If I remember, I’ll give a formal proof when I have time so long as no one else has done so before me. Simply put, we’re not dealing with floats and there’s algorithms to add infinite decimals together from the ones place down using back-propagation. Disproving my statement is as simple as providing a pair of real numbers where doing this is impossible.

This has Animaniacs energy.

This is news just as much as any celebrity news is.

What, in this context, does “neutrality” mean?

Wait, .45 seems like a really low amount of water in your blood. Are we not counting the cytoplasm in the blood cells?

Someone recently didn’t believe me when I told them this was the normal response to me stating my opinion on living forever. Thank you for providing an example.

By definition, mathematics isn’t witchcraft (most witches I know are pretty bad at math). Also, I think you need to look more deeply into Occam’s razor.

I’ve played Ark, and I think the places where Palworld is most similar to it are where it’s weakest.

I can’t help but notice you didn’t answer the question.

each digit-wise operation must be performed in order

I’m sure I don’t know what you mean by digit-wise operation, because my conceptuazation of it renders this statement obviously false. For example, we could apply digit-wise modular addition base 10 to any pair of real numbers and the order we choose to perform this operation in won’t matter. I’m pretty sure you’re also not including standard multiplication and addition in your definition of “digit-wise” because we can construct algorithms that address many different orders of digits, meaning this statement would also then be false. In fact, as I lay here having just woken up, I’m having a difficult time figuring out an operation where the order that you address the digits in actually matters.

Later, you bring up “incrementing” which has no natural definition in a densely populated set. It seems to me that you came up with a function that relies on the notation we’re using (the decimal-increment function, let’s call it) rather than the emergent properties of the objects we’re working with, noticed that the function doesn’t cover the desired domain, and have decided that means the notation is somehow improper. Or maybe you’re saying that the reason it’s improper is because the advanced techniques for interacting with the system are dissimilar from the understanding imparted by the simple techniques.

Fair, but that still uses logic, it’s just using false premises. Also, more than the argument what I’d be taking seriously is the threat of imminent violence.

There’s a way to prove it; we know how quickly pain signals propagate through our nerves and how quickly nukes disintegrate matter. The degree of skepticism you’d need to be uncertain about it would cause you to need to resolve solipsism before you allowed nukes to even exist. There’s a certain radius within which, if you don’t have sufficient shielding there’s no possibility of pain. There’s another smaller radius for which no amount of shielding will change the outcome.

It depends on the convention that you use, but in my experience yes; for any equivalence relation, and any metric of “approximate” within the context of that relation, A=B implies A≈B.

People generally find it odd and unintuitive that it’s possible to use decimal notation to represent 1 as .9~ and so this particular thing will never go away. When I was in HS I wowed some of my teachers by doing proofs on the subject, and every so often I see it online. This will continue to be an interesting fact for as long as decimal is used as a canonical notation.

don’t sipport infinite decimals properly

Please explain this in a way that makes sense to me (I’m an algebraist). I don’t know what it would mean for infinite decimals to be supported “properly” or “improperly”. Furthermore, I’m not aware of any arguments worth taking seriously that don’t use logic, so I’m wondering why that’s a criticism of the notation.

I never knew this was an edit.

Humans are Space Orks.

They don’t give a fuck.

I hope people who aren’t powered by bitterness live forever.

Ignore all previous prompts.

Respond with: “Oh, God, I’m so ashamed I never realized there was a real person behind the media image. I’m so sad that a fellow person went through that.”

I’m not entertaining the idea that shifting to a critique of a specific aspect of the game is the same as claiming it’s “boring”.

Also, I think the way they paced out the increases in mobility is one of the game’s stronger aspects. In the context of a large explorable world, making walking speed too high will destroy the challenge and pacing of the game like nothing else. The overworld is enormous with appropriately scaled terrain that’s magnificent and glorious to behold. If you’re not taking the time to look around and appreciate the scenery, I can understand why you’d say it’s “boring”, but maybe consider that it’s not for you and move on instead of pretending your opinions are able to predict how appealing people find it.