I think there’s a couple of people around with collective OCD that just can’t stand metaphor.

Jokes aside, and not being a sociologist, I do think it’s a good distinction because PTSD implies a maladaptive reaction to trauma, and communities, just like individuals, can process their trauma well or they can mess it up.

I get that ever model is wrong, but some are useful.

There is nothing wrong about decimal notation. It is correct. There’s also nothing wrong about Roman numerals… they’re just awkward AF.

Basic decimal notation doesn’t work well with some things, and insinuates incorrect answers.

You could just as well argue that fractional notation “insinuates” that 1/3 + 1/3 = 2/6. You could argue that 8 + 8 is four because that’s four holes there. Lots of things that people can consider more intuitive than the intended meaning. Don’t get me started on English spelling.

Terms.

There! Syntax. We went over this. Seriously, we did, and, no, I got the last word.

I suggest you check some Maths textbooks, instead of listening to a Physics major.

I can check any textbook from any discipline. You know what? I could even ask my school teachers. Because I’m not American and I wasn’t taught shit that doesn’t match up with what professionals are doing.

You’re just another yank drunk on jingoism, “We do it like that, therefore, it is right”.

You had the option to not double down and didn’t take it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLCDca6dYpA

…oh wait I remember that Unicody user name. It’s you. Didn’t I already explain to you the difference between syntax and semantics until you gave up. I suggest we don’t do it again but instead, you review the thread.

Yes, you killed it.

Wait, let me try:

The earth is flat!

See how funny I am?

Really, you did it. You really did it. You killed humour so dead it’s not even working for me, any more.

Also it’s not like “getting food is easier” is the only hypothesis out there as to why we settled down. Another one, IMO much more in line with human nature, is that we figured out how to ferment beer and for that reason planted buttloads of grain.

Ackchyually… that’s completely wrong. Frighteningly so, I might add, where has basic education gone.

Ultrasound are mechanical waves, light is EM radiation. Really slow light is infrared. Really fast ultrasound is… even more ultra ultrasound. Slower ultrasound would be this.

If you’re taking photos on a nude beach in Europe you’re getting decked. Kid, adult, doesn’t matter.

There’s a massive fucking difference between sitting naked in a sauna with other naked people and sitting on public transit, fully dressed, gossiping about non-consensual nudes of children. How is that even a question. How are you capable of equating those things.

Help them remove the stigma around their bodies and sex, and empower them to speak and be heard when something they don’t like happens.

This. So much this. If auntie wants to give them a kiss and they don’t want to get slobbered then tough fucking luck auntie, I’ll back the little shits up when they bite you. Predators are, by and large, able to do what they do because people don’t teach kids that they do, in fact, have bodily autonomy.

And while I’m at it bodily autonomy of kids also implies that parents don’t parade photos around like some fucking trophy or something. Have some basic fucking regard for your own kids and what they want. How would you feel when they’re showing nude pictures of you to their classmates yeah I thought so.

Simlocks have completely vanished from the market at least here in Germany, mostly because carriers don’t care if you use your subsidised bonus phone with a different card – you’re still locked into a contract with two years or such minimum duration. Even those contracts have gotten rare though I think most people right-out own their phones and then make a separate contract.

Not just any colours but the ones of the German deck: Diamonds are orange because bells are orange, and spades are green because leaves are green. Also spades and leaves look almost identical anyway. Hearts are the same, and acorns become clubs.

And just to be pedantic: It’s not the “tournament deck”, it’s specifically the tournament deck for Skat, adopted when the East and German leagues reunified to avoid confusion. You’ll be hard-pressed to get your hands on a 6 or below in those colours because Skat uses 32 cards.

I do think it’s a good idea in general, though.

0.999… = 1 requires more advanced algebra in a pointed argument,

You’re used to one but not the other. You convinced yourself that because one is new or unacquainted it is hard, while the rest is not. The rule I mentioned Is certainly easier that 2x/x that’s actual algebra right there.

It’s as if all math must be regarded as infinitely perfect, and any unbelievers must be cast out to the pyre of harsh correction

Why, yes. I totally can see your point about decimal notation being awkward in places though I doubt there’s a notation that isn’t, in some area or the other, awkward, and decimal is good enough. We’re also used to it, that plays a big role in whether something is judged convenient.

On the other hand 0.9999… must be equal to 1. Because otherwise the system would be wrong: For the system to be acceptable, for it to be infinitely perfect in its consistency with everything else, it must work like that.

And that’s what everyone’s saying when they’re throwing “1/3 = 0.333… now multiply both by three” at you: That 1 = 0.9999… is necessary. That it must be that way. And because it must be like that, it is like that. Because the integrity of the system trumps your own understanding of what the rules of decimal notation are, it trumps your maths teacher, it trumps all the Fields medallists. That integrity is primal, it’s always semantics first, then figure out some syntax to support it (unless you’re into substructural logics, different topic). It’s why you see mathematicians use the term “abuse of notation” but never “abuse of semantics”.

The teacher couldn’t possibly fathom marking “mega” right for students who had only context from the classroom and also marking “yotta” right for students who had done independent research.

That is child abuse. Literally. The way my teachers worked, presumably because they learned how to deal with the situation when actually studying pedagogics (a thing we require of teachers here) is to give an extra point because you want to encourage kids to figure things out on their own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewriting

…if that’s too heady do note that if you have a heap of four marshmallows and a heap of five marshmallows then that’s the same as having a heap of five marshmallows and a heap of four marshmallows. To have a heap of nine marshmallows, you first have to turn them into a single heap. That’s reducing the number of heaps from two to one and that’s a hand-wavy way to justify the term.

That’s like asking a fusion researcher whether the reactor needs to reach 100 million Celsius or Kelvin, isn’t it.

Or signed integers because overflow is undefined. It could do the left-hand computation in two’s complement and the right hand in sign-magnitude, leading to different results. Or, as it’s undefined, it could brew you some coffee and serve it with an aspirin.

This is the flawed system, there is no method by which 0.999… can become 1 in here.

Of course there is a method. You might not have been taught in school but you should blame your teachers for that, and noone else. The rule is simple: If you have a nine as repeating decimal, replace it with a zero and increment the digit before that.

That’s it. That’s literally all there is to it.

My issue lies entirely with people who use algebraic or better logic to fight an elementary arithmetic issue.

It’s not any more of an arithmetic issue than 2/6 == 1/3: As I already said, you need an additional normalisation step. The fundamental issue is that rational numbers do not have unique representations in the systems we’re using.

And, in fact, normalisation in decimal representation is way easier, as the only case to worry about is indeed the repeating nine. All other representations are unique while in the fractional system, all numbers have infinitely many representations.

Instead of telling those people they’re wrong, focus on the flaws of the tools they’re using.

Maths teachers are constantly wrong about everything. Especially in the US which single-handedly gave us the abomination that is PEMDAS.

Instead of blaming mathematicians for talking axiomatically, you should blame teachers for not teaching axiomatic thinking, of teaching procedure instead of laws and why particular sets of laws make sense.

That method I described to get rid of the nines is not mathematical insight. It teaches you nothing. You’re not an ALU, you’re capable of so much more than that, capable of deeper understanding that rote rule application. Don’t sell yourself short.

EDIT: Bijective base-10 might be something you want to look at. Also, I was wrong, there’s way more non-unique representations: 0002 is the same as 2. Damn obvious, that’s why it’s so easy to overlook. Dunno whether it easily extends to fractions can’t be bothered to think right now.

The problem goes away easily once we understand the limits of the decimal system, but we need to state that the system is limited!

But the system is not limited: It has a representation for any rational number. Subjectively you may consider it inelegant, you may consider its use in some area inconvenient, but it is formally correct and complete.

I bet there’s systems where rational numbers have unique representations (never looked into it), and I also bet that they’re awkward AF to use in practice.

This is a workaround of the decimal flaw using algebraic logic.

The representation has to reflect algebraic logic, otherwise it would indeed be flawed. It’s the algebraic relationships that are primary to numbers, not the way in which you happen to put numbers onto paper.

And, honestly, if you can accept that 1/3 == 2/6, what’s so surprising about decimal notation having more than one valid representation for one and the same number? If we want our results to look “clean” with rational notation we have to normalise the fraction from 2/6 to 1/3, and if we want them to look “clean” with decimal notation we, well, have to normalise the notation, from 0.999… to 1. Exact same issue in a different system, and noone complains about.

By definition, all sufficiently advanced mathematics is isomorphic to witchcraft. (*vaguely gestures at numerology as proof*). Also Occam’s razor has never been robust against reductionism: If you are free to reduce “equal explanatory power” to arbitrary small tunnel vision every explanation becomes permissible, and taking, of those, the simplest one probably doesn’t match with the holistic view. Or, differently put: I think you need to look more broadly onto Occam’s razor :)