tubechallenge.com

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?"

But, to be pedantic, it is proceeded by a minus sign and so is a negative score. I will give it anyway.

A Challenge wrote:

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

When was the video uploaded?

A Challenge wrote:

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?"

But, to be pedantic, it is proceeded by a minus sign and so is a negative score. I will give it anyway.

Actually, I don't think I can allow it, as in the rules:

tubeguru wrote:x must be a positive integer, and cannot be subsituted as an algebraic expression or other mathematical construct.

-5² is an algebraic expression, however you argue it.

tractakid wrote:

A Challenge wrote:

tractakid wrote:

michael_churchill wrote:

tractakid wrote:

michael_churchill wrote:
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

When was the video uploaded?

Just because it was published on April Foll's Day, it doesn't mean it was a spoof.

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".

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.

Do you lot actually read the rules of this game?

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.

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".

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'

A Challenge wrote: I am also assuming you meant 'ANY CLAIM NOT CONTAINING A DECIMAL NUMBER IS INVALID'

Er, a decimal is a number with a decimal point in it, such as 10.5, 1.3, 0.9, etc.

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.

tubeguru wrote:

A Challenge wrote: I am also assuming you meant 'ANY CLAIM NOT CONTAINING A DECIMAL NUMBER IS INVALID'

Er, a decimal is a number with a decimal point in it, such as 10.5, 1.3, 0.9, etc.

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.

With an essay on child labour I am supposed to be writing, I am not concentrating.

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

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.

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.

Does the claim of 10.0 recurring weed count as a mathematical construct, as it is the format of x.000...?

I was going to ignore that, but yeah, I suppose .00000 etc. does break that rule. OK, no decimal points at all!

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'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.

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.

tubeguru wrote:Do you lot actually read the rules of this game?

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.

michael_churchill wrote:I do concede that 9.99999...=10

Thank goodness for that...

michael_churchill wrote:if you're trying to prove a point by citing Youtube videos, you've already lost the argument.

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.

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.