You don't know what 'discord' means and what a moderator is meant to make not happen in their community. (discord is what a moderator is meant to stop).
Socialism in its pure form is anti economics itself. It doesn't support the concept of anyone having more than anyone else for any reason other than their need for it.
Capitalism in its pure form is about taking away as much as you can from those who either want and/or need something and selling it back to them for as great a drawback of other things they want and/or need as your competition won't sell lower/less/cheaper than in such a convenient manner.
Both backfire and deny a major element of human nature and society. Socialism ignores that we have selfish motives and want independence to get what we want, not just need, based on how hard and smart we work and handle our wealth. Capitalism ignores that society will break apart and be totally enslaved to a monopoly that owns all industries, politics and is a permanent dictatorship because as each industry has the dominator eat away at others, eventually all the leaders will form a cross-industry cartel and that will be the 'Illuminati Elite' that rule over all. The end result of Socialism is an Elite brutally making things unpleasant and unfair on everyone. The end result on Capitalism is exactly the same.
you can find any excuse you want. The entire Africa is either extreme left wing but still really capitalist (zimbabwe and such) or extreme right-wing. SA is maybe an 'exception' but it's still very, very right-wing.
They support capitalism in a very unadultered form, are ruled by the rich, for the rich and do not inhibit competition beyond what is necessary to appease the masses from revolting too much. They are minimalist in size and beaureacracy, aim to leave the market as free as possible and only truly care about power and profit, in terms of policy.
I see. So you are for the right-wing approach yes? That of India, Kenya, Uganda, Somalia and such. Is this correct or incorrect? Do they not embody right-wing ethos?
I didn't enjoy working with him as much as I thought I would. I either had to write things completely or get no feedback at all and he'd keep shoving back verses to me that I'd help mesh with mine to which he still would randomly alter things or just keep them as is and not even compliment me or suggest how to improve them or whatever.
He is still a 'friend' to me, in my eyes, on this website but I don't know why the fuck he did this to me and his way of uploading without showing me the final versions became quite irritating too.
turns out I really did consume gatorade, he's banned. dammit madman, why did you have to do rational dirty like that and consume your partner to get stronger?
You pasted something twice in R3 in editing, an entire sub-stanza of mine is pasted twice over but with 'revolting' having the part after it removed...
It's like Halal Meat where they refuse to kill the brain of the animal with a stun gun before.
Anyone who refuses to stab the brain of the animal before doing the killing procedure is a sadist who deserves great pain brought upon them,
Whether you use electric collars for your dog's barks or declaw your cat, which leaves it feeling and experiencing what life would be like without your fingers, breasts/cock and eyelashes etc (their entire feeling of sexiness and self esteem comes from how well-kept their claws and fur are, more so their claws)... You deserve great pain brought upon you.
Any religion that says animals have no souls is a vile religion. Notice that Christianity and Islam are both responsible for such great atrocities in treating both humans and animals? They both say animals have no souls.
The UN is passive as can be, of course this is a true resolution. They don't have any morals whatsoever, other than making sure no one in the world is too pissed off and powerful at any given time (in relation to others).
Con R2 Source list (will post more full thing for R3)
1. https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/how-can-metal-mining-impact-environment
2. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-definitely-have-not-found-life-on-the-moon/
3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6225594/
4. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/topics/waste-resources/resource-use-its-consequences
5. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/
So, if it's an endless series of 9's then it can't be a number according to your logic.
Only a number that ends and reaches its endpoint can be deemed an actual number that exists. If 0.9 never reaches the last 9, it doesn't exist. 1.0 exists as an actual number the ends and has nothing left to 'reach' other than endless 'nothingness' which is infinite 0's. Therefore, 1.0 is an actual number and value while 0.9r0 is as bullshit of a joke as is the 0.0r1 that differentiates it from 1.0r0
So because the number following all the 9s, is a 9, you carefully dodge needing to admit that 0.9r is impossible and can't exist. On the other hand, you happily point out that the 1 following the 0's can't exist in the difference between 0.9r9 and 1.0r0
I know how to convert fractions into decimals amd percentages. I know indices, stats, decision mathematics and very much. I also know what is wrong with it.
When you convert 1/3 into a decimal or percentage, you are deep down lying to yourself and everyone else if you don't admit that at the end of the 33333... Is not a 3 but actually is supposed to be a number that doesn't exist that is 1/3. The reason it has to be there is to be the '1' at the end of the difference between 0.9r and 1.0 which is basically what a third multiplied by 3 is causing a hassle between. If you realised that there is supposed to be an actual third itself at the end of the infinite 3s, you'd then realise the extreme conundrum in saying a third exists as a non-fraction at all.
I thought of that. Most universities, especially the Ivy League, Russel Group ones, have strong implicit unwritten immunity promises. They obviously won't kick you out for admitting you were date raped but it's not actually written anywhere in most of the college/universities' actual policy because there's a vague sort of description of how enforcement works regarding those things.
This, then, means you already are on a backfoot as only very strange universities/colleges that chose to word it as such in an explicit manner in their policy are ones you can case-study to support what is happening. The likelihood is that a college/uni that made it become literally worded was already having many coming forward up to and including when it finally made it an explicit promise and therefore the stats will make it seem that nothing much changed. I also think there's barely anything to go on regarding the topic other than one by one case studies (which is severely character-count-draining). So, I don't see how I could have gone for that path without really ruining the brutality of my rebuttal and angling things further and further towards my favour.
33.33% to 2 decimal places indeed. The reason being that the 2/3 is rounded to 66.67%
Note how you had to magic up a '7' there to make the system work? That is because of the 'third that tags along' in 0.3r being a third of 1.
0.3r is not a third of 1, instead it is 0.3r followed by '03333....' followed by '0333....' infinitely so. Much like this debate, which is becoming a recurring loop, so is a third of 1 following itself again and again for the 'third of 1' never is actually put into the number at all, it doesn't exist. the number that is a third of 1 is an illusion, a lie, not even a concept but a pseudo-concept. 1 is only capable of dividing itself into all multiples of 2 that are not multiples of 3, as well being divided into as odd multiples of 5. It cannot ever be divided by multiples of 3 or prime numbers.
How would you have approached it differently as Con? Would you have raised statistics? Stats were the one and only way to defeat me, if I stuck to rhetoric and philosophy, as well as law theory of the pragmatic sense, I'd 100% win whereas I knew if I began arguing stats, it would incite him to do it too.
Then I'd get into a pickle as we'd both be in muddied waters where in practise the immunity is the norm but on paper, it's a severe minority thing of very 'literal policy written' universities that has a small pool of study that may just as easily hurt me as help me. I knew that cunning and keeping my head down was sure to keep him rallying brutally hard on a campaign to prove he cares about the victims of rape and relating that empathy to the victims of framing, where all I had to keep doing was say 'fair trial still happens, they still get accused at the very least of obstruction of justice and usually the immunity is wavered' over and over again in more intricate wording.
I learned what happens when I try to be too creative as well as too lazy (yes I used to be both of these at once in waves). I prefer my disciplined way of debating now, where I only go creative and artsy when passion is absolutely optimal (last round of this debate was definitely that, slamming the defeat home etc)
I do honestly want to know what you'd have done as Con here though, with the char limit. Would you honestly have brought out many stats R1?
The reason you never can reverse engineer the 10M bullshit trick is because it's fake. It's an illusion based on pretending 0.9r is a possible number to begin with.
wrong. You cannot divide 1 by three, ever. It doesn't matter what you have, whether it's bread, dollar, anything. Never. Ever.
In poker if there is 10 in the pot to split between 3, they take the 1 from the '4' in some tables (it disappears entirely from play) or in other poker rooms it is given to the aggressor (first to bet for the allin of that split pot).
Never ever will it be split by 3 because only a bullshitter will waste their time telling to divide that. Numbers are fake when they are recurring, it is a flaw of trying to comprehend thigns in denary. In binary you can blatantly see the 1/11 is impossible but you deny that still, it never ever will compute if you try to do it.
I trust whiteflame won't edit or delete his google docs any time soon,
but if you did want to post it in a way that doesn't reveal your google account or decay over time beyond this website's lifespan, feel free to post here:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2657
Thanks a lot for the RFD, I don't know how people find 10k not-small. Had this been a 15k debate per Round I'd definitely have gone a lot more into the why's and specific data and things. I also didn't want to help Pro realise ways to defeat me, so I allowed Pro to keep going down the line he was going, so long as he agreed with me that Rape is horrific and far more terrible than taking drugs or most cases of immunity.
The statistic issue is that immunity in such cases is actually a default, it's not something that's unusual. The unusual thing is for a university to explicitly state it as a guarantee, in their policy. It's more of an unwritten rule, if you will. I didn't know whether this would help me or hurt me but felt the need to just mention it at the end as 'status quo' had been wrongly framed throughout.
Thanks again for the vote, personally I agree with your analysis entirely but you don't know maybe that I put a lot of effort into keeping myself narrow in how I attacked Pro, so that Pro would stay narrow in how he defended against me (not realising where he actually had to bolster his case).
Wrong. I will prove you and PressF4Respect so wrong right now.
Reverse engineer the 10M thing,
do it.
Start with 1.0, you never end up with the fake number 0.9r
THAT IS BECAUSE ONLY 1 is the number, 0.9r is an illusion, a fake irrational glitch in a denary.
A third has no binary possibility. You cannot divide 1 by 3, the binary value would burn your computer chip to process, it would never end being computed.
They are not white supremacists at all. Antifa and Neo-Nazi white-on-white rivalry is actually an age old rivalry (both loathe the government equally but opposite sides of it for opposite reasons).
I am a social democrat, so I have some leftist ideals I share with Antifa whereas with Neo-Nazis I share next to nothing ideologically, but both are toxic as fuck in practise.
Antifa has no idea what it's doing, it's got genuinely no clue how to go about getting a point across, that's why Trump got elected and Brexit-vote won. They are helping enough idiots assume the right-wing look like the good guys in enough places around the world that slowly we are seeing a horrific thing happen in the short-run. If they'd be more civil and cunning, like the right-wing shills are, they'd see far more victory and the world would be a better place.
If you try do do math in binary (which is the pure form of all math and numerical logic) you will realise that 1/3 doesn't exist, therefore it can't be a number.
0.3recurring is not 1/3, this is a fake thing that you're blackmailed to lie about believing in if you're intelligent enough to realise it's wrong, in order to get marks.
It's disgusting that they do this to you. 1/3 is not a number. It will be 0.3 recurring with a '033333recurring' after the 3's and then that has the same at the end of it, infinitely so.
0.3 recurring never becomes that, so it clearly can't fucking multiply by 3 to make 1.000 recurring. Instead it masquerades as 1/3 while really being 0.9999recurring / 3
That is the truth. It is why I lost the debate, because some voters can't grasp the truth, and that is always how it will be. I have learned to pick debates where I am on the side of easier truth. In time I will show to you all what a sham debating is and yet remain the best at it.
the fault in your algebra trick is that it literally proves itself wrong, not right. You just proved that you can't have anything .9recurring, because it's an irrational number that's impossible, whereas 1.0recurring is entirely possible and rational, real etc. 0.9recurring is a fake value people pretend exists because they are enslaved to denary counting system and can't get over the fact that math is not pure logic; it's a limite format of displaying and comprehending it.
0.9recurring is a fake number, a bullshit number. It doesn't even equal itself according to your equation, LOL! Why didn't your answer say M = 0.9recurring? I wonder why.
I have no idea what makes you think I used NYTimes twice or what makes you think I didn't quote them... I also don't understand your conduct point at all. If anything it was poor conduct for Pro to mislead you into thinking Con had to meet BoPs that they didn't, which I strongly addressed.
Nothing in your infinite series calculations explains how you ever can add infinite number of things, you can't ever reach the last one to add it. It also fails to appreciate that if 0.9r is a possible constant, then so is the difference between it and 1.0r
I already covered how you cannot ever validate 0.9r as anything other than a bullshit value that doesn't even exist unless you validate that the difference between it and 1.0r is as real as it, itself.
I overslept, sorry.
You don't know what 'discord' means and what a moderator is meant to make not happen in their community. (discord is what a moderator is meant to stop).
Socialism in its pure form is anti economics itself. It doesn't support the concept of anyone having more than anyone else for any reason other than their need for it.
Capitalism in its pure form is about taking away as much as you can from those who either want and/or need something and selling it back to them for as great a drawback of other things they want and/or need as your competition won't sell lower/less/cheaper than in such a convenient manner.
Both backfire and deny a major element of human nature and society. Socialism ignores that we have selfish motives and want independence to get what we want, not just need, based on how hard and smart we work and handle our wealth. Capitalism ignores that society will break apart and be totally enslaved to a monopoly that owns all industries, politics and is a permanent dictatorship because as each industry has the dominator eat away at others, eventually all the leaders will form a cross-industry cartel and that will be the 'Illuminati Elite' that rule over all. The end result of Socialism is an Elite brutally making things unpleasant and unfair on everyone. The end result on Capitalism is exactly the same.
The Moon is uninhabitable ********************
fucking bullshit typo
you can find any excuse you want. The entire Africa is either extreme left wing but still really capitalist (zimbabwe and such) or extreme right-wing. SA is maybe an 'exception' but it's still very, very right-wing.
They support capitalism in a very unadultered form, are ruled by the rich, for the rich and do not inhibit competition beyond what is necessary to appease the masses from revolting too much. They are minimalist in size and beaureacracy, aim to leave the market as free as possible and only truly care about power and profit, in terms of policy.
I see. So you are for the right-wing approach yes? That of India, Kenya, Uganda, Somalia and such. Is this correct or incorrect? Do they not embody right-wing ethos?
Care so much for the life until it's out of the womb, eh? Then it can rot in a slum amirite?
Ask him.
Your mistake was assuming me to be a good sir as opposed to a rogue rascal.
I don't concede, I surrender to my teammate.
My teammate concedes to you.
I didn't enjoy working with him as much as I thought I would. I either had to write things completely or get no feedback at all and he'd keep shoving back verses to me that I'd help mesh with mine to which he still would randomly alter things or just keep them as is and not even compliment me or suggest how to improve them or whatever.
He is still a 'friend' to me, in my eyes, on this website but I don't know why the fuck he did this to me and his way of uploading without showing me the final versions became quite irritating too.
turns out I really did consume gatorade, he's banned. dammit madman, why did you have to do rational dirty like that and consume your partner to get stronger?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BBClMC2CrQ
;)
yeah I know right :P
anyway, it's okay we'll bring it home in R3!
Donald fucking Trump.
Nixon was, with Reagan closely behind.
You pasted something twice in R3 in editing, an entire sub-stanza of mine is pasted twice over but with 'revolting' having the part after it removed...
It's like Halal Meat where they refuse to kill the brain of the animal with a stun gun before.
Anyone who refuses to stab the brain of the animal before doing the killing procedure is a sadist who deserves great pain brought upon them,
Whether you use electric collars for your dog's barks or declaw your cat, which leaves it feeling and experiencing what life would be like without your fingers, breasts/cock and eyelashes etc (their entire feeling of sexiness and self esteem comes from how well-kept their claws and fur are, more so their claws)... You deserve great pain brought upon you.
Any religion that says animals have no souls is a vile religion. Notice that Christianity and Islam are both responsible for such great atrocities in treating both humans and animals? They both say animals have no souls.
The UN is passive as can be, of course this is a true resolution. They don't have any morals whatsoever, other than making sure no one in the world is too pissed off and powerful at any given time (in relation to others).
Con R2 Source list (will post more full thing for R3)
1. https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/how-can-metal-mining-impact-environment
2. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-definitely-have-not-found-life-on-the-moon/
3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6225594/
4. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/topics/waste-resources/resource-use-its-consequences
5. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/
I have had enough of your bullshit, welcome to the blocklist.
So, if it's an endless series of 9's then it can't be a number according to your logic.
Only a number that ends and reaches its endpoint can be deemed an actual number that exists. If 0.9 never reaches the last 9, it doesn't exist. 1.0 exists as an actual number the ends and has nothing left to 'reach' other than endless 'nothingness' which is infinite 0's. Therefore, 1.0 is an actual number and value while 0.9r0 is as bullshit of a joke as is the 0.0r1 that differentiates it from 1.0r0
So because the number following all the 9s, is a 9, you carefully dodge needing to admit that 0.9r is impossible and can't exist. On the other hand, you happily point out that the 1 following the 0's can't exist in the difference between 0.9r9 and 1.0r0
forfeits 1 round*** not 2, rest of my RFD is valid
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1392/vote_links/3501
I am reporting Ragnar's vote solely for the S&G part of it.
If 0.0r1 doesnt exist, neither does 0.9r9
Thanks.
I know how to convert fractions into decimals amd percentages. I know indices, stats, decision mathematics and very much. I also know what is wrong with it.
When you convert 1/3 into a decimal or percentage, you are deep down lying to yourself and everyone else if you don't admit that at the end of the 33333... Is not a 3 but actually is supposed to be a number that doesn't exist that is 1/3. The reason it has to be there is to be the '1' at the end of the difference between 0.9r and 1.0 which is basically what a third multiplied by 3 is causing a hassle between. If you realised that there is supposed to be an actual third itself at the end of the infinite 3s, you'd then realise the extreme conundrum in saying a third exists as a non-fraction at all.
Binary long division will show you the sham of dividing 1 by 3. It literally cannot.
I thought of that. Most universities, especially the Ivy League, Russel Group ones, have strong implicit unwritten immunity promises. They obviously won't kick you out for admitting you were date raped but it's not actually written anywhere in most of the college/universities' actual policy because there's a vague sort of description of how enforcement works regarding those things.
This, then, means you already are on a backfoot as only very strange universities/colleges that chose to word it as such in an explicit manner in their policy are ones you can case-study to support what is happening. The likelihood is that a college/uni that made it become literally worded was already having many coming forward up to and including when it finally made it an explicit promise and therefore the stats will make it seem that nothing much changed. I also think there's barely anything to go on regarding the topic other than one by one case studies (which is severely character-count-draining). So, I don't see how I could have gone for that path without really ruining the brutality of my rebuttal and angling things further and further towards my favour.
Rounded to what placeholder?
33.33% to 2 decimal places indeed. The reason being that the 2/3 is rounded to 66.67%
Note how you had to magic up a '7' there to make the system work? That is because of the 'third that tags along' in 0.3r being a third of 1.
0.3r is not a third of 1, instead it is 0.3r followed by '03333....' followed by '0333....' infinitely so. Much like this debate, which is becoming a recurring loop, so is a third of 1 following itself again and again for the 'third of 1' never is actually put into the number at all, it doesn't exist. the number that is a third of 1 is an illusion, a lie, not even a concept but a pseudo-concept. 1 is only capable of dividing itself into all multiples of 2 that are not multiples of 3, as well being divided into as odd multiples of 5. It cannot ever be divided by multiples of 3 or prime numbers.
talk me through how you divide 1 by 11 in binary, talk me through the first step, by the fourth you'll realise your error.
That is because the pie you are dividing is not necessarily 10 / 1 / 100 / 1000 / 1mil
I was talking about 1/3
If the pie is 9 of a unit in circumference, then yeah you can divide it by 3 like that.
How would you have approached it differently as Con? Would you have raised statistics? Stats were the one and only way to defeat me, if I stuck to rhetoric and philosophy, as well as law theory of the pragmatic sense, I'd 100% win whereas I knew if I began arguing stats, it would incite him to do it too.
Then I'd get into a pickle as we'd both be in muddied waters where in practise the immunity is the norm but on paper, it's a severe minority thing of very 'literal policy written' universities that has a small pool of study that may just as easily hurt me as help me. I knew that cunning and keeping my head down was sure to keep him rallying brutally hard on a campaign to prove he cares about the victims of rape and relating that empathy to the victims of framing, where all I had to keep doing was say 'fair trial still happens, they still get accused at the very least of obstruction of justice and usually the immunity is wavered' over and over again in more intricate wording.
I learned what happens when I try to be too creative as well as too lazy (yes I used to be both of these at once in waves). I prefer my disciplined way of debating now, where I only go creative and artsy when passion is absolutely optimal (last round of this debate was definitely that, slamming the defeat home etc)
I do honestly want to know what you'd have done as Con here though, with the char limit. Would you honestly have brought out many stats R1?
If you declare 0.9r with a 9 at the end possible, then 0.0r with a 1 at the end is possible too (the difference between 0.9r9 and 1.0r0 is 0.0r1)
The reason you never can reverse engineer the 10M bullshit trick is because it's fake. It's an illusion based on pretending 0.9r is a possible number to begin with.
wrong. You cannot divide 1 by three, ever. It doesn't matter what you have, whether it's bread, dollar, anything. Never. Ever.
In poker if there is 10 in the pot to split between 3, they take the 1 from the '4' in some tables (it disappears entirely from play) or in other poker rooms it is given to the aggressor (first to bet for the allin of that split pot).
Never ever will it be split by 3 because only a bullshitter will waste their time telling to divide that. Numbers are fake when they are recurring, it is a flaw of trying to comprehend thigns in denary. In binary you can blatantly see the 1/11 is impossible but you deny that still, it never ever will compute if you try to do it.
I trust whiteflame won't edit or delete his google docs any time soon,
but if you did want to post it in a way that doesn't reveal your google account or decay over time beyond this website's lifespan, feel free to post here:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2657
Thanks a lot for the RFD, I don't know how people find 10k not-small. Had this been a 15k debate per Round I'd definitely have gone a lot more into the why's and specific data and things. I also didn't want to help Pro realise ways to defeat me, so I allowed Pro to keep going down the line he was going, so long as he agreed with me that Rape is horrific and far more terrible than taking drugs or most cases of immunity.
The statistic issue is that immunity in such cases is actually a default, it's not something that's unusual. The unusual thing is for a university to explicitly state it as a guarantee, in their policy. It's more of an unwritten rule, if you will. I didn't know whether this would help me or hurt me but felt the need to just mention it at the end as 'status quo' had been wrongly framed throughout.
Thanks again for the vote, personally I agree with your analysis entirely but you don't know maybe that I put a lot of effort into keeping myself narrow in how I attacked Pro, so that Pro would stay narrow in how he defended against me (not realising where he actually had to bolster his case).
Wrong. I will prove you and PressF4Respect so wrong right now.
Reverse engineer the 10M thing,
do it.
Start with 1.0, you never end up with the fake number 0.9r
THAT IS BECAUSE ONLY 1 is the number, 0.9r is an illusion, a fake irrational glitch in a denary.
A third has no binary possibility. You cannot divide 1 by 3, the binary value would burn your computer chip to process, it would never end being computed.
They are not white supremacists at all. Antifa and Neo-Nazi white-on-white rivalry is actually an age old rivalry (both loathe the government equally but opposite sides of it for opposite reasons).
I am a social democrat, so I have some leftist ideals I share with Antifa whereas with Neo-Nazis I share next to nothing ideologically, but both are toxic as fuck in practise.
Antifa has no idea what it's doing, it's got genuinely no clue how to go about getting a point across, that's why Trump got elected and Brexit-vote won. They are helping enough idiots assume the right-wing look like the good guys in enough places around the world that slowly we are seeing a horrific thing happen in the short-run. If they'd be more civil and cunning, like the right-wing shills are, they'd see far more victory and the world would be a better place.
If you try do do math in binary (which is the pure form of all math and numerical logic) you will realise that 1/3 doesn't exist, therefore it can't be a number.
0.3recurring is not 1/3, this is a fake thing that you're blackmailed to lie about believing in if you're intelligent enough to realise it's wrong, in order to get marks.
It's disgusting that they do this to you. 1/3 is not a number. It will be 0.3 recurring with a '033333recurring' after the 3's and then that has the same at the end of it, infinitely so.
0.3 recurring never becomes that, so it clearly can't fucking multiply by 3 to make 1.000 recurring. Instead it masquerades as 1/3 while really being 0.9999recurring / 3
That is the truth. It is why I lost the debate, because some voters can't grasp the truth, and that is always how it will be. I have learned to pick debates where I am on the side of easier truth. In time I will show to you all what a sham debating is and yet remain the best at it.
anyone can play tricks with algebra.
Let me show you an algebra trick.
X = 0.9999...9
Y = 1.000...0
Y/X = 1
X/Y =/= 1 = 0.9recurring
oh no!!!! the horror!
Y - X =/= 0 = 0.0000...1
∴ Y =/= X
There. Nothing more needs to be done.
the fault in your algebra trick is that it literally proves itself wrong, not right. You just proved that you can't have anything .9recurring, because it's an irrational number that's impossible, whereas 1.0recurring is entirely possible and rational, real etc. 0.9recurring is a fake value people pretend exists because they are enslaved to denary counting system and can't get over the fact that math is not pure logic; it's a limite format of displaying and comprehending it.
0.9recurring is a fake number, a bullshit number. It doesn't even equal itself according to your equation, LOL! Why didn't your answer say M = 0.9recurring? I wonder why.
REALLY IT'S A BAD VOTE NOW, HOW IS THAT BETTER THAN BEFORE?!!!!!!!!
NYTimes is a world renowned reliable source, I don't know wtf that vote is supposed to mean.
I have no idea what makes you think I used NYTimes twice or what makes you think I didn't quote them... I also don't understand your conduct point at all. If anything it was poor conduct for Pro to mislead you into thinking Con had to meet BoPs that they didn't, which I strongly addressed.
Here is Christen's RFD without any offsite link:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2657/post_links/113662
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2657/post_links/113663
Nothing in your infinite series calculations explains how you ever can add infinite number of things, you can't ever reach the last one to add it. It also fails to appreciate that if 0.9r is a possible constant, then so is the difference between it and 1.0r
I already covered how you cannot ever validate 0.9r as anything other than a bullshit value that doesn't even exist unless you validate that the difference between it and 1.0r is as real as it, itself.
you are saying sum of an infinite series, an infite series never can be added together, it never ends to finish the adding.
no thank you, will you look at my solid proofs (plural)? No. Then fuck off with your hypocrisy.