  Members

30

## Community Reputation

0 Neutral

• Rank
Private 1. Not necessarily. In C&C3, the Database entries were full of references to units and technologies from Tiberian Sun (e.g., the entry on the disbanding of the Mammoth Mk. II); C&C4 might have similar entries.
2. Actually, I'm pretty sure that, at least on the mini-map, GDI was blue in C&C3 as well.
3. I hate to ruin a perfectly good joke, ... To make up for it, here's some Failblog/PuniditKitchen goodness:
4. Irrelevant: you might not think that I can multiply 0.333..., but you can multiply 0.3 and 0.03 and 0.003 and... So, you asked what 4*0.333... would be. That is easily solved. 4*0.333...=4*(0.3+0.03+0.003+...) 4*(0.3+0.03+0.003+...)=4*0.3+4*0.03+4*0.003+... 4*0.3+4*0.03+4*0.003+...=1.2+0.12+0.012+... I'll leave you to tell me what 1.2+0.12+0.012+... is (hint: it's 1.333...). Refute my argument then. You have asserted that 0.3+0.03+0.003+... is not equal to 1/3, but you have failed to find any flaw in my argument. Except that I just proved that 0.3+0.03+0.003+...=1/3, therefore, from the start, you have been wrong. 0.333... is infinitely long. Where does the remainder go? {Edit: See Below.} I'm not misquoting you: you claim that 0.333... =/= 1/3. However, I proved that 0.3+0.003+0.003+...=1/3; a proof that you failed to refute. Therefore, if 0.333... is not 1/3, then 0.333... cannot be 0.3+0.03+0.003+... either. Edit: I just realized something today: when dividing 1 by 3, the remainder of 1 doesn't disappear, but the remainder's effect on the answer does disappear. To clarify, let us begin our long division. We divide 1 by three and get 0.3 with a remainder of 1 (which works, because we haven't finished dividing). We know that 0.3 is not 1/3, but we can ask how close we are. Thus, we take (1/3)-0.3; 1/3 can be rewritten as 10/30, and 0.3 can be rewritten as 3/10 or 9/30, meaning that (1/3)-0.3=(10/30)-(9/30)=(1/30). We can rearrange this to find the equation 1/3=0.3+(1/30). Then, we can ask what we get for (1/3)-0.33. We can rewrite this as ((1/3)-0.3)-0.03: we know that the first part is 1/30, so 1/3-0.33 can also be written as (1/30)-0.03. A little arithmetic shows then that (1/3)-0.33=1/300, which is to say that (1/3)=0.33+(1/300). Therefore, as 0.33...33 reaches n decimal places, we find that (1/3)=0.33...33 + 1/(3*10^n); this 1/(3*10^n) is your mythical "and one-third" remainder. However, as goes to infinity, 0.33...33 goes to 0.333... while 1/(3*10^n) goes to 0.
5. Which is the entire point of this argument: an infinite string of nines after the decimal, written as 0.999..., is another way of denoting 1. If you disagree, then please tell me what I would subtract from 1 in order to get 0.999... Nmenth suggested 0.000...R1. However, 1-0.000...R1=1.000...R-1. That is, the remainder is negative one. Thus, you are saying that 0.999...=1.000...R-1. What does a negative remainder mean, anyway. Take a=0.3+0.03+0.003+...: you say that 0.333... is "infinity" and thus cannot be multiplied. However, you will agree that I can multiply, for example, 0.03 by any number that I wish - while the sum itself is is infinite, the individual elements are not. Let us then take 3*a: it is obvious that 3*a=0.9+0.09+0.009+... Additionally, 30*a=10*(3*a)=10*(0.9+0.09+0.009+...)=9+0.9+0.09+0.009+... Then, of course, you can take 30*a-3*a=(9+0.9+0.09+0.009+...)-(0.9+0.09+0.009+...)=9+(0.9+0.09+0.009+...)-(0.9+0.09+0.009+...)=9+(3*a-3*a)=9+3*(a-a); a-a=0, therefore 30*a - 3*a=9. However, 30*a - 3*a is, of course, the same as 27*a. By transitive property (if A=B and B=C, then A=C), this means that 27*a=9, which means that 3*a=1. Therefore, a=1/3 However, we started out by saying that a=0.3+0.03+0.003+...; this sum is apparently equal to 1/3. In other words, you are asserting that 0.3+0.03+0.003+...=/=0.333... I'm sorry, do you actually have an argument, or do you just expect me to cave to your royal fiat?
6. This entire argument is based off of one faulty assumption: that 1/3 is something different from 0.333... That assumption is incorrect: the truth is that 0.333... is just another way of writing 1/3. I'm going to assume that you know long division, so take 1 and divide it by 3. The first digit is zero, of course, since 3 is greater than 1. To find the next digit, you divide 10 by 3, which means that the next digit is three and you have a remainder of 1. Therefore, going to the next digit, you take that remainder, "pull down" the 0, and again divide by three, again finding that this digit is 3. It soon becomes apparent that, no matter how many times you repeat this operation, the next digit is always going to be 3. This means that the end result is going to be an infinite string of threes. This is written as 0.333... Now, both you and Nmenth mentioned the possibility of including a remainder on the number. This, however, makes no sense. Remainders only exist within the context of incomplete division: if you have a remainder, you have not finished dividing.
7. Fair enough - I got emotional and I should have put that better. In any case, my point remains. You claim that you cannot multiply 0.333... by any number other than 1 or 0 because 0.333... is "infinity." However, this is wrong and I can prove it: 0.333... can be rewritten as the infinite series [sum from n=1 to ∞] 3*10^-n. Each element 3*10^-n is obviously finite, and can thus be multiplies by whatever real (or complex) number you desire. However, the transitive property states that multiplying each element of the series by a given number is the same thing as multiplying the entire series by that number: (N*a+N*b+N*c...)=N*(a+b+c+...). Therefore, since we can multiply 3*10^-n by 3 to get 9*10^-n, we can also multiply 0.333... by 3 to get 0.999..., which rebuts your rebuttal of the 1/3 argument. I think that I see where you're going with this: you are implying that, if you were to multiply the "last 3" in 0.333..., that it would be as though the "last 'digit'" were a 10, cascading through up to 1.000... However, that is the same thing as saying that an infinite string of nines (0.999...) is equal to 1. Therefore, you are assuming 0.999...=1 in order to rebut a proof of 0.999...=1.
8. What you seem to fail to understand is that 0.333... is not "infinity." Indeed, infinity isn't even a number - it's more of a limit. The idea of infinity is that, if I have some number N, I can always find some other number N+1. Since, for example, 5 is greater than 0.333..., it is obvious that 0.333... is not "infinity." In any case, 0.333... is the same thing as the infinite series (0.3+0.03+0.003+...) It is quite obvious that none of the entries in that series are "infinity," even using your retarded idea of infinity. As for it being an infinite series, multiplying an infinite series by a number is the same as multiplying each entry in that series that number. In any case, it is easy to see that 3*0.333... = 3*(0.3+0.03+0.003+...) = (3*0.3+3*0.03+3*0.003+...) = (0.9+0.09+0.009+...) = 0.999... Actually, your refutation is quite self-evidently wrong. Take, for example, 0.99. This is obviously 1-0.01. Now take 0.999, which is obviously 1-0.001. It is obvious that you can extend this as far as you want: 0.99...99=1-0.00...01. Note, however, the way that I wrote that: any string of nines is 1 minus a string of zeroes with a 1 as the last digit. Here, however, is where your argument breaks apart: if the string is infinite, there is no last digit - that's what "infinite" means. Therefore, there is no 1 at the end of the string of zeroes: 0.999...=1-0.000..., with no rounding.
9. I think that burying someone alive is about the cruelest, most cold-hearted way imaginable of killing that person. But yeah, Tiberian Sun Nod ending is one of the most epic C&C endings I know. Of course, it is a little similar to the end of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.
10. Star Wars is not "theoretically possible" and is thus not science fiction, even by your definition. I again cite the case of mystical knights with glowing swords and the ability to move objects via a mystical, unexplained "force." Also, there is the counter definition: "A handy short definition of almost all science fiction might read: realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method" (Robert A. Heinlein). Also interesting are the preconditions described by Heinlein here. Note that Star Wars fails condition 5, that any variance from observed fact be plausibly explained. You missed my point. "Soft" sci-fi means that it is at the boundary between science fiction and science fantasy: the real rules of science are bent or even, on occasion, completely discarded in favor of telling an interesting story. However, Star Wars goes beyond even that, and does not even try to provide any justification whatsoever. If, in being wrong, I cause others to cease taking such a view for granted, then my error shall not have been made in vain. If, however, I am correct, then to keep silent would be a crime of the greatest order.
11. I agree with half of your statement. They might "know" it, but they don't actually think about what that means: it is Science Fiction, fiction that is in some way related to science. Even if the authors play loose with the actual science behind the story, it is, at the very least, an issue. That is not the case in Star Wars. That depends on whether you take Science Fiction to be a genre, like Action-Adventure, Romance, Mystery, etc. or a setting, like the Wild West, the Middle Ages, Ancient Rome, New York, etc. As a genre, Science Fiction must be focused on the science and its repercussions, not magical knights with glowing blades. Star Trek is "soft" sci-fi, but still somewhat falls into the category of science fiction because it deals with issues such as the rights of artificial intelligence, possible repercussions of nanotechnology, the difficulties of relations with alien civilizations, the dangers of exploring new worlds, etc.
12. Star Wars is not sci-fi: it is an action-adventure story that happens to be set in space. I'm not saying that it is not good, but it is not sci-fi. Some might reply: if it is set in space, how can it not be sci-fi. My response: sci-fi is short for Science Fiction. Sci-fi is, at its essence, a literary exploration of the consequences of new or hypothetical technologies and scientific concepts: If we could live forever, how would it change us? If we could change the past, what would that mean for the present? If we learned that we were not alone in the universe, how would we react? If would could create machines that think like us, what would it mean to be human? That said, I feel compelled to point out that Star Wars is one of my favorite movies.
13. I would like to say that I am in absolute agreement! edit Also, shouldn't they be making a Flying Girl Azami manga, as described here? /edit How so? ...how would that differ from the close-up while they're using the time belt?
14. And I was saying that you were right: the LHC would have difficult time destroying anything at all, so all the panic is over absolutely nothing. The main problem originates from the fact that there was some very hopeful speculation that the LHC could create a black hole, which would be evidence of higher dimensions. The black hole would be too small to do anything dangerous and would radiate away almost instantly, but the idea that black holes are incredibly dangerous and destructive is widespread enough, at least among certain circles, to cause panic. Then, of course, everyone else hears the people in those circles say that the LHC is going to destroy the world, and the rumor spreads from there. Not only did I look stuff up, I cited what I looked up! Part of it was for elaboration (such as with Maxwell's law), but part of it was because I did not remember the names and energy scales of the Planck epoch, grand unification epoch, and the electroweak epoch. Therefore, to make any sort of assertion about them, I had to look them up. And my point is that it is truly sad if all we are concerned about is whether or not the LHC will destroy the world, when it will be a source of incredible knowledge about how the world works. Good luck with the graphics courses! As for a doctorate in Physics, I'm still an undergrad, so I can only do a major, not a doctorate. Refer back to my example of Maxwell's equations: even if nothing goes wrong, the LHC may still significantly affect your life. Sure.
15. The LHC would not produce anything near the scale of a nuclear explosion. Firstly, they are not using anywhere near enough material to produce any dangerous explosions: even if the particles would to spontaneously turn into antimatter, there would not be nearly enough to do significant damage. I can state this with absolute certainty because the majority of the particles' mass/energy comes from the energy added by the accelerator itself, and that energy comes from a power grid. Therefore, even if the particles turn into antimatter, they can explode with only as much energy as was put into them by the power grid. When this comes up, it is every scientist's first instinct to cite the case of Maxwell's equations. When Maxwell first wrote/compiled these equations, they were little more than a scientific curiosity. However, they had the interesting result of implying that light was a wave made of electric fields and magnetic fields. Moreover, Maxwell's equations also showed how similar waves could be generated by certain electrical circuits, and that is how the radio was invented. The "moral" behind this is that one cannot know the benefits of a certain line of scientific inquiry until after the research has been completed. Furthermore, as a resident of this universe, do you have no thirst for knowledge of how the universe works? About why we are made of matter instead of antimatter? Why there are galaxies, stars, and planets instead of diffuse gas? I suppose that it is none of my business if these questions do not interest you, but they are important questions, at least in a cosmological, "Why are we here?" sense. As has already been pointed out, any black hole created would decay away before it could do any serious damage. We can be fairly certain of this because cosmic rays, which continually bombard our upper atmosphere, can have energies up to 10^11 GeV, far higher than the than the 7000 GeV that is the upper limit on the LHC's particles.
×