Forum:You can't possibly let this go...

The article on today's front page of Wikipedia seems to be absolutely perfect for a good sporking. The proof ".999...=1" allows for even more leeway than even pi equalling three.

I'm just sayin'. I haven't quite the time to make any good writing. fish 04:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

0.999... Looks like somebody's already on this one. It's too long for me to read though. —rc (t) 04:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking that I should post this on the forum and see if we could have debate more amusing that the aspie debate. --- Quill.gif Rev. Isra (talk) 05:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Come now, we all know already that Infinity equals one. Surely this is no different! --L 08:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been following the stuff on Wikipedia and even though I get it, I still think it's a great topic to lampoon. The problem is, "How do we make it funny?" My first idea was to try to type the number .999... and just have a page full of 9's, so you could see there are no 1's, but that's only one joke and not very funny. I think a page trying to debunk it is a perfect counter to Wiki's article. Jboyler 18:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Vote For .999... equals 1

• For--- Quill.gif Rev. Isra (talk) 05:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Against because For.999... is obviously 5. —rc (t) 06:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

<Applause so slow its period would be measured in eons> That really was a travesty of punnage. --Sir Jam 18:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Against For fuck's suck - 1=1, 0.999999 is a little bit less! What is wrong with everybody? Gosh! Aaadddaaammm 08:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• ${\displaystyle 1/3=0.3333....:3*1/3=3/3=3*0.3333...=0.9999...=1}${\displaystyle 1/3=0.3333....:3*1/3=3/3=3*0.3333...=0.9999...=1}. hence, against -- Soul101  Icons-flag-gb.png ~_MA ^REPENT! 09:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah, it's factual. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• False. 1/3 =/= .3333... That's a DECIMAL APPROXIMATION. Big difference. And that's the easiest of all the proofs I've debunked. .999 is an irrational number. Transcendental, maybe even. Gawd, I don't know how many sites I've seen with flamerwars about this... --User:Nintendorulez 20:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  Were these, oh I don't know, StarTrek fan sites, perhaps?--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• For - But only in New math not the old and outdated math. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  I'd totally change my vote if it was base8. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• ForIt makes sense. I might be a bit daft in the head, though.--The One and Only Czar Yah 02:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• For Because if you squint really hard, 0.999... looks a lot like 1. You have to squint real hard... no, turn your head to the left a little more... that's it, you've got it. See? --The Acceptable Thinking cap small.png Cainad Sacred Chao.png (Fnord) 08:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Vote for No Math, Damnit!

• For. Math hard. Numbers make brain sleepy. Also, fire bad.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Against because, statistically, people find Math offensive (Pee<0.05), and therefore belongs here. -- Soul101  Icons-flag-gb.png ~_MA ^REPENT! 08:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Village Dump
• Forum archive