The chicken or the egg?

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Crusty
You can't have repeating 0's with a 1 on the end... that's not repeating zeros.

It's repeating zeroes until *dun dun dunnnnn* the end, where you place the 1.

I suggest you read up on your Math. You can not define a number that has a repeating decimal as having a finite end.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RepeatingDecimal.html

As soon as you say it ends in a 1, you can not saying repeating 0's.

Here is where the point is: ---> __o__
here is where you just went past: --> ________________________ :evil:

No, I understand what you are saying, it's just stupid and pointless and not even valid math.

The chicken and the egg is a valid question... but .0000...0001 is stupid.

You've been here since 2001; did you miss the thread he's referencing?

.9999... is a valid number.
.000...0001 isn't.

It's simple.

Your point being what?

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Crusty
You can't have repeating 0's with a 1 on the end... that's not repeating zeros.

It's repeating zeroes until *dun dun dunnnnn* the end, where you place the 1.

I suggest you read up on your Math. You can not define a number that has a repeating decimal as having a finite end.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RepeatingDecimal.html

As soon as you say it ends in a 1, you can not saying repeating 0's.

Here is where the point is: ---> __o__
here is where you just went past: --> ________________________ :evil:

No, I understand what you are saying, it's just stupid and pointless and not even valid math.

The chicken and the egg is a valid question... but .0000...0001 is stupid.

You've been here since 2001; did you miss the thread he's referencing?

.9999... is a valid number.
.000...0001 isn't.

It's simple.

*woosh* you just missed the point yet again. Keep working at math though and maybe you'll prove P=NP.

Then why don't you explain it?

It's quite simple. I accidentally the whole zero repeating.

Great explanation...

I'm just going to go with you're a dumbass on this one.

.000...0001 is not valid, never has and never will be. You can't say something has an infinite number of something followed by something else, that's changing the definition of infinity.

Oh yeah!? Well just for that, I am going to divide by zero *boom*. :disgust:

Now you are just being a dumb troll. :thumbsdown:

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Crusty
You can't have repeating 0's with a 1 on the end... that's not repeating zeros.

It's repeating zeroes until *dun dun dunnnnn* the end, where you place the 1.

I suggest you read up on your Math. You can not define a number that has a repeating decimal as having a finite end.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RepeatingDecimal.html

As soon as you say it ends in a 1, you can not saying repeating 0's.

Here is where the point is: ---> __o__
here is where you just went past: --> ________________________ :evil:

No, I understand what you are saying, it's just stupid and pointless and not even valid math.

The chicken and the egg is a valid question... but .0000...0001 is stupid.

You've been here since 2001; did you miss the thread he's referencing?

.9999... is a valid number.
.000...0001 isn't.

It's simple.

Your point being what?

I think he accidentally the whole thing, and now is suffering.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Juddog
Which came first?

this thread.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Crusty
You can't have repeating 0's with a 1 on the end... that's not repeating zeros.

It's repeating zeroes until *dun dun dunnnnn* the end, where you place the 1.

I suggest you read up on your Math. You can not define a number that has a repeating decimal as having a finite end.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RepeatingDecimal.html

As soon as you say it ends in a 1, you can not saying repeating 0's.

Here is where the point is: ---> __o__
here is where you just went past: --> ________________________ :evil:

No, I understand what you are saying, it's just stupid and pointless and not even valid math.

The chicken and the egg is a valid question... but .0000...0001 is stupid.

You've been here since 2001; did you miss the thread he's referencing?

.9999... is a valid number.
.000...0001 isn't.

It's simple.

*woosh* you just missed the point yet again. Keep working at math though and maybe you'll prove P=NP.

Then why don't you explain it?

It's quite simple. I accidentally the whole zero repeating.

Great explanation...

I'm just going to go with you're a dumbass on this one.

.000...0001 is not valid, never has and never will be. You can't say something has an infinite number of something followed by something else, that's changing the definition of infinity.

Oh yeah!? Well just for that, I am going to divide by zero *boom*. :disgust:

Now you are just being a dumb troll. :thumbsdown:

Oh yeah - nested loop, now whut?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: Juddog


Oh yeah!? Well just for that, I am going to divide by zero *boom*. :disgust:

Now you are just being a dumb troll. :thumbsdown:

dude. stfu. this can only lead to bad things, and you've already swallowed the bait. every time you respond, you make yourself a larger fool.

This is what Juddog is pointing out...

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: Juddog


Oh yeah!? Well just for that, I am going to divide by zero *boom*. :disgust:

Now you are just being a dumb troll. :thumbsdown:

dude. stfu. this can only lead to bad things, and you've already swallowed the bait. every time you respond, you make yourself a larger fool.

This is what Juddog is pointing out...

^^ This.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: jonks
According to National Geographic, scientists say that reptiles were laying eggs thousands of years before chickens appeared, and the first chicken came from an egg laid by a bird that was not quite a chicken. That seems to answer the question. The egg came first.

this is the correct answer.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: jonks
According to National Geographic, scientists say that reptiles were laying eggs thousands of years before chickens appeared, and the first chicken came from an egg laid by a bird that was not quite a chicken. That seems to answer the question. The egg came first.

this is the correct answer.

why are you ruining philosophy with your hateful science? :|

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: jonks
According to National Geographic, scientists say that reptiles were laying eggs thousands of years before chickens appeared, and the first chicken came from an egg laid by a bird that was not quite a chicken. That seems to answer the question. The egg came first.

Yes, this is quite obvious to anyone with rational thought. The embryo carries the animals genetic material, there was a mutation at some point which created the first chicken egg and it's all history from there.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: evident

Originally posted by: manowar821
I never understood the point of this argument, because anyone with a studied outlook on the origins of species and life knows better. Is this question just theological bullshit, or does it exist only to start arguments and exercise debating skills?

In either case, the question itself is asinine.

people just want a definitive answer. thre is nothing theological about this question

Hmm I never thought to involve theology in discussion of eggs and chickens.

Well, here you go:

Originally posted by: smittybg
Read the bible - Greatest historical book ever.

Genesis 1: 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

So since the birds and animals came first the chicken was before the egg.