Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Actually, it can be proven that 2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2.

Actually it can't due to the continuum hypothesis nothing in maths can (at this moment in time) be proven at all.

FlingitNow wrote:

Actually, it can be proven that 2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2.

Actually it can't due to the continuum hypothesis nothing in maths can (at this moment in time) be proven at all.

I notice how you mention the continuum "hypothesis", meaning that they do not know if it is true or not.

to bring matematics into it... even mathematics has rules that dont make sense on the surface.

3/3 =/= 1.
proof:
1/3 = .33 recurring.
3*1/3 = 1/3+1/3+1/3 = .33r + .33r + .33r = .99 recurring.
.99 =/= 1.

The smart move phrase originates from chess where it would have applied to an actual movement of a chess peice.

This may well be true, but in common english, like a lot of phrases that have been colloquialised, it has taken a different meaning.

meaning that they do not know if it is true or not.

Which is exactly why nothing in maths can be proven one way or the other at the moment. Essentially set theory (the basis of all mathematics) hits the point of the Continuum Hypothesis and then fails. It is impossible to prove or disrpove the continuum Hypothesis using the axioms of set theiory. Meaning those axioms are either incomplete or incorrect. Most mathematicians choose to beleive that the axioms are incomplete meaning all proofs to date hold, however it is far more likely (due to the nature of trying to find a new axiom) that the axioms are intrisinctly wrong and hence no proofs at all hold as they are based on incorrect axioms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

.99 =/= 1.

Actually .99 recuring does = 1.

This smacks of quantum theory...

I would rather not enact goodwin's law on this discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
.99 recurring does not, you have rounded, and ignored the fact that it has never reached one, that infact there is an infantisimly small difference between 1 and .99recurring.

This is a basic rule of mathematics, if you move half the distance to an object, and then only go half the distance to that object, you will never reach it. you will always be some distance away from the end point.

.99 recurring does not, you have rounded, and ignored the fact that it has never reached one, that infact there is an infantisimly small difference between 1 and .99recurring.

Actually the difference is 0 because they are in fact the same number. Trust me I did my degree in maths 0.99recuring = 1 they are the same.

This is a basic rule of mathematics, if you move half the distance to an object, and then only go half the distance to that object, you will never reach it. you will always be some distance away from the end point.

I'm aware of Achilles vs the tortoise that is about reaching a point in time and has nothing to do with 0.99999...=/=1 .

Seriphis wrote:.99 recurring does not, you have rounded, and ignored the fact that it has never reached one, that infact there is an infantisimly small difference between 1 and .99recurring.

This is a basic rule of mathematics, if you move half the distance to an object, and then only go half the distance to that object, you will never reach it. you will always be some distance away from the end point.

As much as It pains me to say this, FlingitNow is ... is... Right.

0.99.. DOES = 1.

x=0.999...
10x=9.999...
10x-x = 9.999... - 0.999...
9x = 9
x = 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...#Algebraic_proofs

I give up... had enough of this thread.

I still dont agree that deep strike is a movement because it is referred to as a deep strike move, based on the common phrase understanding of <x> move as being an action not explicitly a movement on a table.

If you go back to your books, i'm sure, like in the books i studied from, that it says "we can assume this to be 1". which is not the same as it factually being 1.

No it is factually 1, I studied pure mathematics it is not rounding they are the same number. Heck Gwar! has even "proven" it above (as much as anything can be proven in mathematics).

Seriously now thou, how is the visual/mechanical proof of the Pythagorean theorem not safe from this?

Annnd,
Just remember guys if I have one apple in my basket and recive another I have two apples right? Now if I give a friend three apples - I can have four left.

a=b
a2=ab (multiply each side by a)
a2-b2=ab-b2 (subtract b2 from each side)
(a-b)(a+b)=(a-b)b (factor each side)
(a+b)=b (divide each side by (a-b))
b+b=b (substitute b in for a because a=b)
2b=b
2=1 (Divide both sides by b)

Damn I love maths sometimes.

ChrisCP wrote:Seriously now thou, how is the visual/mechanical proof of the Pythagorean theorem not safe from this?

Annnd,
Just remember guys if I have one apple in my basket and recive another I have two apples right? Now if I give a friend three apples - I can have four left.

a=b
a2=ab (multiply each side by a)
a2-b2=ab-b2 (subtract b2 from each side)
(a-b)(a+b)=(a-b)b (factor each side)
(a+b)=b (divide each side by (a-b))
b+b=b (substitute b in for a because a=b)
2b=b
2=1 (Divide both sides by b)

Damn I love maths sometimes.

Actually, that is a fallacy, as it involves Division by Zero. Try Harder.

ChrisCP wrote:
a=b
a^2=ab (multiply each side by a)
a^2-b^2=ab-b^2 (subtract b^2 from each side)
(a-b)(a+b)=(a-b)b (factor each side)
(a+b)=b (divide each side by (a-b))
b+b=b (substitute b in for a because a=b)
2b=b
2=1 (Divide both sides by b)

Bolded step is incorrect in a mathematical proof, as you cannot cannot divide by 0.

Also:
9/9 = 1
1/9 = 0.111111...
2/9 = 0.222222...
3/9 = 0.333333...
4/9 = 0.444444...
5/9 = 0.555555...
6/9 = 0.666666...
7/9 = 0.777777...
8/9 = 0.888888...
9/9 =...

Also, deep striking is movement for the same reasons people have listed above ("may not move any further", "deep strike move")

To clarify my understanding of the "may not move any further":
Whilst technically, by the letter of the English language, moving further does not necessarily mean that you have moved at all, this is by far the most common interpretation of the phrase in normal usage, as highlighted in this passage by Lewis Caroll

`Take some more tea,' the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly.
`I've had nothing yet,' Alice replied in an offended tone, `so I can't take more.'
`You mean you can't take less,' said the Hatter: `it's very easy to take more than nothing.'

See? technically correct, but most people would get confused if you spoke this way.
It is the same thing that prevents Ork vehicles with red paint from moving 1 inch a turn whilst counting as stationary.
Moving further implies by common language that you have moved in the first place. Thus deep strike is movement.

Well, according to mathematics, you can never touch anything either.

In order to touch something, you must first reach a halfway point. After this, you have a new distance. Then a new halfway point.

This will continue on forever with new distances smaller than the previous and a new halfway point smaller than the last.

One of Zeno's paradoxes

So technically, if you take me to court, I can argue that in fact I never actually touched your face repeatedly with my fist.

Hoodwink wrote:In order to touch something, you must first reach a halfway point. After this, you have a new distance. Then a new halfway point.

This will continue on forever with new distances smaller than the previous and a new halfway point smaller than the last.

Have you ever heard of calculus?

Gwar! wrote:Actually, that is a fallacy, as it involves Division by Zero. Try Harder.

Guys - I know...didn’t label it as fact you might notice… just 'fun maths' I was using in class today, throw it on the board and wait the 20 mins of a class for them to figure out where the fallacy was - makes a nice change from surds and index laws =_=

@Trasvi: What's wrong with that a move of 0 in 40k is staying stationary, I add 1 to my move - penalties would be not firing all my weapons, I ignore the penalties because I've got RPJ.

ChrisCP wrote:@Trasvi: What's wrong with that a move of 0 in 40k is staying stationary, I add 1 to my move - penalties would be not firing all my weapons, I ignore the penalties because I've got RPJ.

Actually, a move of 0 is combat speed. You are only stationary if you do not move.

Gwar! wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:You're arguing 2+2=5, yes it is mathematically impossible to disprove 2+2=5 but it requires such stretches of logic that the notion can be ignored.

Actually, it can be proven that 2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2.

Where 2 is 2.5, or 5 is really 4?

As absorbing as the discussion of mathematics is, I think that's far enough off topic for this thread...