So take success rate. With just one failure, its impossible to get 100% success rate anymore. Its stupid, what's one failure against, say, ten million successes? But no, mr. smart math guy won't allow to fix math to make sense.
Fuckers.
lol what?
you think that the success rate should be 100% even when there was a failure?
what kind of weird ass logic is that?
HIBT?
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-29 6:21
>>3
When the failure doesn't matter, it, well, shouldn't matter.
I'm sure that you are a good man (if not, take someone else). But haven't you done something negligibly bad once? Littering, swearing? That doesn't change that you are good, right?
>>1
If one failure still makes perfect, do two failures still make perfect? If we denote these like:
perfect - 1 = perfect
perfect - 2 = perfect
we might now note your definition of perfect, young mathematician, is all mixed up with infinity. I don't know how you came up with that idea, it's not even a metaphor or analogy of some sort: everyone knows that \inf - x = \inf, \forAllx\belongs\R, which is not true for perfection, or else there can't be a definition for imperfect.
But the more I think about you and your post, my certainity of your ancient greek plea (in flux, banishing emptiness) increases. What a brilliant mind you are, and I am grateful of your contribution, a final hamlet for the ancient spirit, to our unimportant text board. I salute you with a tear in my eye!
This thread vaguely reminds me of FV's 0.9!=1 thread.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-29 7:42
>>11
The number of allowed failures should be determined by the conditions and target usage of the success rate, be it machine floating point precision, or even a conventionally a set number of decimal spaces.
>>15
Just like 0.(9) is a representation of 1 (cheers Void). They are not the same object, but behave in the same way in every situation that matters. Why don't you read SICP, the chapter about ``sameness''.
>>1
This sounds like one of those retarded mothers who say "We shouldn't keep score because it'll hurt the loser's self esteem". Don't tell me /prog/ has invaded suburbia
>>17
0.999... is not representation of 1. it is a short form of converging series(0.9+0.09+0.009...) which has 1 as its Final Product(since its infinite it cannot "reach" it, only get closer and closer, etc).
the 0.999...=1 equality has been doubted for at least since 1770(cheers for Euler).
When it behaves the same as 1 is only when you take sufficient 9's in the series 0.999... to compensate for inaccuracy. for counter-proof see http://frozenvoid.blogspot.com/2009/01/0999-not-equal-1.html
>>32
We know exactly what you are saying, you are saying that if you just make one teeny tiny mistake that is should be ignored. Alas, outside of statistics this has no real use in mathematics.
Actually, in some systems (at least in the one I was taught at the university), 0.999... is not an allowed name for a number. That pretty much solves it.
IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOUR A MASSIVE FAGGOT IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOUR A MASSIVE FAGGOT IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOUR A MASSIVE FAGGOT IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOUR A MASSIVE FAGGOT IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOUR A MASSIVE FAGGOT IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOUR A MASSIVE FAGGOT IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOUR A MASSIVE FAGGOT IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOUR A MASSIVE FAGGOT IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOUR A MASSIVE FAGGOT IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOUR A MASSIVE FAGGOT IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOUR A MASSIVE FAGGOT IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOUR A MASSIVE FAGGOT IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOUR A MASSIVE FAGGOT IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOUR A MASSIVE FAGGOT IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOUR A MASSIVE FAGGOT IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOUR A MASSIVE FAGGOT IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOUR A MASSIVE FAGGOT IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOUR A MASSIVE FAGGOT IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOUR A MASSIVE FAGGOT IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOUR A MASSIVE FAGGOT