But, to be pedantic, it is proceeded by a minus sign and so is a negative score. I will give it anyway.michael_churchill wrote:-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?"
Tumbleweed Scores
-
A Challenge
- The Twilight Zone
- Posts: 4254
- Joined: 24 Jan 2015, 07:57
- Location: London Waterloo
Re: Tumbleweed Scores
Tumbleweed and former Nimbleweed Scorekeeper
Winner of Gumbleweeds V, VI + XI, Nimbleweeds I, III - IX + XIV and (joint with GuyBarry) winner of Timesnap
And most importantly, Former leader of Tumbleweed, and first person to 250,000
Winner of Gumbleweeds V, VI + XI, Nimbleweeds I, III - IX + XIV and (joint with GuyBarry) winner of Timesnap
And most importantly, Former leader of Tumbleweed, and first person to 250,000
- tractakid
- The Twilight Zone
- Posts: 3350
- Joined: 15 Nov 2011, 20:04
- Location: Milton Keynes
Re: Tumbleweed Scores
When was the video uploaded?A Challenge wrote:I don't think that using Youtube videos as proof is goo but from DavidC's video, look at 1 minute 42 secondstractakid wrote:I have no wordsmichael_churchill wrote:Of course I didn't watch them - they're Youtube videos and I already know they'll be wrong!tractakid wrote: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?michael_churchill wrote:Really!tractakid wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_gUE74YVos
You're citing Youtube clips as proof. That's even worse than citing Wikipedia.
*insert boasting about notable tube accomplishments here*
-
A Challenge
- The Twilight Zone
- Posts: 4254
- Joined: 24 Jan 2015, 07:57
- Location: London Waterloo
Re: Tumbleweed Scores
Actually, I don't think I can allow it, as in the rules:A Challenge wrote:But, to be pedantic, it is proceeded by a minus sign and so is a negative score. I will give it anyway.michael_churchill wrote:-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?"
-5² is an algebraic expression, however you argue it.tubeguru wrote:x must be a positive integer, and cannot be subsituted as an algebraic expression or other mathematical construct.
Just because it was published on April Foll's Day, it doesn't mean it was a spoof.tractakid wrote:When was the video uploaded?A Challenge wrote:I don't think that using Youtube videos as proof is goo but from DavidC's video, look at 1 minute 42 secondstractakid wrote:I have no wordsmichael_churchill wrote:Of course I didn't watch them - they're Youtube videos and I already know they'll be wrong!tractakid wrote: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?michael_churchill wrote:
Really!
You're citing Youtube clips as proof. That's even worse than citing Wikipedia.
Tumbleweed and former Nimbleweed Scorekeeper
Winner of Gumbleweeds V, VI + XI, Nimbleweeds I, III - IX + XIV and (joint with GuyBarry) winner of Timesnap
And most importantly, Former leader of Tumbleweed, and first person to 250,000
Winner of Gumbleweeds V, VI + XI, Nimbleweeds I, III - IX + XIV and (joint with GuyBarry) winner of Timesnap
And most importantly, Former leader of Tumbleweed, and first person to 250,000
- tubeguru
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 9190
- Joined: 30 Jan 2005, 22:08
- Location: The Twilight Zone
- Contact:
Re: Tumbleweed Scores
At this point I'm going to step in and decree that, although 0.9 recurring may or may not be equal to one, for the purposes of this game ANY CLAIM CONTAINING A DECIMAL NUMBER IS INVALID. This is stated in the rules anyway:
"x must be a positive integer, and cannot be subsituted as an algebraic expression or other mathematical construct." The key phrase here is "other mathematical construct".
I would argue that even IF 0.9 recurring is equal to one (and you can argue about it all day), then by claiming "0.9 recurring weed/bells" you are claiming one weed/bell using "another mathematical construct" other than an integer. Also, regardless of whether it's correct, it's still not a multiple of five if you claim it as weed, so it's invalid anyway.
Also, for the purposes of penalty points, the number of points lost should be ONE, and not "0.9 recurring".
"x must be a positive integer, and cannot be subsituted as an algebraic expression or other mathematical construct." The key phrase here is "other mathematical construct".
I would argue that even IF 0.9 recurring is equal to one (and you can argue about it all day), then by claiming "0.9 recurring weed/bells" you are claiming one weed/bell using "another mathematical construct" other than an integer. Also, regardless of whether it's correct, it's still not a multiple of five if you claim it as weed, so it's invalid anyway.
Also, for the purposes of penalty points, the number of points lost should be ONE, and not "0.9 recurring".
One thing only do I know, and that is that I know nothing - Socrates.
Champion of bugger all, 2004 to 2025
Member of sweet FA
Champion of bugger all, 2004 to 2025
Member of sweet FA
- tubeguru
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 9190
- Joined: 30 Jan 2005, 22:08
- Location: The Twilight Zone
- Contact:
Re: Tumbleweed Scores
Do you lot actually read the rules of this game?DavidC wrote:Your decision on 22 December implies that you are willing to accept claims involving Roman numerals (albeit an incorrect claim on that occasion). Therefore I think tracktakid would be justified in expecting credit for a claim that is a multiple of five. He significantly underclaimed, as is his right, and he is exposed to the risk of a formal ruling against Roman numerals at some point, but you have set the precedent for him to use Roman numerals. However, if tracktakid admits to a deliberate spoiler or an accidental miskey on a typewriter keyboard or the V resulting from a long press on the invalid 8 digit on a phone keypad or a finger slipping from the 5 on a phone keypad onto a long press on the adjacent 8 digit, I will happily leave that for deeper arbitration.
They state that "x must be a positive integer, and cannot be subsituted as an algebraic expression or other mathematical construct."
Roman numerals are a mathematical construct other than integers. So THEY ARE INVALID.
One thing only do I know, and that is that I know nothing - Socrates.
Champion of bugger all, 2004 to 2025
Member of sweet FA
Champion of bugger all, 2004 to 2025
Member of sweet FA
-
A Challenge
- The Twilight Zone
- Posts: 4254
- Joined: 24 Jan 2015, 07:57
- Location: London Waterloo
Re: Tumbleweed Scores
As it was 9.9 recurring that was the claim, I am assuming that the penalty in 10. I am also assuming you meant 'ANY CLAIM NOT CONTAINING A DECIMAL NUMBER IS INVALID'tubeguru wrote:At this point I'm going to step in and decree that, although 0.9 recurring may or may not be equal to one, for the purposes of this game ANY CLAIM CONTAINING A DECIMAL NUMBER IS INVALID. This is stated in the rules anyway:
"x must be a positive integer, and cannot be subsituted as an algebraic expression or other mathematical construct." The key phrase here is "other mathematical construct".
I would argue that even IF 0.9 recurring is equal to one (and you can argue about it all day), then by claiming "0.9 recurring weed/bells" you are claiming one weed/bell using "another mathematical construct" other than an integer. Also, regardless of whether it's correct, it's still not a multiple of five if you claim it as weed, so it's invalid anyway.
Also, for the purposes of penalty points, the number of points lost should be ONE, and not "0.9 recurring".
Tumbleweed and former Nimbleweed Scorekeeper
Winner of Gumbleweeds V, VI + XI, Nimbleweeds I, III - IX + XIV and (joint with GuyBarry) winner of Timesnap
And most importantly, Former leader of Tumbleweed, and first person to 250,000
Winner of Gumbleweeds V, VI + XI, Nimbleweeds I, III - IX + XIV and (joint with GuyBarry) winner of Timesnap
And most importantly, Former leader of Tumbleweed, and first person to 250,000
- tubeguru
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 9190
- Joined: 30 Jan 2005, 22:08
- Location: The Twilight Zone
- Contact:
Re: Tumbleweed Scores
Er, a decimal is a number with a decimal point in it, such as 10.5, 1.3, 0.9, etc.A Challenge wrote: I am also assuming you meant 'ANY CLAIM NOT CONTAINING A DECIMAL NUMBER IS INVALID'
Any claim which is a decimal that is not a while number is invalid, as are the ones I listed above. I suppose you could claim "10.0 bells" or "15.00000" weed. In those cases I would probably allow the claim, as the number is still a whole, round number. The point of banning decimal points is that claims can only be WHOLE NUMBERS, so people can't do silly things like claim "0.9 recurring" bells.
So no, I didn't mean what you just assumed.
One thing only do I know, and that is that I know nothing - Socrates.
Champion of bugger all, 2004 to 2025
Member of sweet FA
Champion of bugger all, 2004 to 2025
Member of sweet FA
-
A Challenge
- The Twilight Zone
- Posts: 4254
- Joined: 24 Jan 2015, 07:57
- Location: London Waterloo
Re: Tumbleweed Scores
With an essay on child labour I am supposed to be writing, I am not concentrating.tubeguru wrote:Er, a decimal is a number with a decimal point in it, such as 10.5, 1.3, 0.9, etc.A Challenge wrote: I am also assuming you meant 'ANY CLAIM NOT CONTAINING A DECIMAL NUMBER IS INVALID'
Any claim which is a decimal that is not a while number is invalid, as are the ones I listed above. I suppose you could claim "10.0 bells" or "15.00000" weed. In those cases I would probably allow the claim, as the number is still a whole, round number. The point of banning decimal points is that claims can only be WHOLE NUMBERS, so people can't do silly things like claim "0.9 recurring" bells.
So no, I didn't mean what you just assumed.
Tumbleweed and former Nimbleweed Scorekeeper
Winner of Gumbleweeds V, VI + XI, Nimbleweeds I, III - IX + XIV and (joint with GuyBarry) winner of Timesnap
And most importantly, Former leader of Tumbleweed, and first person to 250,000
Winner of Gumbleweeds V, VI + XI, Nimbleweeds I, III - IX + XIV and (joint with GuyBarry) winner of Timesnap
And most importantly, Former leader of Tumbleweed, and first person to 250,000
-
DavidC
- Zone 6
- Posts: 721
- Joined: 20 Feb 2015, 22:15
Re: Tumbleweed Scores
Hey, don't give me a hard time ! I am not the offender, not the scorer and not the moderator and frequently say that I am happy to defer to the moderator's decision !
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
First to 100000 in the 2015+ Tumbleweed contest. Winner of a few rounds of a diverse range of quizzes/games. Some decent times in alternative challenges as a fiftysomething who merely walks briskly. Briefly led All The Actons.
- tubeguru
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 9190
- Joined: 30 Jan 2005, 22:08
- Location: The Twilight Zone
- Contact:
Re: Tumbleweed Scores
I think the conclusion here is that numbers with a decimal point are not allowed, unless the resulting number is a whole number. So 15.0 is valid, as is 36.000000000000000000.
They look stupid, but I suppose they're still thee same as 15 and 36.
But "0.9 recurring" is taking the piss.
They look stupid, but I suppose they're still thee same as 15 and 36.
But "0.9 recurring" is taking the piss.
One thing only do I know, and that is that I know nothing - Socrates.
Champion of bugger all, 2004 to 2025
Member of sweet FA
Champion of bugger all, 2004 to 2025
Member of sweet FA
-
A Challenge
- The Twilight Zone
- Posts: 4254
- Joined: 24 Jan 2015, 07:57
- Location: London Waterloo
Re: Tumbleweed Scores
Does the claim of 10.0 recurring weed count as a mathematical construct, as it is the format of x.000...?tubeguru wrote:I think the conclusion here is that numbers with a decimal point are not allowed, unless the resulting number is a whole number. So 15.0 is valid, as is 36.000000000000000000.
They look stupid, but I suppose they're still thee same as 15 and 36.
But "0.9 recurring" is taking the piss.
Tumbleweed and former Nimbleweed Scorekeeper
Winner of Gumbleweeds V, VI + XI, Nimbleweeds I, III - IX + XIV and (joint with GuyBarry) winner of Timesnap
And most importantly, Former leader of Tumbleweed, and first person to 250,000
Winner of Gumbleweeds V, VI + XI, Nimbleweeds I, III - IX + XIV and (joint with GuyBarry) winner of Timesnap
And most importantly, Former leader of Tumbleweed, and first person to 250,000
- tubeguru
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 9190
- Joined: 30 Jan 2005, 22:08
- Location: The Twilight Zone
- Contact:
Re: Tumbleweed Scores
I was going to ignore that, but yeah, I suppose .00000 etc. does break that rule. OK, no decimal points at all!
One thing only do I know, and that is that I know nothing - Socrates.
Champion of bugger all, 2004 to 2025
Member of sweet FA
Champion of bugger all, 2004 to 2025
Member of sweet FA
-
michael_churchill
- Zone 6
- Posts: 880
- Joined: 26 Nov 2015, 16:30
- Location: Southampton
- Contact:
Re: Tumbleweed Scores
I'm trolling you. I do concede that 9.99999...=10, but I am serious that if you're trying to prove a point by citing Youtube videos, you've already lost the argument.tractakid wrote:I have no wordsmichael_churchill wrote:Of course I didn't watch them - they're Youtube videos and I already know they'll be wrong!tractakid wrote: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?michael_churchill wrote:Really!tractakid wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_gUE74YVos
You're citing Youtube clips as proof. That's even worse than citing Wikipedia.
My "proof" that 9.999999...=10 is that if you multiply it by 10 then you get 99.999999..., subtract the original number and the .999999... cancel each other out and you get EXACTLY 90, therefore the original number is equal to 10.
PS. -5 squared = -5 x -5 = 25
All made irrelevant by the ruling on the rules, of course.
My blog: http://diamondtittle.blogspot.co.uk
-
DavidC
- Zone 6
- Posts: 721
- Joined: 20 Feb 2015, 22:15
Re: Tumbleweed Scores
A very good point. So, despite my earlier disappointment at being in the firing line, please wait a couple of minutes and have a look at my imminent post in the rules thread.tubeguru wrote:Do you lot actually read the rules of this game?
First to 100000 in the 2015+ Tumbleweed contest. Winner of a few rounds of a diverse range of quizzes/games. Some decent times in alternative challenges as a fiftysomething who merely walks briskly. Briefly led All The Actons.
- tractakid
- The Twilight Zone
- Posts: 3350
- Joined: 15 Nov 2011, 20:04
- Location: Milton Keynes
Re: Tumbleweed Scores
Thank goodness for that...michael_churchill wrote:I do concede that 9.99999...=10
We're on an internet forum, discussing a game I strongly believe was designed simply to troll people. If posting a link to professional mathematicians talking about a basic mathematical concept isn't sufficient, I despair.michael_churchill wrote:if you're trying to prove a point by citing Youtube videos, you've already lost the argument.
Sure YouTube has a lot of trash on it, but the presence of the trash doesn't drag the quality of the good videos to its level.
*insert boasting about notable tube accomplishments here*
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests