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.
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 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.
I can't help but notice you didn't answer the question.
each digit-wise operation must be performed in order
I'm sure I don't know what you mean by digit-wise operation, because my conceptuazation of it renders this statement obviously false. For example, we could apply digit-wise modular addition base 10 to any pair of real numbers and the order we choose to perform this operation in won't matter. I'm pretty sure you're also not including standard multiplication and addition in your definition of "digit-wise" because we can construct algorithms that address many different orders of digits, meaning this statement would also then be false. In fact, as I lay here having just woken up, I'm having a difficult time figuring out an operation where the order that you address the digits in actually matters.
Later, you bring up "incrementing" which has no natural definition in a densely populated set. It seems to me that you came up with a function that relies on the notation we're using (the decimal-increment function, let's call it) rather than the emergent properties of the objects we're working with, noticed that the function doesn't cover the desired domain, and have decided that means the notation is somehow improper. Or maybe you're saying that the reason it's improper is because the advanced techniques for interacting with the system are dissimilar from the understanding imparted by the simple techniques.
Fair, but that still uses logic, it's just using false premises. Also, more than the argument what I'd be taking seriously is the threat of imminent violence.
There's a way to prove it; we know how quickly pain signals propagate through our nerves and how quickly nukes disintegrate matter. The degree of skepticism you'd need to be uncertain about it would cause you to need to resolve solipsism before you allowed nukes to even exist. There's a certain radius within which, if you don't have sufficient shielding there's no possibility of pain. There's another smaller radius for which no amount of shielding will change the outcome.
It depends on the convention that you use, but in my experience yes; for any equivalence relation, and any metric of "approximate" within the context of that relation, A=B implies A≈B.
"Every previous president would have ended it by now."
"Biden literally couldn't do worse."
