This conversation needs to end now. It's off-topic for this thread and probably not even appropriate.

I don't understand why this is relevant, but..

First of all, anyone who claims 0.9 recurring is not equal to 1 does not understand numbers. Many numbers have more that one representation in the decimal representation system, and 1 is one of them. Also, all other numbers where the decimal expansion ends a recurring 9 at the tail end of something after the decimal point.

Secondly, unfortunately, this proof is wrong - or at least incomplete. There is no rationale given for why 0.3 recurring multiplied by 3 equals 0.9 recurring, other than I guess an appeal to intuition that multiplication of numbers with an infinite number of decimal digits works identically to multiplication with a finite number of decimal digits. It, in fact, does, but that fact is fairly difficult to prove. It's certainly not proved by that graphic.

My man uke_master will explain this much more skilfully than I could ever hope to.

How do you miss the point of such a simple meme? Is this a bit?

It's a "bit" in the sense and to the extent that my whole character I play here is a "bit", so, no?

I honestly don't get the relevance. If I'm being dense, I apologise in advance. Explain it to me like I'm five.

diebitter for example. He posted about being sure there was a number between them, then went on to say he used to teach maths.

Explains a lot about this country.

Simply that 1/3 = 0.333333333 is more intuitive than 3/3 = 0.999999, and it's not clear why that should be, since the two statements are basically equivalent. It's obviously not intended to be a proof.

This place is getting surreal

Ok, yeah, I mean, you can use it to sway maybe 75% of the unenlightened, but it's not a proof, or anything close to it.

I still want to know, how was it relevant in the context of the conversation ITT?

This is not a math thread. This is not a general discussion thread. If you want to discuss math memes, please do it in the LC thread.

Ok going all hyper about it won't help.

(That's a joke for which I apologise)

Dude, Angie was pretty hot. This thread or LC thread, I'm taking that as a W.

Did you talk about her acute angles?

We have to protect the ability to call out fallacies! It's important for reasonable dialogue amongst reasonable persons. Otherwise people could both simply assert fallacious arguments and deny the fallaciousness.

Who told you that you weren't allowed to?

Who said I said someone said I wasn't allowed to?

Apparently I did, or at least my question implied it. But if you just dropped in to make that statement of the obvious, then carry on I guess.

No I just got a little preemptive because I think ganstaman maybe didn't know that about fallacies or forgot the importance of them in reasonable dialogue.

So we have the israel/palestine and the russia ukraine thread. And now we have the possibility or idea of a new syntax evolution where we pointing out the prevailing differing or diametrically opposing views, or popular opposing etc...using colors.

This changes the nature of the dialogue I think because the rational self interested participants surrounding the dialogue will look for imbalances and naturally act to correct them with easily identifiable color syntax. (because its becomes a new type of 'gotcha')

I think then after a while, unbalanced posts/views will be sort of naturally discarded or downed by an action of balancing (where balancing would be a new action as opposed to arguing etc). The nature of dialogue would change. We might ask, if all that transpired, what would the content be?

If you think there is rational discussion going on those threads, you dont understand human nature very well IMO. What is going on in those threads is straight ideological, lizard-brain tribalism. The people making the "unbalanced" posts (I am sure you include me in that group) don't care, will not act to correct themselves, and the nature of the dialogue will not change.

Humans are not rational beings, they are rationalizing beings. Emotions are mostly always in the driver's seat.

Its true but I think the action of balancing is what signifies rational behavior. So we might be close. The point would a trend towards giving social points to those that point out imbalanced views and especially by balancing them. And then obviously its a stretch to think all that would happen but as a thought experiment we can start to think and have dialogue about the hypothetical ideal of balanced dialogue...

and ask what the content of that dialogue might evolve to be.

Calling out fallacies is fine. You did so without issue.

The problem that I addressed was that you incorrectly named the fallacy and just kept asserting you were right when others pointed out you used the term incorrectly. The argument over terminology was going nowhere and could have repeated for 50 pages without progress. It was really not so important to the overall discussion if that term was correct or not, so those 50 pages would have been a detriment to the discussion and to the forum.

Potato, fallacy. Button is a Prometheus, bringing us new definitions every day. he has this thing where words mean whatever he wants them to mean. i am not joking.

Words do mean what we intend them to mean. Even if we use the 'wrong' words

Only earwigs defer to the parsnip on meanings

I'll leave aside the ridiculousness of that idea being taken completely literally, hoping that isn't the way you meant it.

Allowing for the evolution of words is one thing. Using a word in a non-standard manner and then arguing with people who suggest that isn't what the word means makes for poor communication and/or derails.

Edit to add: LOL @ me if you were joking.