This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Guns don't kill people. Video games do. Really CNN?

#91Twolvesrule88Posted 2/2/2013 3:15:49 PM
jrr18 posted...

Math is flawed 1/3=3.333 3.333*3=9.999 just put the continuing thingy on the end. So where does the .111 go?


Your math professors/teachers have failed you. Try again.
---
Eon8 survivor 7/1/06
PSN: yavigril
#92majin nemesisPosted 2/2/2013 3:32:21 PM(edited)
Twolvesrule88 posted...
jrr18 posted...

Math is flawed 1/3=3.333 3.333*3=9.999 just put the continuing thingy on the end. So where does the .111 go?


Your math professors/teachers have failed you. Try again.


then explain this

1/3+1/3+1/3=1

and since 1/3=0.(3)

then 0.(3)+0.(3)+0.(3)=0.(9)

so 1=0.(9)

???
---
Swann:This is the last time.I'm tired of running damage control every time he makes a mess
Campbell:Right.You're the control,and if that fails,I'm the damage
#93SayoriaPosted 2/2/2013 3:32:56 PM
Killing simulators. Nothing but a bunch of killing simulators.
---
Sailor Moon returns 2013! O_o
#94shawnmckPosted 2/2/2013 3:49:21 PM
I'm not defending the stupid media, but to me this is no different than all the people who clamor for gun bans who don't own a gun and have never fired a gun.
Basically these people don't play video-games, so they don't understand the relationship.
Just like those that don't own guns don't understand the relationship.

99.9% of people who play video-games do NOT commit crimes.
99.9% of people who own guns do NOT commit crimes.

^ But that doesn't stop people from blaming them.

As long as you get 5 people out of a million that use a gun to kill someone, the gun gets blamed as the problem.
And if you get 5 people out of a million that play video-games and committed violence then the games get blamed.

Its all BS, and some are being brainwashed & played for fools by politicians and a news media that wants to push an agenda.
#95Bronze_StuffPosted 2/2/2013 3:49:31 PM
majin nemesis posted...
Twolvesrule88 posted...
jrr18 posted...

Math is flawed 1/3=3.333 3.333*3=9.999 just put the continuing thingy on the end. So where does the .111 go?


Your math professors/teachers have failed you. Try again.


then explain this

1/3+1/3+1/3=1

and since 1/3=0.(3)

then 0.(3)+0.(3)+0.(3)=0.(9)

so 1=0.(9)

???


Basically it goes like this:
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/arithmetic/999999.shtml
---
Jimbo.
#96WarhawkPosted 2/2/2013 5:43:10 PM
Motsu posted...
Killing simulators. Nothing but a bunch of killing simulators.


Do we need to be reminded of a certain Florida lawyer on this?
---
CRP: 12949 | FAQs: 15
FAQ Outlaws | Mega Man X
#97VanderZooPosted 2/2/2013 9:12:15 PM
Ba_bel posted...
Lol your argument doesn't have any proof on it. You just say "can you prove otherwise?"; so what if I ask you to prove me that he never had a chance to not answer the question, for example. Can YOU prove your thesis? And sorry, but the way you put it it seems more a religion than even a pseudo-scientific argument.


I'll put it simply, if you choose A over B, it's because you were more inclined to choose A. So if you were more inclined to choose A, then how 'could' you have ever chosen B instead? In hindsight and in theory, you say you could have, but how is that possible?

This is the illusion, we have choices, but we were only ever going to make one choice, and the choice was made before our rational brain even realises it.
---
necro00 - So she sounded really cute, and I saved her from dying a bunch of times, I messaged and talked to her for a few mins and she then blocked me wtf
#98Twolvesrule88Posted 2/2/2013 9:16:40 PM
majin nemesis posted...
Twolvesrule88 posted...
jrr18 posted...

Math is flawed 1/3=3.333 3.333*3=9.999 just put the continuing thingy on the end. So where does the .111 go?


Your math professors/teachers have failed you. Try again.


then explain this

1/3+1/3+1/3=1

and since 1/3=0.(3)

then 0.(3)+0.(3)+0.(3)=0.(9)

so 1=0.(9)

???


Assuming 0.(9) means 0.999... (9 repeats infinitely) I see nothing wrong with this. We have many different ways to represent the same number.

I haven't been in school for a while, but I'll give it a shot.

Explanation 1 (kinda weak):
Think about real numbers. Give me any two real numbers and I can give you a number in between those two numbers. If I cannot, then the two numbers you gave me are equal to each other.

Explanation 2:

s = .999... Now multiply both sides by 10 and we get:
10s = 9.999..... Now subtract s from both sides and we get:
10s - s = 9.999... - s This equals:
9s = 9.999.... - 0.999... This equals:
9s = 9 Divide both sides by 9 and we get
s = 1
So therefore, s = .999... = 1

Fun fact, 1.5999... = 1.6, 23.321999... = 23.322, etc

---
Eon8 survivor 7/1/06
PSN: yavigril
#99VanderZooPosted 2/2/2013 9:18:19 PM
majin nemesis posted...
VanderZoo posted...
Here's the catch, the neuroscientists, who are actively scanning the brain during this process, know some moments, even full seconds, which button the person chooses to press before that person themselves does.

but it was still the person choice to press or not press the button after choosing which one to press also the person could simple choose not to press the button


lol, again, choosing not to answer is not a loophole, it doesn't work that way, you're thinking too simplistically. Because even that choice could be read and monitored by scientists, who will know you're not going to choose before you are consciously aware you're not going to.

Go to a shopping mall and stand at the bottom of an escalator, and watch which way people turn when they get to the bottom. Now go interview those people, ask them why they turned right or left, the majority will have no idea why they turned in the direction they did, the decision to do so was made without their own knowledge.
---
necro00 - So she sounded really cute, and I saved her from dying a bunch of times, I messaged and talked to her for a few mins and she then blocked me wtf
#100Ba_belPosted 2/3/2013 4:10:38 AM
VanderZoo posted...

Ba_bel posted...
Lol your argument doesn't have any proof on it. You just say "can you prove otherwise?"; so what if I ask you to prove me that he never had a chance to not answer the question, for example. Can YOU prove your thesis? And sorry, but the way you put it it seems more a religion than even a pseudo-scientific argument.


I'll put it simply, if you choose A over B, it's because you were more inclined to choose A. So if you were more inclined to choose A, then how 'could' you have ever chosen B instead? In hindsight and in theory, you say you could have, but how is that possible?

This is the illusion, we have choices, but we were only ever going to make one choice, and the choice was made before our rational brain even realises it.


The question isn't "did B never have a chance?" or "is he really inclined to think only A?".
The question is "can you prove it?".
---
---To hit the mark, we aim above the mark--- R. W. Emerson