and relationships in maths already exist and are "discovered", others that they are all "created" by the person who first utilises them. I can go more into mathematical philosophy if you want, just ask. ^_^
What I feel can be flawed is, say, a number system. See, the way we think of numbers on a daily basis is pretty loose and undefined - as I noted in the original post, most people have never had what a real number is formally defined for them. If you took how we think of numbers on a daily basis and codified it, made a number system out of it, there'd probably be tonnes of flaws and issues. In the study of mathematics, what things are has to be rigidly defined by rules and axioms of the system you're using, whether that be a number system or a co-ordinate system or whatever. We don't bother with that most of through time though, which can lead to flaws. Maths isn't broken - in my opinion, it sort of can't be, not in itself - but the systems we use can be, though mathematicians are careful to define and prove things, and never just "assume", to avoid that.
Brief note: everything above is purely my own opinion, I haven't done any research for this answer as I'm on my phone. If I read something when I look it up later that contradicts me, I'll correct myself.

i feel like im the most awkward poster in spam on accident

No, not at all. I honestly like I am about 90% of the time - a lot of people probably do. The other 10% of the time, it's certainly not your posts I cringe over. Don't let it affect your confidence, man, you don't need Spam to validate you, and you don't need to feel awkward. Over time, you'll just come to fit in and find your place - hell, I sure did, and I'm a thoroughly cringe-worthy and awkward human being even now, never even mind when I joined up!

Mathematics and Physics Questions

mdk said
Another way to approach it is, 1 - 0.9999999..... = X. In this case, X must equal 0.0000.......1, where the 1 does not occur until after an inifinitely long sequence of zeroes. It's a null infinity, which can never be expressed; thus, there is no difference between 1 and 0.999... Where there is no difference, the values are equivalent.

Halo said
If the "9" digit in "0.999..." is recurring, then considering 1 - 0.999... = x, there is naught x can be but 0 (implying that 1 = 0.999...). There is no real number that exists between 0.999... and 1, no space between them, and thus they must be one and the same. There is no "0.000...0001" left over when you make the subtraction, because those recurring nines continue for eternity. If the difference between two numbers is zero, they are the same.

;D
Though, unlike you, I completely fuckin' forgot to clearly clarify that the reason there's no "0.00..001" is because that requires there to be a finite number of nines, which there isn't. Whoops. ^^;;

Mathematics and Physics Questions

8 said
Thank you for that explanation. I like that you told me "why" instead of just that it "is". I've asked my last few mathematics teachers this and never really understood it, but I sorta do now.

I'm glad ^_^.

Another "I hate Skype" thread...

ImANargleHunter said
You're probably signed in on your other account. My sister does that all the time, because she'll leave her skype singed in on the home account and will try to sign in on the office account.

No, I only have one I ever use. It's a consistent problem - I can't log back in once I've logged out, even if it's immediately afterwards. Plus, how would I be signed in when I'd only just installed Skype again?

Mathematics and Physics Questions

Well, we all know RPG is the most highly respected higher education institution in all the world. But hey, if the perceived objective is boosting my ego rather than fostering genuine interest and knowledge and conversation in the barren wasteland everyone is saying Spam has become of late, I'll take the hit for the team and Butter can stroke my e-peen rather than damn near choking themselves on Jorick's like last time. Please, shower me with praise, I feed on it.

Petty insults and bullshit aside, I'm not trying to claim I'm certified. I specifically added a disclaimer saying I'm unqualified as fuck and will probably get things wrong, which is pretty much the opposite of the narcissism and overconfidence you're accusing me of. This is just a topic I'm interested in and like talking about, and something I probably do know more about than the average person. Toellner, I expect pointless non-contributions like this from you, but I'd rather you pointed them somewhere else. Butter, I get that as of your return to Spam you want to make a, uh, different impression than you did last time, but being a dick for no reason isn't really going to help much with that these days - save the scathing comments for detractors to the community, rather than those actively trying to engage with it, or you'll just become a detractor yourself.
Are we done here? I doubt any of us have much interest in a stupid pissing contest.

This thread is make spam new

Sherlock Holmes said

Was gonna make a joke, then remembered Teo is 13. *shudders*. Fuckssakes.

I think I am more autexousious then most people.

How would you possibly know?