My quick two cents on posting in suggestions. If I don't like an idea but can't say it actively breaks something then we often meet a storm of how we should listen to members and we are too disjointed etc. So I tend not to post in suggestions that I mildly disagree with. Admittedly though it is not fair to members to have suggestions die a quiet death without staff input. Could I just ask that members refrain from using the fact that they suggested it as leverage unless they can provide evidence that a clear majority of active users want it? I mean, I don't want to push this so far as to say things should be denied unless we think they would be useful; but they take work to implement, many add to staff workload at least slightly, add ons don't always play nice and even ones that integrate cleanly now might not later, etc. So I don't want to say "sure why not?" to everything.
Please do. It sounds a bit like a problem with that video though like the aspect ratio flag is messed up.
You account for a full one of those pages by yourself, and as much as this might be getting attention now most of the site's demographic resides in time zones -8 to 0 making this 10PM to 6AM, I can virtually guarantee you that people who would want to chime in are sleeping. Regardless I'm going to sleep now so you all behave yourselves.
I fail to see what is wrong with other staff. Especially since this is slowing down some anyway I would like to suggest that we wait and let other people chime in during the day, it is the middle of the might for most of us and as we've learned before that isn't always the most representative sample.
I don't know, I mean we certainly use it but I don't have a sense that most of us use it that often. I can usually find at least one visible staff. Though I guess staff should be discouraged from using invisible,especially when they are the only one on. It might also be nice to create a general feedback type form like how we've done surveys and apps, but just an open box to send things to the staff as a whole and not specific ones. That would solve the problem of people not being on even when we aren't on. As a side note my being invisible is usually a feeble attempt to make this place less distracting so I can get to work when I've fallen way way behind on it (sorry people)
We'll there is an algebraic proof of the geometric formula. The formula applies to a series of the form Σ(a*r^n) where n starts at 0 and goes to infinity. So s = a + ar + ar^2 + ar^3.... s = a * (1 + r + r^2 + r^3....) Now lets break that apart for a moment. s = a*u u = 1 + r + r^2 + r^3.... u*r = r + r^2 + r^3 + r^4.... u - u*r = 1 u(1-r) = 1 u = 1/(1 - r) Then substitute u back in s = a (1/(1 -r)) s = a/(1 - r)
Actually I just noticed a way to do this without limits. I was stuck on n starting at 1 but I can easily change that to 0. Σ(0.9*(0.1)^n) where n starts at 0 and goes to infinity. This is a slightly different way to write the same series as above. This is a geometric series since any term after the first is a constant factor (1/10) of the previous term. And it converges because our r of 0.1 has an absolute value less than 1. So we can use the formula s=a/(1-r) where a=0.9 and r=.1 Thus s=.9/.9 So s=1
Wrong series. You want .9 + .09 + .009 + .0009... Which as Kubo said is the just the correct way to write .9999... My proof that I've been building to is just solving that series.
I don't understand this point. 1+2+3 is a very simple series that results in 6 but no number in the series was 6. Why then would a series be forced to use the number 1 to get to 1?
Brain fried from a conference today, but looking back over the thread I realized that either you were changing the subject a lot or we were just communicating badly. I would talk about 10^x and you would come back with comments about repeating single digit decimals (.11111...) And while those numbers do exist in that expression I think it is more likely that you never migrated from the greater topic to discuss the subtopic (or got really lost on the point of the subtopic)
Squeezing in one last lost before I'm off for good tonight. Not all limits are infinity. You just don't seem to like the concept of limits and most people seem to grasp that something drifts off endlessly before coming to grips with the fact that it could be going somewhere. The real limit I'm trying to make from this is that 10^-x approaches 0. We know that converges because the numbers keep decreasing but I know it will never reach -1, so it has to converge to a value greater than that. So where does it end?
It is a common misconception. The logic is reasonable, but flawed. I can show you the proof but you have yet to accept one of the axioms. Does 10^x approach infinity when x approaches infinity, or not?
I find this a bit funny (for lack of a better word). It sounds like your idea of it is the same as mine except that we differ by a single year in this case of the when. Though honestly I would have to play it by ear. If I had a kid that routinely had self harming behaviors, then obviously the natural punishment is not adequate and I would need to intervene in some form. I might end up being hands on for as long as they lived in my house, forget driving age, legal age, drinking age, or whatever other checkpoint you can think of.
1.99999... is 2 because it goes endlessly. By stopping it at any point like you have been, it fails. But is because it wasn't the original statement.
So you are denying this simply because I'm going to use it in a proof that you haven't seen but don't like the result of? That basically comes out to "the logic has to be wrong because I don't like the answer," and that is really unlike you Makaze.
I would repeatedly tell him that I think it's a bad Idea, but if he wanted to keep at it I would let him. Natural punishment. At a younger age I would be more forceful, sure. But by 15 you know what's good for you, if you want to ignore that then that is your business, I'm not gonna be holding your hand.
The range of 10^x never reaches 0, so if t (and thus y) are declared to be 0 I can pick whatever the hell real number I want and it has to be greater than 0. so if t<=0 there is no way for the original statement to be false actually. It is just a note I had to add because for the same reason that 10^x can't be <=0 you can't take the log of any number <=0 thus not making it universally true. Assuming you accept that we go back to the previous point. For any unimaginably huge number that anyone comes up with, 10^x can be bigger just by making x larger than a related number. So we've now proven that 10^x does not ever become finite as you keep moving x farther and farther in the positive direction. Furthermore you could say that as x increases endlessly 10^x is approaching a "number" that is greater than any other number. It is just like if you were standing on a plane you would be able to see a horizon, we can't tell you how many steps it takes to get to that horizon (we deem it impossible to get there) but we still see a horizon that endlessly far way. It is something that we can think about and use even if we can't actually get there.
What my third statement was trying to portray was this in more drawn out terms 10^x > y if y =1 x>0 if y =10 x>1 if y=10^50 x>50 if y=t x>log(t)for t>0; x is all real numbers for t<=0 Since all real values of t are accounted for there is no value you could declare y to be that x cannot meet it and make the original statement true.
This should be permanently in the mix
We could, it wouldn't be hard.
