|
ModestMouse
IM WALKIN ON SUNSHINE



Registered: 05/06/13
Posts: 19,227
Loc: Upstate
|
Re: Can we stop saying 3.141592653589 is more accurate than 3.14285714286? [Re: HatingMeIsEasier]
#22043210 - 08/04/15 05:03 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I actually used my birth year: 1994
And subtracted 4 = 1990 = modest 1990 + 1 + 1 = 1992 = mouse 2 and 4 is 24 and there's 24 hours in a day so it was destined to happen.
-------------------- Anyone got a lowpass filter in this biiiiash?
|
Boomer The Great


Registered: 10/30/14
Posts: 5,504
|
Re: Can we stop saying 3.141592653589 is more accurate than 3.14285714286? [Re: ModestMouse]
#22043221 - 08/04/15 05:05 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ModestMouse said: I actually used my birth year: 1994
And subtracted 4 = 1990 = modest 1990 + 1 + 1 = 1992 = mouse 2 and 4 is 24 and there's 24 hours in a day so it was destined to happen.
  +5
|
HatingMeIsEasier
Stranger

Registered: 05/01/15
Posts: 398
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: Can we stop saying 3.141592653589 is more accurate than 3.14285714286? [Re: ShootinD5nukes]
#22043245 - 08/04/15 05:10 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not one to give out that form of information until you have shown your loyalty through action and time.
-------------------- E I S P E M I R H E G E E I A A B B
|
ShootinD5nukes
High Voltage


Registered: 10/29/09
Posts: 1,261
Loc: East coast
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
|
Re: Can we stop saying 3.141592653589 is more accurate than 3.14285714286? [Re: HatingMeIsEasier]
#22043303 - 08/04/15 05:21 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
HatingMeIsEasier said: I'm not one to give out that form of information until you have shown your loyalty through action and time.
whatever it takes, my master.
-------------------- Nothing I write on Shroomery's message boards or in private messages are true. I am fucking crazy and I make all this shit up because I can.
Why would anyone want Mac or Windows? Windows never quits shoving updates down your throat and Mac is just so expensive for the same exact hardware that's in a PC. Go Linux.
|
ShootinD5nukes
High Voltage


Registered: 10/29/09
Posts: 1,261
Loc: East coast
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
|
Re: Can we stop saying 3.141592653589 is more accurate than 3.14285714286? [Re: ModestMouse]
#22043313 - 08/04/15 05:22 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ModestMouse said: I actually used my birth year: 1994
And subtracted 4 = 1990 = modest 1990 + 1 + 1 = 1992 = mouse 2 and 4 is 24 and there's 24 hours in a day so it was destined to happen.
I thought you were full of shit until you pointed out that there is 24 hours in a day. Your the real deal.
-------------------- Nothing I write on Shroomery's message boards or in private messages are true. I am fucking crazy and I make all this shit up because I can.
Why would anyone want Mac or Windows? Windows never quits shoving updates down your throat and Mac is just so expensive for the same exact hardware that's in a PC. Go Linux.
|
nooneman


Registered: 04/24/09
Posts: 14,561
Loc: Utah
|
Re: Can we stop saying 3.141592653589 is more accurate than 3.14285714286? [Re: HatingMeIsEasier]
#22043342 - 08/04/15 05:27 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Equations are really much better representations of numbers than decimal based approximations. This is especially evident in stuff like pi. Pi seems complicated to people who haven't learned much about math, but pi is actually as simple as any number. The vast majority of numbers are like pi in that when expressed as decimal approximations they have an infinite number of digits. Decimals are really bad at representing numbers. Take for example the fact that 0.999... = 1. That's not going to make much sense if you're used to decimal based approximation, but it's extremely simple to understand if you're used to algebra.
It's really sad that you love numbers so much but you don't want to learn even basic algebra. I think algebra would be really mind opening and a lot of fun for you.
Here's some stuff to get you started. I hope you take the time to really look into it: http://www.intmath.com/basic-algebra/basic-algebra-intro.php
|
HatingMeIsEasier
Stranger

Registered: 05/01/15
Posts: 398
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: Can we stop saying 3.141592653589 is more accurate than 3.14285714286? [Re: ShootinD5nukes]
#22043352 - 08/04/15 05:27 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
1992 is interconnected with 3.142857.
Look.
1 + 8 = 9
2 + 7 = 9
4 + 5 + 3 = 12
-------------------- E I S P E M I R H E G E E I A A B B
|
HatingMeIsEasier
Stranger

Registered: 05/01/15
Posts: 398
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: Can we stop saying 3.141592653589 is more accurate than 3.14285714286? [Re: nooneman]
#22043364 - 08/04/15 05:29 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
No, actually the decimal system is the correct system.
Check this out.
1.618 x 10 = 16.18 <--- That decimal point is obnoxiously wrong.
1.618 x 1.0 = 1.618. <--- Universal harmony.
-------------------- E I S P E M I R H E G E E I A A B B
|
nooneman


Registered: 04/24/09
Posts: 14,561
Loc: Utah
|
Re: Can we stop saying 3.141592653589 is more accurate than 3.14285714286? [Re: HatingMeIsEasier] 2
#22043373 - 08/04/15 05:31 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
No, it isn't, and if you took the time to learn algebra, you'd understand why.
|
psi
TOAST N' JAM


Registered: 09/05/99
Posts: 31,456
Loc: 613
|
Re: Can we stop saying 3.141592653589 is more accurate than 3.14285714286? [Re: nooneman]
#22043394 - 08/04/15 05:34 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah all of those "adding up the digits" tricks would produce totally different results under base 12 or base 16 or whatever. Base 10 just happens to be what we are the most used to in our culture.
|
HatingMeIsEasier
Stranger

Registered: 05/01/15
Posts: 398
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: Can we stop saying 3.141592653589 is more accurate than 3.14285714286? [Re: nooneman]
#22043410 - 08/04/15 05:36 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
If you took the time to stop using words like "algebra", which came from a garbage disposal disguised as mathematics, you'd elevate your mathematical comprehension significantly.
Allow me to demonstrate the new and improved way of dealing with decimals, as they should have been dealt with in the 400,000 years of mathematical illiteracy.
3944 / 888 = 4.44144144144
A decimal within the matrix simply breaks a number down, into many pieces.
Therefore, 3944 / 888 = 444 + 144 + 144 + 144 = 876 <--- Order.
-------------------- E I S P E M I R H E G E E I A A B B
Edited by HatingMeIsEasier (08/04/15 05:37 PM)
|
nooneman


Registered: 04/24/09
Posts: 14,561
Loc: Utah
|
Re: Can we stop saying 3.141592653589 is more accurate than 3.14285714286? [Re: HatingMeIsEasier]
#22043433 - 08/04/15 05:40 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Here's pi:

That's the entirety of pi, right there. You'll notice how it doesn't go on forever, and how everything involved is clean and simple. It's a small, simple equation, and it's a better representation of pi than decimals are physically capable of. This equation doesn't "result in pi." This equation IS PI, just as the number 1 is the number 1. It's clean, elegant, simple, and easy to understand. Compare that to the decimal based approximation which looks like a never ending series of numbers that don't appear to have much connection.
Edited by nooneman (08/04/15 05:43 PM)
|
HatingMeIsEasier
Stranger

Registered: 05/01/15
Posts: 398
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: Can we stop saying 3.141592653589 is more accurate than 3.14285714286? [Re: nooneman]
#22043455 - 08/04/15 05:45 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I will never understand why you guys keep using those damn formulas that replace numbers with symbols, where only the people who understand those symbols can understand the formulas.
I use formulas strictly naked and purely in their essential form.
Something people who use symbols cannot achieve, because those symbols are placeholders for what essentially exists beneath as the thing in itself.
I can explain Planck's Constant, or Speed of Light, or the Speed of Darkness [yes, something these wannabe scientists / mathematicians cannot do with symbols because they can't put a symbol on what they cannot see due to their intellectual capacity].
I had already showed you how to turn decimals into coherent formulas - no more bullshitting us with your falsifiable claims.
Einstein said it best, "if you can't explain it to a 7 year old, then you do not understand it enough".
Using complicated formulas is exactly why the scientific community is equivalent to that guy who thinks his dick is bigger than everyone else's - why else does science come up with those ridiculous words? Ah, yes. They are arrogant and have long forgotten the grace of teaching with simplicity.
-------------------- E I S P E M I R H E G E E I A A B B
Edited by HatingMeIsEasier (08/04/15 05:52 PM)
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,059
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 23 minutes, 38 seconds
|
Re: Can we stop saying 3.141592653589 is more accurate than 3.14285714286? [Re: HatingMeIsEasier]
#22043482 - 08/04/15 05:49 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I use formulas strictly naked
Pics or GTFO
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
nooneman


Registered: 04/24/09
Posts: 14,561
Loc: Utah
|
Re: Can we stop saying 3.141592653589 is more accurate than 3.14285714286? [Re: HatingMeIsEasier]
#22043522 - 08/04/15 05:55 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
These symbols are not any more difficult to understand than numbers like 1, 2, 3, etc. They're all part of the same thing.
You can learn how to understand these symbols, too. They're really not that difficult with a little practice. Think about it, you had to learn how to add and subject, multiply and divide once in your life too. This is just like that, just another part of math to learn.
Take that big E on the left of the equation. That means a series. A series is when you add things together over and over.
How many times do we add it together? That's specified by the number above the E looking symbol. In this case, there is an infinite sign above the E looking symbol. That means that this equation adds an infinite number of things together.
Where do we start? That's the number below. k=0, so this equation starts at 0 and adds an infinite number of things together.
What does it add together? That's to the right of the E looking thing. We are adding this equation on the right together an infinite number of times.
Why would we add the same equation together over and over? Because each time, the number k is going to have a different value. First, it's going to start at 0. Then it's going to be 1, and then 2, and so on to infinity. k is the number that changes
Is it possible to add something together an infinite number of times and end up with a finite number? The answer surprisingly is yes. This equation for instance IS the number pi. And as you know, pi is less than 4 but more than 3. This equation therefore is less than 4 but more than 3.
You can learn these things, and once you understand them they'll open up a whole new field of mathematics to you. Don't be daunted by how these things look. You can learn these equations just like you learned numbers, addition, subtraction. Whole fields of mathematics are at your disposal. Please, learn them.
|
HatingMeIsEasier
Stranger

Registered: 05/01/15
Posts: 398
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: Can we stop saying 3.141592653589 is more accurate than 3.14285714286? [Re: koods]
#22043524 - 08/04/15 05:56 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
My numbers are as naked as naked can get.
Hell, my numbers created nakedness with quantum intelligence.
-------------------- E I S P E M I R H E G E E I A A B B
|
HatingMeIsEasier
Stranger

Registered: 05/01/15
Posts: 398
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: Can we stop saying 3.141592653589 is more accurate than 3.14285714286? [Re: nooneman]
#22043558 - 08/04/15 06:01 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Why are you still attempting to exaggerate the importance of algebra, when I already taught you how to deal with decimals? Just because you are part of the algae brah club, doesn't mean you are on top of the mathematical pyramid - I am, hence why I am not responding with stuff I learned from other idiots who learned from other idiots. I am responding with my own work that I spent a lot of time assembling into one piece, so that I can explain every drop of my proposed consensuses without having to struggle to put it together on the spot.
Face it, you are mathematically brainwashed. You have no idea how backwards your system is, after I already proved you wrong with decimals by demonstrating in two ways how decimal systems are simply numbers, on a much, much higher level.
-------------------- E I S P E M I R H E G E E I A A B B
|
ShootinD5nukes
High Voltage


Registered: 10/29/09
Posts: 1,261
Loc: East coast
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
|
Re: Can we stop saying 3.141592653589 is more accurate than 3.14285714286? [Re: HatingMeIsEasier]
#22043567 - 08/04/15 06:02 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
HatingMeIsEasier said: My numbers are as naked as naked can get.
Hell, my numbers created nakedness with quantum intelligence.

Can you use your smartphone to record you and your wife explaining this please? Surely you or your "wife"(if she's real) have a smartphone.
-------------------- Nothing I write on Shroomery's message boards or in private messages are true. I am fucking crazy and I make all this shit up because I can.
Why would anyone want Mac or Windows? Windows never quits shoving updates down your throat and Mac is just so expensive for the same exact hardware that's in a PC. Go Linux.
|
psi
TOAST N' JAM


Registered: 09/05/99
Posts: 31,456
Loc: 613
|
Re: Can we stop saying 3.141592653589 is more accurate than 3.14285714286? [Re: HatingMeIsEasier]
#22043623 - 08/04/15 06:10 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
HatingMeIsEasier said: 3944 / 888 = 4.44144144144
A decimal within the matrix simply breaks a number down, into many pieces.
Therefore, 3944 / 888 = 444 + 144 + 144 + 144 = 876 <--- Order.
Quote:
3944 / 888 = 4.44144144144
The two sides of your equals sign aren't actually equal, that's just an approximation and you should instead be using a symbol like "≃". The sequence "441" really is repeated an infinite number of times after the decimal point, so if you really want to sum all those digits you get an infinite number, not 876.
3944 / 888 = 4.441 # i.e. 4.441441441441441441441441441441441441...
= 4 + (441 * 0.001)
= 4 + (441 * (1 / 999))
|
HatingMeIsEasier
Stranger

Registered: 05/01/15
Posts: 398
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: Can we stop saying 3.141592653589 is more accurate than 3.14285714286? [Re: ShootinD5nukes]
#22043643 - 08/04/15 06:14 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I do not have a phone, as I generally have been isolated by all the friends I did have when I lied to myself, pretended to be a part of the society and pretended to be "normal", whatever the fuck that is, so I have no need for a phone.
-------------------- E I S P E M I R H E G E E I A A B B
|
|