Not the specific content of your arguments no, I'm trying to determine what the context of the debate is.
Is it: "Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need." is [insert specific moral theory here]
Or is it: Any moral theory that includes "Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need." as a precept is incorrect?
What's the measure of "morality" here? If you are asking if there is at least one system of morality that makes this an obligation, that's an automatic decision. I think we can agree that, out of all the systems of morality, at least one of them says Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.
On the flip side, if you are asking if all systems of morality have this as a requirement, that's also an automatic decision. I also think we can agree that there is at least one system that *doesn't* say Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.
Or is the assumption here that there is some sort of intrinsic, objective morality that exists and we are arguing whether or not "Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need" is part of that system?
You are not wrong. I get frustrated at these debates because, in most of them, even the "right" side of the debate seems to lack a fundamental understanding of mathematics.
It all boils down to what the decimal representation of a number even means. Each digit represents some multiple of a power of ten. The multiple is equal to the value of the digit at that place. The power of ten is dependent on that digits location relative to the decimal point, starting with 10^0 with the digit immediately to the left of the decimal point and increasing by one as you move left and decreasing by one as you move to the right. Thus any decimal representation can be expanded into a series as follows:
In either case of 0.999... or ...999.0 we have an infinite series. In the former case, the infinite series is equal to:
9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + 9/10000 ...
Each term gets smaller and smaller and this series converges on a single value. Unsurprisingly, this series converges on (and is therefore equal to) 1. For the latter case however, we have:
9 + 90 + 900 + 9000 ...
Each term gets larger and larger and this series diverges. It means that its sum has no value (not even infinity). It just doesn't make mathematical sense to say that the sum of the series even exists.
I acknowledge that. I'm simply stating that the definition you laid out isn't the definition in the link. You made a substitution which is not called out which means someone may accept the debate on false pretenses. It's deceptive. You should spell it out explicitly: e.g.:
god - a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/god
being - existence
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/being
It is misleading to make that substitution without explicitly stating it in the acceptance conditions of the debate. If you are going to write out a definition then link to it, the written out definition should be taken from that link verbatim.
"Being" has 3 definitions (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/being) and you have not established that #1 is the appropriate substitution as opposed to any of the others (#3, for example). Is this something you're prepared to explain in the debate, or is it an expectation that whoever accepts this debate accepts this implicit substitution?
"You think that you can change the meanings of things written in the past by changing the way words are understood today."
No, that isn't what I'm getting at here.
"Well, there are a continuity of writings stretching back thousands of years spanning multiple languages. I know what my God is."
Ok, but do you know how dictionaries work?
"And I know your veiled ploy to undermine the dictionary's authority when it comes to the defining of terms is a waste of time, because it doesn't change what I'm saying."
"Con should have waited to engage with the arguments given for my two axioms in his rebuttals rather than declare that I arbitrarily made them up."
I wasn't making a comment about your specific arguments because I was under the impression that I was only making an opening argument, not rebuttals. My statement was about rationalism in general, not about your specific arguments.
I'm not interested in a semantics debate. The statement is an inherently mathematical one. If you are not interested in addressing it within that context, then the conversation is over. Let me know what the case is.
"8/9 is finite."
"0.8888(r) is hypothetically infinite."
All numbers are "finite" because "infinity" isn't a number. The second number would require an infinite number of digits to represent in written form, but we needn't worry about that because we have the appropriate symbols (r) to account for those infinite digits.
"While I am willing to grant you they are practically identical, even functionally identical, but they are not perfectly identical."
Incorrect.
"There is an infinitesimal difference of 0.0000(r)1, which is a non-zero value."
It isn't a value. It isn't a number.
"You are making an axiomatic equivocation, which is fine, but logically, this is the same as a bald assertion or an appeal to dogma."
Whatever you call it is part of mathematics and that is the domain in which this resolution is being stated. If you dismiss it, you aren't talking about math anymore and you are off topic.
"While 0.8888(r) may be a very very very very very very close approximation of 8/9, it is not identical."
Then this is the problem. Mathematically 0.8888(r) isn't an approximation of 8/9, it is equal to 0.8888(r) exactly. They are different written representations of the exact same number. If you disagree, then I wonder what you say the answer to 0.8888(r) + 1/9 equals.
Now, I'm not saying you can't construct a form of mathematics that denies this, but it isn't the same mathematics that is in use today. This isn't a "precision" problem or a "flaw" of the decimal system.
"Focus on the actual debate resolution and not the supporting arguments." Also, I find it funny you accuse me of being a broken record when I hadn't even said it as many times as you had yet.
If you agree that this response is annoying and non-productive, then perhaps we can proceed with an actual discussion of the topic. If you disagree, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to stick to the debate resolution, please.
Your question is off-topic. You seem to have abandoned the debate resolution. Stick to the debate resolution, please. The debate resolution doesn't say anything about 0.8888888888(r) or 0.1111111111111(r).
Well, you seem to be having problems with the more complex aspects of this equality so I was trying to break it down to a simple enough level that you could deal with it. But you don't seem at all interested in figuring out why the resolution is true, and just want to spout of stuff about stuff that doesn't exist.
If you are actually interested in learning why 0.999(r) does equal 1, shoot me a PM. But you have to be prepared to address specific points or answer simple questions, rather than just blanket ignoring them here.
Because the difference between 1.0000(r) and 0.9999(r) would be 0.0000(r)00001 (That is, an infinite number of zeros followed by a 1 - an absurdity) while the difference between 0.9999(r) and 0.8888(r) is simply 0.1111(r).
And this is all consistent:
0.8888(r) is 8/9 in fractional form.
0.1111(r) is 1/9 in fractional form.
Why did you ping me?
define: morally perfect
If that's the case then what is the debate even about? It's an objective fact whether or not weed is legal in a given legal code.
But it's like arguing "Weed is illegal." In some legal codes it is in some legal codes it isn't.
Not the specific content of your arguments no, I'm trying to determine what the context of the debate is.
Is it: "Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need." is [insert specific moral theory here]
Or is it: Any moral theory that includes "Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need." as a precept is incorrect?
But what's the counter? That it isn't a moral obligation within that theory or that theory shouldn't be selected in the first place?
What's the measure of "morality" here? If you are asking if there is at least one system of morality that makes this an obligation, that's an automatic decision. I think we can agree that, out of all the systems of morality, at least one of them says Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.
On the flip side, if you are asking if all systems of morality have this as a requirement, that's also an automatic decision. I also think we can agree that there is at least one system that *doesn't* say Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.
Or is the assumption here that there is some sort of intrinsic, objective morality that exists and we are arguing whether or not "Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need" is part of that system?
You are not wrong. I get frustrated at these debates because, in most of them, even the "right" side of the debate seems to lack a fundamental understanding of mathematics.
It all boils down to what the decimal representation of a number even means. Each digit represents some multiple of a power of ten. The multiple is equal to the value of the digit at that place. The power of ten is dependent on that digits location relative to the decimal point, starting with 10^0 with the digit immediately to the left of the decimal point and increasing by one as you move left and decreasing by one as you move to the right. Thus any decimal representation can be expanded into a series as follows:
abc = a(10^2) + b(10^1) + c(10^0)
Example:
192 = 1(10^2) + 9(10^1) + 2(10^0) = 1(100) + 9(10) + 2(1) = 100 + 90 + 2 = 192
In either case of 0.999... or ...999.0 we have an infinite series. In the former case, the infinite series is equal to:
9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + 9/10000 ...
Each term gets smaller and smaller and this series converges on a single value. Unsurprisingly, this series converges on (and is therefore equal to) 1. For the latter case however, we have:
9 + 90 + 900 + 9000 ...
Each term gets larger and larger and this series diverges. It means that its sum has no value (not even infinity). It just doesn't make mathematical sense to say that the sum of the series even exists.
There are two components here: PR petitioning for statehood and the US accepting. Which are you arguing for?
Man, how do I always miss these slam dunk debates.
Wow. I took quite the hit to my ELO and I imagine you got quite the bump. You're welcome.
I acknowledge that. I'm simply stating that the definition you laid out isn't the definition in the link. You made a substitution which is not called out which means someone may accept the debate on false pretenses. It's deceptive. You should spell it out explicitly: e.g.:
god - a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/god
being - existence
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/being
It is misleading to make that substitution without explicitly stating it in the acceptance conditions of the debate. If you are going to write out a definition then link to it, the written out definition should be taken from that link verbatim.
"Being" has 3 definitions (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/being) and you have not established that #1 is the appropriate substitution as opposed to any of the others (#3, for example). Is this something you're prepared to explain in the debate, or is it an expectation that whoever accepts this debate accepts this implicit substitution?
I didn't find the cited definition of god in the provided link.
Sure
"I gave you the definition of definition."
That isn't what I asked.
"You think that you can change the meanings of things written in the past by changing the way words are understood today."
No, that isn't what I'm getting at here.
"Well, there are a continuity of writings stretching back thousands of years spanning multiple languages. I know what my God is."
Ok, but do you know how dictionaries work?
"And I know your veiled ploy to undermine the dictionary's authority when it comes to the defining of terms is a waste of time, because it doesn't change what I'm saying."
LOL, What "authority"?
I wasn't making an argument? I was asking how you think dictionaries work.
This comment wasn't particularly charitable.😂
Let me know when you have an answer, rather than an evasion.
Where do you think definitions come from?
Uhh... what?
I'm sure it'd be amusing to hear how YOU think a dictionary works.
Sorry, the mods are intent on making this DDO 2.0.
Oh, well you didn't specify that you are the sole arbiter of what is better. Maybe lead with that next time.
Green Eggs and ham, using only only 50 distinct words, has sold better than any rap record.
Dr. Seuss
Meh, I forgot round 5 was the closing argument. The structure of this debate was confusing.
No: 4.9999r rounds.
"Con should have waited to engage with the arguments given for my two axioms in his rebuttals rather than declare that I arbitrarily made them up."
I wasn't making a comment about your specific arguments because I was under the impression that I was only making an opening argument, not rebuttals. My statement was about rationalism in general, not about your specific arguments.
Do I just do opening argument, or rebuttals as well?
I'm not interested in a semantics debate. The statement is an inherently mathematical one. If you are not interested in addressing it within that context, then the conversation is over. Let me know what the case is.
"8/9 is finite."
"0.8888(r) is hypothetically infinite."
All numbers are "finite" because "infinity" isn't a number. The second number would require an infinite number of digits to represent in written form, but we needn't worry about that because we have the appropriate symbols (r) to account for those infinite digits.
"While I am willing to grant you they are practically identical, even functionally identical, but they are not perfectly identical."
Incorrect.
"There is an infinitesimal difference of 0.0000(r)1, which is a non-zero value."
It isn't a value. It isn't a number.
"You are making an axiomatic equivocation, which is fine, but logically, this is the same as a bald assertion or an appeal to dogma."
Whatever you call it is part of mathematics and that is the domain in which this resolution is being stated. If you dismiss it, you aren't talking about math anymore and you are off topic.
"While 0.8888(r) may be a very very very very very very close approximation of 8/9, it is not identical."
Then this is the problem. Mathematically 0.8888(r) isn't an approximation of 8/9, it is equal to 0.8888(r) exactly. They are different written representations of the exact same number. If you disagree, then I wonder what you say the answer to 0.8888(r) + 1/9 equals.
Now, I'm not saying you can't construct a form of mathematics that denies this, but it isn't the same mathematics that is in use today. This isn't a "precision" problem or a "flaw" of the decimal system.
Mathematically. 8/9 = 0.8888(r). Literally. Exactly. Precisely.
Do you assert that 8/9 =/= 0.8888(r) and that 1/9 =/= 0.1111(r)?
And what does 8/9 + 1/9 equal?
Ok. I'll bite.
What does 0.8888888888(r) + 0.1111111111111(r) equal?
In your own words:
"Focus on the actual debate resolution and not the supporting arguments." Also, I find it funny you accuse me of being a broken record when I hadn't even said it as many times as you had yet.
If you agree that this response is annoying and non-productive, then perhaps we can proceed with an actual discussion of the topic. If you disagree, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to stick to the debate resolution, please.
Your question is off-topic. You seem to have abandoned the debate resolution. Stick to the debate resolution, please. The debate resolution doesn't say anything about 0.8888888888(r) or 0.1111111111111(r).
Stick to the debate resolution, please.
Stick to the debate resolution, please.
"Therefore, "1 and .999 repeating are the same quantity. Exactly equal." is false."
Prove it.
Stick to the debate resolution, please.
Stick to the debate resolution, please.
Well, you seem to be having problems with the more complex aspects of this equality so I was trying to break it down to a simple enough level that you could deal with it. But you don't seem at all interested in figuring out why the resolution is true, and just want to spout of stuff about stuff that doesn't exist.
If you are actually interested in learning why 0.999(r) does equal 1, shoot me a PM. But you have to be prepared to address specific points or answer simple questions, rather than just blanket ignoring them here.
You didn't answer the question.
True or false:
1/3 x 3 = 1?
"0.0000(r)00001 will always be a quantifiable non-zero difference.
0.0000(any)00001 will always be a quantifiable non-zero difference."
Those are not quantifiable non-zero differences. Those aren't numbers.
Which of the following do you think are wrong?
A) 8/9 = 0.8888(r)
B) 1/9 = 0.1111(r)
C) 8/9 + 1/9 = 9/9 = 1
D) 0.8888(r) + 0.1111(r) = 0.9999(r)
E) 0.8888(r) + 0.1111(r) = 1
Neither "0.0000(inDEfinite)10000000(r)" nor "1.0000(inDEfinite)999999999(r)" are valid numbers.
I've posted several proofs and you're just ignoring them. Which of the following do you think are wrong?
A) 8/9 = 0.8888(r)
B) 1/9 = 0.1111(r)
C) 8/9 + 1/9 = 9/9 = 1
D) 0.8888(r) + 0.1111(r) = 0.9999(r)
E) 0.8888(r) + 0.1111(r) = 1
Because the difference between 1.0000(r) and 0.9999(r) would be 0.0000(r)00001 (That is, an infinite number of zeros followed by a 1 - an absurdity) while the difference between 0.9999(r) and 0.8888(r) is simply 0.1111(r).
And this is all consistent:
0.8888(r) is 8/9 in fractional form.
0.1111(r) is 1/9 in fractional form.
8/9 + 1/9 = 9/9 = 1
0.8888(r) + 0.1111(r) = 0.9999(r) = 1.0000(r)
x = 0.9999(r)
10x = 9.9999(r)
10x - x = 9.9999(r) - 0.9999(r)
9x = 9
x = 1