(Post a new comment)

	white_serpent 2006-12-06 05:44 pm UTC (link)
	The first sex law: If some sexual act is mentioned, the possibility of someone talking about their experience of it in graphic detail approaches 1. Approaches one? That one shouldn't even be in question. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	scarah2 2006-12-06 05:45 pm UTC (link)
	Oh hey did I ever tell you about that time I had a sex act? Because in my experience... (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Statistics is a weird field. kadath 2006-12-06 05:49 pm UTC (link)
	Since she's paraphrasing Godwin's, it's a statement that the longer the discussion goes on, the more likely the topic in question is to come up. It's hard to assign something a probability of 1 until it actually happens. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Statistics is a weird field. white_serpent 2006-12-06 05:55 pm UTC (link)
	I know; I'm a statistician. I'm saying that this one is a certainty-- on the order of death and taxes. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Statistics is a weird field. kadath 2006-12-06 06:01 pm UTC (link)
	Having studied statistical thermodynamics, I pretty much refuse to ever assign anything a probability of one. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Statistics is a weird field. suziecroft 2006-12-06 06:12 pm UTC (link)
	How about point-nine-recurring, then? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	kadath 2006-12-06 06:22 pm UTC (link)
	Yay! We can compromise, and then have an argument as to whether 0.999... = 1! (It doesn't.) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	suziecroft 2006-12-06 06:24 pm UTC (link)
	...what? I never said it did... o_O I know I got kicked out of my high-school maths class, but come on. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	kadath 2006-12-06 06:25 pm UTC (link)
	It's one of those persistent bits of math trivia that are actually wrong. Comes of people confusing limits with equalities. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	eilan 2006-12-06 07:17 pm UTC (link)
	I think it actually comes from people confusing that: 1/9 = 0.1111... 2/9 = 0.2222... Does not mean 9/ = 0.9999... and therefore 0.9999... = 1 (Reply to this)(Parent)

	eilan 2006-12-06 07:20 pm UTC (link)
	That was supposed to be 9/9, by the way... (Reply to this)(Parent)

white_serpent
2006-12-06 07:32 pm UTC (link)

That's not why it's asserted. The generalized proof of this goes as follows:

x = 0.9999...
10x = 9.9999...
10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999...
9x = 9
x = 1

The multiplication/subtraction above only works because the 0.999... is infinitely repeating. Any terminating or repeating decimal is part of the set of rational numbers Q, and can be expressed as a fraction q/r with q,r in Z and r restricted to be nonzero.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	dark_puck 2006-12-06 07:54 pm UTC (link)
	...holy crap. That actually made sense. Why weren't you my math teacher? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	singe 2006-12-07 03:55 am UTC (link)
	That actually made sense. It did? I envy you. Goes back to blowing spit bubbles (Reply to this)(Parent)

	soleta 2006-12-06 09:13 pm UTC (link)
	... I think I love you. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	ella_w 2006-12-07 12:23 am UTC (link)
	yeah, that's the way I was taugh. Is my calc prof wrong about that? Because we've been working for a semester under the assertion that .999... does equal 1. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	white_serpent 2006-12-07 12:32 am UTC (link)
	No, 0.9999... = 1. It's an issue of representation of rational numbers as decimals; any rational number has two "names" depending on whether you look at it from the left or the right. (Actually, any "decimal-like" representation system is going to have this problem, whether it's base 10 or base 2 or whatever.) (Reply to this)(Parent)

reposted for typo

white_serpent
2006-12-07 12:43 am UTC (link)

By which I suppose I should clarify that any rational number that can be expressed as a terminating decimal has two "names"...

So, for example, 0.499999... = 0.5, and 0.2999999=0.3 and so on. In essence, we have arbitrarily decided that we "like" the name when we're looking at these numbers from the right.

Some are only expressible as repeating decimals (like .222...), and they have only one "name."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: reposted for typo ella_w 2006-12-07 12:46 am UTC (link)
	Phew! I was worried I would have to go in tomorrow and tell him the internets say he's wrong, and I will be taking my final exam based on a system of math where .999... doesn't equal one. ;P (Reply to this)(Parent)

	kadath 2006-12-07 01:25 am UTC (link)
	It was always presented to me as a limit case--that .9 recurring tends to 1, but isn't. However, us engineers round off a lot. ;) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	eilan 2006-12-07 06:19 pm UTC (link)
	Unfortunately, that's a proof. Because no matter that this 9,9999... now has one decimal place than the 0.99999..., that makes infinity -1 decimal places, which is equal to infinity. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	iwanttobeasleep 2006-12-06 09:13 pm UTC (link)
	A lot of those laws really kind of suck. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	puipui 2006-12-06 11:15 pm UTC (link)
	Indeed. And some of them seem to have had their entertainment value sucked out of them in the reposting process, there. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Confession: kadath 2006-12-07 01:26 am UTC (link)
	I didn't actually read any of them past the first two. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Confession: iwanttobeasleep 2006-12-07 01:27 am UTC (link)
	You didn't miss anything. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	tez 2006-12-06 11:38 pm UTC (link)
	The 'feminism corollary' to my faux-cred card law kinda sucks. Especially since she reversed 'card' and 'cred' in the original link, which is kind of bizarre. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	kadath 2006-12-07 01:31 am UTC (link)
	This calls for the Seal of Fail, clearly. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	tez 2006-12-07 01:35 am UTC (link)
	You better believe it does. They fail. STAMP (Reply to this)(Parent)

	mmanurere 2006-12-07 01:33 am UTC (link)
	I think we need a new law to cover these situations. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	lindentreeisle 2006-12-07 04:37 pm UTC (link)
	The Accept No Imitations Law? (Reply to this)(Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2006-12-09 04:56 am UTC (link)
	Man, I can see her issues a mile away. And all from that post. (Reply to this)(Thread)

palefire
2007-04-12 04:22 pm UTC (link)

No kidding. Full of lose and fail.

I couldn't help but notice one of the links, the "Secretaries" one, and all I could think of was one particular comment to a post on women, anger, and the Web (agree with the poster or no, she does have a very good point in using anger constructively): "...Americans don't mind confrontational women; we just don't like assholes, male or female. Too many type A women equate being assertive with being a jerk." Or rather, it's yet another case of "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory" when it comes to online.

I don't think it applies to Fandom Wank and its satellites...I think a lot of folks come here for close to the same reasons I do: for the LOLZ, and somewhat to vent my aggression. It's not "sexist" to me to police myself in public: I just don't want people to look at how I'm behaving as think, "Gee, what an asshole!" Nothing to do with my gender...I don't want people thinking I'm an uncivilised, manner-less boor.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2006-12-15 05:20 pm UTC (link)
	YOU GUYS ARE FCKING AHOLES!!!!!!!! TAKE THIS SITE DOWN NOW AND THE WANK SITE DOWN NOW OR JUST FCKING DIE ALREADY YOU FCKERS!!!!!!!!! I WILL VOICE MY COMPLAINTS!!!!!!!!! U MADE PPL SPAM MY JOURNAL!!!!!!!!! FCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!! -ORIhime_kun (Reply to this)(Thread)

	phosfate 2006-12-15 07:26 pm UTC (link)
	It's okay to say "fuck" here, you know. And "asshole." (Reply to this)(Parent)

	tez 2006-12-16 08:24 pm UTC (link)
	...Oh my goodness gracious sakes alive, dearest! You're too cute with your asterisks and your overuse of exclamation points. One wonders why you picked jurisimprudence to voice your complaints, though, as F_W turned on anon commenting again. Oh, and by the way? Go ahead. Voice your complaints. I'm sure they'll be dealt with appropriately. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	mcity 2007-01-08 04:06 pm UTC (link)
	Anyone know who this chick is? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2007-01-10 04:23 am UTC (link)
	She's from a Bleach wank (http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/1033854.html) that was on fanficrants last month. -Kaimousey (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Holy Crap lydiapinkham 2008-03-02 01:55 am UTC (link)
	Did you see the link toward the bottom of the page? Entitled "Who is my neighbor? The Sex Offender" http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/12/06/who-is-my-neighbor-the-sex-offender/ Wanky and chilling at the same time. Like a wank-sicle, in a way. (Reply to this)