actually ads probably won’t work on you because you don’t have basic reading comprehension

politicians and people in power, yes. the conservatives in general, the voters, they just hate you and want you dead.

yeah ads famously criticize the product and talk about how dangerous it is

if you think it doesn’t work on you, it’s more likely to work on you. if it didn’t work the world would be a much better place, but unfortunately they definitely work.

but i agree it’s stupid especially as a business model and it shouldn’t exist.

alarm bells?

wait they didn’t know he was old before this debate?

the bar is so low. did everyone forget who this guy is?

i mean, that’s literally what they want. they want you dead. that’s what conservatives have always wanted.

hortler!

no, i know and understand what you mean. as i said in my original comment; it’s not intuitive. but if everything in life were intuitive there wouldn’t be mind blowing discoveries and revelations… and what kind of sad life is that?

honestly that seems to be the only argument from the people who say it’s not equal. at least you’re honest about it.

by the way I’m not a mathematically adept person. I’m interested in math but i only understand the simpler things. which is fine. but i don’t go around arguing with people about advanced mathematics because I personally don’t get it.

the only reason I’m very confident about this issue is that you can see it’s equal with middle- or high-school level math, and that’s somehow still too much for people who are too confident about there being a magical, infinitely small number between 0.999… and 1.

you said 1/3 ≠ 0.333… which is false. it is exactly equal. there’s no flaw; it’s a restriction in notation that is not unique to the decimal system. there’s no “conflict with reality”, whatever that means. this just sounds like not being able to wrap your head around the concept. but that doesn’t make it a flaw.

is that val kilmer

wake up calls don’t do shit when you’re not interested in “waking up”

yeah that’s because the little ones mean “hii” and the big ones mean “HELLO???!!”

nice try DoD

fair enough, but i think the confusion for that commenter comes from a misunderstanding of the definition of the mathematical concept rather than the meaning of the English word. they just think irrational numbers are those that have infinite decimal digits, which is not the definition.

not really. i get it because we use rational to mean logical, but that’s not what it means here. yeah, real and normal are stupid names but rational numbers are numbers that can be represented as a ratio of two numbers. i think it’s pretty good.

you’re thinking about this backwards: the decimal notation isn’t something that’s natural, it’s just a way to represent numbers that we invented. 0.333… = 1/3 because that’s the way we decided to represent 1/3 in decimals. the problem here isn’t that 1 cannot be divided by 3 at all, it’s that 10 cannot be divided by 3 and give a whole number. and because we use the decimal system, we have to notate it using infinite repeating numbers but that doesn’t change the value of 1/3 or 10/3.

different bases don’t change the values either. 12 can be divided by 3 and give a whole number, so we don’t need infinite digits. but both 0.333… in decimal and 0.4 in base12 are still 1/3.

there’s no need to change the base. we know a third of one is a third and three thirds is one. how you notate it doesn’t change this at all.

non repeating

it’s literally repeating

.333… is rational.

at least we finally found your problem: you don’t know what rational and irrational mean. the clue is in the name.