It is my opinion that repeating decimals cannot

Your opinion is incorrect as a question of definition.

I have never disagreed with the math

You had in the previous paragraph.

Is it possible to have a coversation about math without either fully agreeing or calling the other stupid?

Yes, however the problem is that you are speaking on matters that you are clearly ignorant. This isn’t a question of different axioms where we can show clearly how two models are incompatible but resolve that both are correct in their own contexts; this is a case where you are entirely, irredeemably wrong, and are simply refusing to correct yourself. I am an algebraist understanding how two systems differ and compare is my specialty. We know that infinite decimals are capable of representing real numbers because we do so all the time. There. You’re wrong and I’ve shown it via proof by demonstration. QED.

They are just symbols we use to represent abstract concepts; the same way I can inscribe a “1” to represent 3-2={ {} } I can inscribe “.9~” to do the same. The fact that our convention is occasionally confusing is irrelevant to the question; we could have a system whereby each number gets its own unique glyph when it’s used and it’d still be a valid way to communicate the ideas. The level of weirdness you can do and still have a valid notational convention goes so far beyond the meager oddities you’ve been hung up on here. Don’t believe me? Look up lambda calculus.

Did I have a stroke?

Any my argument is that 3 ≠ 0.333…

After reading this, I have decided that I am no longer going to provide a formal proof for my other point, because odds are that you wouldn’t understand it and I’m now reasonably confident that anyone who would already understands the fact the proof would’ve supported.

Wait, the mandelbrot set is two-dimensional.

OG-Wan Kenobi.

You’re welcome.

I see! Thank you for clearing that up.

Isn’t there an issue with webp where it could potentially run arbitrary code?

Whether or not copyright law has been violated is not a question of morality.

This assertion dismisses the ethical considerations often intertwined with legal principles.

No, that’s stupid. Copyright is a purely legal framework. That’s it, end of story. If you still don’t understand, reread the entire discussion.

At the risk of being pedantic, I should point out that morality doesn’t come into the question. Copyright is a matter of law, and nothing else. Personally, I don’t consider it a legitimate institution; the immorality is how companies wield it like a cudgel to entrench their control over culture.

That happened before Trump’s first term, and Biden beat Trump before 1/6. Take all that into context.

If I remember, I’ll give a formal proof when I have time so long as no one else has done so before me. Simply put, we’re not dealing with floats and there’s algorithms to add infinite decimals together from the ones place down using back-propagation. Disproving my statement is as simple as providing a pair of real numbers where doing this is impossible.

This has Animaniacs energy.

This is news just as much as any celebrity news is.

Now I’m sad because I remember wishing Bernie had won.

She’s not Trump. People would vote for her.

What, in this context, does “neutrality” mean?

Wait, .45 seems like a really low amount of water in your blood. Are we not counting the cytoplasm in the blood cells?

Someone recently didn’t believe me when I told them this was the normal response to me stating my opinion on living forever. Thank you for providing an example.

By definition, mathematics isn’t witchcraft (most witches I know are pretty bad at math). Also, I think you need to look more deeply into Occam’s razor.

I’ve played Ark, and I think the places where Palworld is most similar to it are where it’s weakest.