tubechallenge.com

A Challenge wrote:Yes, but the claim should be for 10 weed not for 10, as there is a minuscule difference.

No there isn't. 9.9 recurring equals 10.

10-9.9 recurring equals 0.0 recurring. there's no such thing as "0 recurring... 1". The recurring bit shows that the 1 never comes, which in turn shows that there is absolutely 0 difference between the numbers.

It's simply a different way of writing the same thing.

tractakid wrote:

A Challenge wrote:Yes, but the claim should be for 10 weed not for 10, as there is a minuscule difference.

No there isn't. 9.9 recurring equals 10.

10-9.9 recurring equals 0.0 recurring. there's no such thing as "0 recurring... 1". The recurring bit shows that the 1 never comes, which in turn shows that there is absolutely 0 difference between the numbers.

It's simply a different way of writing the same thing.

Please could you not do the recurring numbers again even though I will, unless there is somebody else who thinks I shouldn't. Replies by scores on Sunday please.

I can do as I please. You're not in charge

9.9 recurring approximates to 10 but does not equal 10. At best it is - arguably - a multiple of 4.9 recurring but it certainly isn't a multiple of 5. Indeed, there is arguably an infinite number of of numbers between it and 10 making it infinitely distant from being a valid claim. 0, however, is indeed a multiple of 5, although in practice a decision to accept or reject 0 presumably has the same outcome. A big thank you to tractakid for provoking a discussion that is far more interesting than the game itself.

DavidC wrote:9.9 recurring approximates to 10 but does not equal 10. At best it is - arguably - a multiple of 4.9 recurring but it certainly isn't a multiple of 5. Indeed, there is arguably an infinite number of of numbers between it and 10 making it infinitely distant from being a valid claim. 0, however, is indeed a multiple of 5, although in practice a decision to accept or reject 0 presumably has the same outcome. A big thank you to tractakid for provoking a discussion that is far more interesting than the game itself.

Do you want me to just give tractakid 10 points or should it be -10 as with pi it was rounded to 3.14 and 9.999 recurring rounds to 10, as I have said before.

tractakid wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_gUE74YVos

Really!

You're citing Youtube clips as proof. That's even worse than citing Wikipedia.

tractakid wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TINfzxSnnIE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsOXvQn3JuE

I would be happy with no score, positive or negative. I would disagree with a positive score because in my view it isn't a valid entry. On reflection, I would disagree with a negative penalty because it would be hypocritical to round for the penalty while not allowing it as the answer. But it's not up to me - we delegate control to moderators to avoid making decisions ourselves !

DavidC wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsOXvQn3JuE

I'm hoping that smiley face means you realise it is a spoof video...

michael_churchill wrote:

tractakid wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_gUE74YVos

Really!

You're citing Youtube clips as proof. That's even worse than citing Wikipedia.

Proof? I don't need to prove it, it's mathematical fact. I was hoping the videos would help you understand why. You did watch them, right?

tractakid wrote:

michael_churchill wrote:

tractakid wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_gUE74YVos

Really!

You're citing Youtube clips as proof. That's even worse than citing Wikipedia.

Proof? I don't need to prove it, it's mathematical fact. I was hoping the videos would help you understand why. You did watch them, right?

Of course I didn't watch them - they're Youtube videos and I already know they'll be wrong!

-5² weed

Now that, I'm happy with. Equals 25, no question.

One of my pet peeves is quizzes that ask something like "What is the square root of 169?". The only TV quiz that gets it right is "Fifteen To One", where they would correctly put it as "What is the positive square root of 169?"

michael_churchill wrote:

tractakid wrote:

michael_churchill wrote:

tractakid wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_gUE74YVos

Really!

You're citing Youtube clips as proof. That's even worse than citing Wikipedia.

Proof? I don't need to prove it, it's mathematical fact. I was hoping the videos would help you understand why. You did watch them, right?

Of course I didn't watch them - they're Youtube videos and I already know they'll be wrong!

I have no words

tractakid wrote:

michael_churchill wrote:

tractakid wrote:

michael_churchill wrote:

tractakid wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_gUE74YVos

Really!

You're citing Youtube clips as proof. That's even worse than citing Wikipedia.

Proof? I don't need to prove it, it's mathematical fact. I was hoping the videos would help you understand why. You did watch them, right?

Of course I didn't watch them - they're Youtube videos and I already know they'll be wrong!

I have no words

I don't think that using Youtube videos as proof is goo but from DavidC's video, look at 1 minute 42 seconds