Support NeoGAF

[Mupepe]

Click into battle.net and you'll see that half of that is already announced.

I think it was a joke

 

[krypt0nian]

I think it was a joke

Sure didn't look like one. If it was a joke, it lacked funny.

 

[Gahiggidy]

They've been bought out by Nintendo.

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Borys]

Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please no dumbed down console crap.

Crossing my fingers for this:

I love that pic

 

[Companion Cube]

Crazy thought! Maybe battle.net will become like Steam!

 

[ratcliffja]

I don't want to get my hopes up, but I would go bananas for Diablo 3.

 

[Wunderchu]

FWIW, .99_ repeating does in fact equal 1. There are many different proofs to prove it. The easiest way I usually prove it to people is to say, if .99_ repeating does not equal 1, then there has to be a number between it and 1. What number is that? That's basically what the normal proof to this says.

Another proof, says that if it's taken that 1/3 = .33_ and 3/3 = 1, then 3 * .33_ = .99_ = 1.

Just had to interject, it's one of the few times I can use my math degree on GAF.

cool, thanks for those ways to prove it

 

[Vashu]

So, a Diablo one has been added... And I've come to the agreement that Battle.net will be revamped, probably into an upgraded and expansive service.. At least, that's what I hope.

 

[Drexon]

FWIW, .99_ repeating does in fact equal 1. There are many different proofs to prove it. The easiest way I usually prove it to people is to say, if .99_ repeating does not equal 1, then there has to be a number between it and 1. What number is that? That's basically what the normal proof to this says.

Another proof, says that if it's taken that 1/3 = .33_ and 3/3 = 1, then 3 * .33_ = .99_ = 1.

Just had to interject, it's one of the few times I can use my math degree on GAF.

Muh, just a stupid math thing that only exists because we based our math system on the number 10, as in 10 fingers, instead of 12, wich is the logical choice... and that even made it to several parts of our lives, clocks.. calenders etc.

If we had 12 instead of 10, 1/3 would be 4, and 4+4+4 =12. Stupid humans and their fingers messing it all up.

Edit: Try splitting up 12 into smaller fractions... split it by 4, you get 3, by 5, you get 2.4, by 6 you get 2.. it's only when you split it by 7 you get more than 1 decimal.

 

[hiryu]

Isn't this just about the new tournament website they are doing? I thought they announced this on the forums a while ago.

 

[Joates]

Well the new ladder is supposed to be starting soon... so thats what I assume it is.

 

[borghe]

I am tired

 

[pxleyes]

Considering the globe-like object underneath the date on every splash page, it seems obvious that it is going to be a battle.net upgrade.

The only other alternative is the announcement of BOTH a world of Diablo and a world of Starcraft (fat chance).

 

[Mihail]

Muh, just a stupid math thing that only exists because we based our math system on the number 10, as in 10 fingers, instead of 12, wich is the logical choice... and that even made it to several parts of our lives, clocks.. calenders etc.

If we had 12 instead of 10, 1/3 would be 4, and 4+4+4 =12. Stupid humans and their fingers messing it all up.

Edit: Try splitting up 12 into smaller fractions... split it by 4, you get 3, by 5, you get 2.4, by 6 you get 2.. it's only when you split it by 7 you get more than 1 decimal.

???? You're still using the decimal system when you do that...

EDIT: If you were using a real 12-based system (binodecimal ?) 12 (base 10) would be represented by 10 (base 12).

So in base 12:

10 / 5 = 0.4B08....something else

 

[Squirrel Killer]

The easiest way I usually prove it to people is to say, if .99_ repeating does not equal 1, then there has to be a number between it and 1. What number is that? That's basically what the normal proof to this says.

Just because there's no number between two other numbers, doesn't mean those two numbers are equal. The presumption is false.

Another proof, says that if it's taken that 1/3 = .33_ and 3/3 = 1, then 3 * .33_ = .99_ = 1.

1/3 != .33_. The presumption is false.

Just had to interject, it's one of the few times I can use my math degree on GAF.

God, how I hate academic mathmatics.

How about this, 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10 and .9+.9+.9+.9+.9+.9+.9+.9+.9+.9=9. 1.00_ and .99_ share a similar relationship, just with a smaller difference.

 

[borghe]

1/3 != .33_. The presumption is false.

actual 1/3 = .3_ is not a presumption. That is fact. The presumption is that you can just add .3_ and .6_ and get .9_ from it. That presumption is most probably false. See above with .5_ + .6_

 

[ratcliffja]

I think the problem here is that .9999 should never exist, as any repeating number is a result of dividing something by 9, 99, 999, etc. For instance, .333~ is 3/9, .555~ is 5/9, .363636~ is 36/99, and so on. Therefore, .999~ would have to be 9/9, which most people just consider 1.

 

[Mihail]

Just because there's no number between two other numbers, doesn't mean those two numbers are equal. The presumption is false.

What? How is that a presumption? It's a logically-derived fact.

1/3 != .33_. The presumption is false.

Again, it's not a presumption. It's a fact. If you divide 1 by 3, you will get .333... and keep getting 3s forever. What makes this a presumption?

The presumption is that you can just add .3_ and .6_ and get .9_ from it. That presumption is most probably false. See above with .5_ + .6_

That's not a presumption. It's a fact. You can keep adding the 3s and the 6s forever and always get 9s. Unlike with .5_ and .6_ there's no carry over. But if there was, it would be simple:
.5_ + .6_ = 1.2_

Therefore, .999~ would have to be 9/9, which most people just consider 1.

Show me the people that don't consider that, and I'll kick their asses. And say hi to the RCB for me

 

[borghe]

Therefore, .999~ would have to be 9/9, which most people just consider 1.

but it isn't. I can see what you are saying, and I almost agree that .999_ doesn't exist. My point is that you can't add decimal representations of two repeating numbers together just because there is no number to carry.

but that is a good point that .999_ doesn't really exist. there is no way to actually come up with that number.

 

[borghe]

.5_ + .6_ = 1.2_

ummm.. .555 + .666 is 1.221. There has to be a 1 at the end so it is impossible for it to be 1.2_. Not fact. :lol

You can keep adding the 3s and the 6s forever and always get 9s.

umm.. just because you say you can doesn't make it true (or fact :lol ). You can't add repeating numbers no matter how "easy" it looks. repeating decimal representations of fractions are irrational numbers much in the way Pi is an irrational number. You can create a representation of the number and use that in mathematics, but you can't apply the actual irrational number itself (in this case the repeating decimal representation, not the fraction it was derived from) to a mathematical equation.

 

[Razoric]

errmm, so how about that Blizzard announcement? I'm thinkin a Steam like service possibly.

 

[Mihail]

ummm.. .555 + .666 is 1.221. There has to be a 1 at the end so it is impossible for it to be 1.2_. Not fact. :lol

The problem with your statement is that there is no end. It goes on to infinity, so it's 1.2_ to infinity. And that is a fact.

 

[Chony]

So... nothing has happened?

 

[Sinatar]

errmm, so how about that Blizzard announcement? I'm thinkin a Steam like service possibly.

That would rock, then they can have a huge falling out with Vivendi like Valve did and finally strike out on their own.

 

[Razoric]

That would rock, then they can have a huge falling out with Vivendi like Valve did and finally strike out on their own.

that's what I'm hoping. I'd love to see Blizzard get away from Vivendi.

 

[borghe]

The problem with your statement is that there is no end. It goes on to infinity, so it's 1.2_ to infinity. And that is a fact.

hence why you can't add irrational numbers. only a finite decimal representation or the fractional equivalent. if you try applying rational number math to actual irrational numbers you will always end up with errors. Much like .5_ + .6_ or .9_.

 

[Mihail]

So what does .5_ + .6_ equal in your point of view?

 

[borghe]

again very tired

 

[Leatherface]

as a decimal? nothing. the decimal form is an irrational equation with no answer. the correct answer is .5_ + .6_ = 11/9 or 1.11_.

and thus why it is impossible to add .3_ and .6_ even though you don't have to carry any numbers. you can't use irrational numbers in a rational equation, and you especially can't derive another irrational number from that. if you try, you will end up with a flawed number, in this case .9_ which is in fact not a real number (just like 1.222_ with a 1 at the end is not and cannot be a real number and is definitely not equal to 1.11_ which is what 5/9 + 6/9 would be).

i suck at math, so I'm gonna agree with this guy. He makes a good sounding argument anyway.

 

[Mihail]

as a decimal? nothing. the decimal form is an irrational equation with no answer. the correct answer is .5_ + .6_ = 11/9 or 1.11_.

and thus why it is impossible to add .3_ and .6_ even though you don't have to carry any numbers. you can't use irrational numbers in a rational equation, and you especially can't derive another irrational number from that. if you try, you will end up with a flawed number, in this case .9_ which is in fact not a real number (just like 1.222_ with a 1 at the end is not and cannot be a real number and is definitely not equal to 1.11_ which is what 5/9 + 6/9 would be).

Dude... don't make stuff up. This sounds silly now. You can't use irrational numbers in a rational equation? What does that mean? You can't add them? Yeah, let me call up all my ancient greek and dead european mathematician friends and tell them borghe says they were wrong all this time.

A flawed number? There's no such thing. The number either exists, or it doesn't (imaginary). There's absolutely no difference between .5_ and 5/9. They are the same thing.

.5_ + .6_ is 1.2_

Why is there no 1 at the end? Because there is no end. At every junction of 5 and 6, there is always a 5 and 6 before it which carry over 1 -- ALWAYS. That's what infinity means.

EDIT: And you don't have to be good at math to get this. Just use logic.

 

[borghe]

tired one more time

 

[Mihail]

what is 11/9? Surely not 1.22_....... so how does 11/9 = 1.11_ yet the decimal representation equal 1.22_? Two same equations end up with different numbers? Who's making stuff up?

What is .3_ + Pi? Not a rounded version but the actual number? There is no real (as in real number) answer because both are irrational numbers.

also as has already been show, .9_ isn't a real number (rational or irrational). There is no way to come to .9_ without applying mathematics to two irrational numbers.

I'll let you edit that and then I'll edit this post -- I don't want you to completely lose your math credibility

But Pi is an irrational number. Why is it irrational? Because you can't write it down in a finite form.
.3_ is a rational number. Why is it rational? Because you can write it down in a finite form.
.6_ is a rational number as well.
So is .9_

And they are all REAL numbers. They exist. The square root of -1 is not a real number. And you can even do math with it.
And 11/9 = 1.2_

Like I said, I'll edit this after you.

 

[adrockthekid]

That would rock, then they can have a huge falling out with Vivendi like Valve did and finally strike out on their own.

That'd be somewhat tough, since Blizzard is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vivendi. And I don't think that VUG is in any kind of huge rush to get rid of Bliz =P

 

[Fallout-NL]

Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please no dumbed down console crap.

Crossing my fingers for this:

I love that pic

Yeah, who did that?

And yes, im with you on the finger crossing for DIII.

 

[Leatherface]

Dude... don't make stuff up. This sounds silly now. You can't use irrational numbers in a rational equation? What does that mean? You can't add them? Yeah, let me call up all my ancient greek and dead european mathematician friends and tell them borghe says they were wrong all this time.

A flawed number? There's no such thing. The number either exists, or it doesn't (imaginary). There's absolutely no difference between .5_ and 5/9. They are the same thing.

.5_ + .6_ is 1.2_

Why is there no 1 at the end? Because there is no end. At every junction of 5 and 6, there is always a 5 and 6 before it which carry over 1 -- ALWAYS. That's what infinity means.

EDIT: And you don't have to be good at math to get this. Just use logic.

I believe him now. I change my vote.

 

[borghe]

post edit - doh.. I am tired.

anywho, it still stands though. .5_ + .6_ at some point has to have a 1 at the end of it. You can argue that it repeats, except for the fact that 5+6=11. You can't say there would never be a one because it repeats because mathematics dictates there is a 1 there.

so yeah, I am stupid about the 1.11_. but the fact remains that you still can't apply this to irrational numbers. .8_ + .8_ is another example. mathematics dictates that at some point in there there HAS to be a 6 in there but there can't be.

.3_ is a rational number. Why is it rational? Because you can write it down in a finite form.
.6_ is a rational number as well.

How can you write .3_ as a finite number IN DECIMAL NOTATION! When you do mathematics with .3_ you always do it in fractional notation, because THAT is the rational number. .3_ in decimal notation is not a rational number.

 

[Diablos]

Didn't they already talk about the WoW expansion? And that it would not be out until 2006/2007? If so, wow, what a tease this is.

 

[krypt0nian]

Not the official reveal yet since the splashes are still up but...

On October 7, we’ll be launching the new Season Three website and revealing the dates of the other qualification periods, sponsors, prizes, formats of the tournament, details about the LAN finals, and more!

This could be it, folks.

 

[Leatherface]

post edit - doh.. I am tired.

anywho, it still stands though. .5_ + .6_ at some point has to have a 1 at the end of it. You can argue that it repeats, except for the fact that 5+6=11. You can't say there would never be a one because it repeats because mathematics dictates there is a 1 there.

so yeah, I am stupid about the 1.11_. but the fact remains that you still can't apply this to irrational numbers. .8_ + .8_ is another example. mathematics dictates that at some point in there there HAS to be a 6 in there but there can't be.


How can you write .3_ as a finite number IN DECIMAL NOTATION! When you do mathematics with .3_ you always do it in fractional notation, because THAT is the rational number. .3_ in decimal notation is not a rational number.

Yeah Mhail!! Why don't you answer THAT ONE?!!!

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Starcraft2.com was recently updated a week ago according to DNS info, even though it was created seven years ago. It's owned by Blizzard.

I still expect it to just be a round of announcements about new game tournaments and ladder seasons or an upgrade to how B.net works.

 

[borghe]

and for the record no I am not saying 11/9 should have a one at the end. I am describing the flaw with using repeating decimals in rational mathematics.

But for the record, show me any other way to come to the result of .9_ without using irrational decimal representations in an equation.

 

[Mihail]

Notation is just notation. It doesn't change the value of the number, and the value is what decides whether or not it's rational. I didn't say .3_ is finite. I said it can be written in finite notation, which I admit is a silly way of phrasing it. What I meant is that I can properly express the value of the number without writing forever. I can't do that with Pi... I have to write forever in order to express its correct value. That's the property of an irrational number.

I think you are confusing real and imaginary (not real), rational and irrational... Imaginary is something we haven't touched and have no reason to touch in this topic. Rational just means that the number is the quotient of 2 whole numbers -- that's all it means. Irrational means that it's not the quotient of 2 whole numbers. Since .3_ is the quotient of 1 and 3, it's a rational number.

And mathematics most certainly do not dictate that there has to be a 1 at the end of .5_ + .6_
In fact, mathematics prohibit there from being a 1 at the end, because the concept of inifinity tells us that there will ALWAYS be a 1 to carry over and make it 1.22222_ forever.

But for the record, show me any other way to come to the result of .9_ without using irrational decimal representations in an equation.

Well, that's the problem... you think that rational numbers are irrational. So I can do it with rational numbers but you will think they are irrational. Let me try anyway:

Let x = 0.999... (I'll use the ... instead of the _ )
10x = 9.999...
10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999...
9x = 9 (I subtracted one set of .999... to get rid of the other one, right?)
x = 1 (which equals 0.999... from the original equation)

 

[Razoric]

"Liu Kang Baking A Pie" :lol :lol :lol

 

[borghe]

Notation is just notation. It doesn't change the value of the number, and the value is what decides whether or not it's rational. I didn't say .3_ is finite. I said it can be written in finite notation, which I admit is a silly way of phrasing it. What I meant is that I can properly express the value of the number without writing forever. I can't do that with Pi... I have to write forever in order to express its correct value. That's the property of an irrational number.

I think you are confusing real and imaginary (not real), rational and irrational... Imaginary is something we haven't touched and have no reason to touch in this topic. Rational just means that the number is the quotient of 2 whole numbers -- that's all it means. Irrational means that it's not the quotient of 2 whole numbers. Since .3_ is the quotient of 1 and 3, it's a rational number.

And mathematics most certainly do not dictate that there has to be a 1 at the end of .5_ + .6_
In fact, mathematics prohibit there from being a 1 at the end, because the concept of inifinity tells us that there will ALWAYS be a 1 to carry over and make it 1.22222_ forever.

no, actually there will never be a one to carry over because the correct way to derive 1.22_ is to divide 9 into 11. There can't always be a one to carry over BECAUSE of infinity. For addition to work we have to add right to left. But in theory there is no right with inifinity. So how can you do proper addition with .5_ and .6_ if there is no right to start from?

We are essentially arguing semantics here, but the fault is in the semantics. You cannot apply traditional mathematics to these decimal representations. Even your "sum" is the result of doing the actual division as you have no way to actually perform addition on the two numbers as there is no end to begin with.

though you still haven't answered a way to come up with .9_ besides applying addition to two repeating numbers.

 

[Mihail]

though you still haven't answered a way to come up with .9_ besides applying addition to two repeating numbers.

How about subtraction, not of 2 numbers, but of the same number? Surely, even if you don't like an infinitely expressed number you can say that it's equal to itself (this was edited into my previous post):

Let x = 0.999... (I'll use the ... instead of the _ )
10x = 9.999...
10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999...
9x = 9 (I subtracted one set of .999... to get rid of the other one, right?)
x = 1 (which equals 0.999... from the original equation)

 

[Drexon]

???? You're still using the decimal system when you do that...

EDIT: If you were using a real 12-based system (binodecimal ?) 12 (base 10) would be represented by 10 (base 12).

So in base 12:

10 / 5 = 0.4B08....something else

Screwed up. I suck at math to be honest, I just overheard my math teacher rambling about the... that system I talked about being a much better system to go by, practically. But not now though, we're too deep in so to speak.

But imo it seems logical. Although we don't use 12 as the 'main' number, it seems that the problem discussed in this thread wouldn't exist, as "1/3" of 1 would only exist in numbers lower than 1, and not apply to any of the numbers above 1. I dunno though.

Edit: Just read trough that once more... DON'T HIT ME! :lol

 

[borghe]

How about subtraction, not of 2 numbers, but of the same number? Surely, even if you don't like an infinitely expressed number you can say that it's equal to itself (this was edited into my previous post):

Let x = 0.999... (I'll use the ... instead of the _ )
10x = 9.999...
10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999...
9x = 9 (I subtracted one set of .999... to get rid of the other one, right?)
x = 1 (which equals 0.999... from the original equation)

but again this assumes that you can use the infinitely repeating decimal notation in standard mathematics. you subtract from the right just like you add from the right, but in your subtraction there is no right to begin subtracting from. what is 1.444... - .888..? The correct answer is .555... but you have no way to come to that number without resorting to the actual division of the fractional notation because you have no right side to start with. and if you did have a right side to start with, there would have to be a 6 at some point. there isn't a six because you have no right side to the equation.

edit - and when I say right side I am referring to writing it the long way. as in:

1.4444...
-.8888...
------------
.5555...

 

[Leatherface]

I think you guys should have a knife fight in the name of mathmatics!!1!!

 

[johns all like]

but again this assumes that you can use the infinitely repeating decimal notation in standard mathematics. you subtract from the right just like you add from the right, but in your subtraction there is no right to begin subtracting from. what is 1.444... - .888..? The correct answer is .555... but you have no way to come to that number without resorting to the actual division of the fractional notation because you have no right side to start with. and if you did have a right side to start with, there would have to be a 6 at some point. there isn't a six because you have no right side to the equation.

edit - and when I say right side I am referring to writing it the long way. as in:

1.4444...
-.8888...
------------
.5555...

ok you're wrong, the other guy was right. this is a basic math trick thingy. just give up or your brain is gonna hurt.

and the .99999 on the right side is written there instead of writing -x. The equation is balanced.

 

[cvkpaladin]

Well, here is another proof:

1) 1/3 = 0.333...

2) 1/3 * 3 = 0.333... * 3

3) 1 = 0.999...

Ofcourse, someone might come in and say "0.333... * 3 != 0.999..." and to them I say NI!