ITT: gay retards argue about base conversion

1. 2017-06-10 at 10:42 PM UTC

   #21
   

   infinityshock Black Hole

   Originally posted by Rebirth
   
   don't you see how every number line approaches nine?

   
   you forgot the arabic # 9
2. 2017-06-10 at 10:45 PM UTC

   #22
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole

   Originally posted by Rebirth the inherent limit is 9, but this limit gets an illusion of alteration through base switching, along with residuals that become obsolete through fractional conversions with no remainder

   
   You STUPID. MOTHER. FUCKER.
3. 2017-06-10 at 10:47 PM UTC

   #23
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole

   Originally posted by Rebirth
   
   don't you see how every number line approaches nine?

   
   That's not what "approach" means in mathematics.
4. 2017-06-10 at 10:48 PM UTC

   #24
   

   mmQ Lisa Turtle

   Originally posted by Captain Falcon You STUPID. MOTHER. FUCKER.

   
   Lol picturing your face when you decided a lowercase 'stupid motherfucker' wasn't enough.
5. 2017-06-10 at 10:49 PM UTC

   #25
   

   Lanny Bird of Courage

   Originally posted by Rebirth the inherent limit is 9, but this limit gets an illusion of alteration through base switching, along with residuals that become obsolete through fractional conversions with no remainder

   
   I hope you're trolling now because if you actually think those words have a coherent mathematical meaning then you would actually be smarter if you hit yourself in the head with a rock until you forgot most of them.
6. 2017-06-10 at 10:49 PM UTC

   #26
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole

   Originally posted by Captain Falcon You STUPID. MOTHER. FUCKER.

   
   the wikipedia definition of limit is not self limiting, especially to fractional conversions of 9 that can be approached from both positive negative angles and algebraic rings with complex and imaginary superpositions
7. 2017-06-10 at 10:50 PM UTC

   #27
   

   Lanny Bird of Courage
   yup, it's trolling
8. 2017-06-10 at 10:55 PM UTC

   #28
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole
   There we have it
9. 2017-06-10 at 10:56 PM UTC

   #29
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole
   Actually it's not trolling, Sploo realised he has been a very stupid boy, and decided to divert to the trolling defence
   The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!

   • Lanny, 
   • mmQ
10. 2017-06-10 at 11:02 PM UTC

    #30
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole
    how the fuck am i trolling? im spelling out my explanations as clearly as possible. read up on algebraic rings before discounting me. please, at least try to be somewhat educated. i've discussed these things and came to these conclusions after a few months in my earlier years, and you guys think you can just fucking walk all over it. it's embarrassing what you're doing tbh
11. 2017-06-10 at 11:13 PM UTC

    #31
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole

    Originally posted by Rebirth how the fuck am i trolling? im spelling out my explanations as clearly as possible. read up on algebraic rings before discounting me. please, at least try to be somewhat educated. i've discussed these things and came to these conclusions after a few months in my earlier years, and you guys think you can just fucking walk all over it. it's embarrassing what you're doing tbh

    
    Nothing you said has any relation to mathematical rings.
12. 2017-06-10 at 11:14 PM UTC

    #32
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole
    http://wisdomofchopra.com
13. 2017-06-10 at 11:15 PM UTC

    #33
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole
    This literally where Spo sources his world view
14. 2017-06-10 at 11:17 PM UTC

    #34
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole

    Originally posted by Captain Falcon Nothing you said has any relation to mathematical rings.

    
    it clearly does. the mathematical rings allow the approaches towards nine in base conversions to have space to leave residuals
15. 2017-06-10 at 11:19 PM UTC

    #35
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole

    Originally posted by Rebirth the inherent limit is 9, but this limit gets an illusion of alteration through base switching, along with residuals that become obsolete through fractional conversions with no remainder

    
    lol im stoned as fuck and read that like 5 times trying to figure out what the fuck you were talking about
16. 2017-06-10 at 11:20 PM UTC

    #36
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole

    Originally posted by Rebirth it clearly does. the mathematical rings allow the approaches towards nine in base conversions to have space to leave residuals

    
    A residual is a statistical term/term for deviation. It has nothing to do with your retarded gobbledygook.
17. 2017-06-10 at 11:22 PM UTC

    #37
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole

    Originally posted by Captain Falcon A residual is a statistical term/term for deviation. It has nothing to do with your retarded gobbledygook.

    
    Search Results
    re·sid·u·al
    riˈzijo͞oəl/
    adjective
    adjective: residual
    
    1.
    remaining after the greater part or quantity has gone.
    
    when converting between two bases bidirectionally there is an inequality in measurement which is due to space becoming occupied on algebraic rings, because the two bases may not form a perfect parallel in some cases
18. 2017-06-10 at 11:22 PM UTC

    #38
    

    Lanny Bird of Courage

    Originally posted by Rebirth how the fuck am i trolling? im spelling out my explanations as clearly as possible. read up on algebraic rings before discounting me. please, at least try to be somewhat educated. i've discussed these things and came to these conclusions after a few months in my earlier years, and you guys think you can just fucking walk all over it. it's embarrassing what you're doing tbh

    
    I know what an algebraic ring is, you clearly don't.
19. 2017-06-10 at 11:24 PM UTC

    #39
    

    Lanny Bird of Courage

    Originally posted by Rebirth when converting between two bases bidirectionally there is an inequality in measurement which is due to space becoming occupied on algebraic rings, because the two bases may not form a perfect parallel in some cases

    
    ahahahahahaha, this is so bad, it doesn't even pass, at the briefest glance, for something that could be meaningful.
20. 2017-06-10 at 11:25 PM UTC

    #40
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole

    Originally posted by Lanny I know what an algebraic ring is, you clearly don't.

    
    dont you think its common sense that the elements of an algebraic ring that forms between two nonadjacent base systems would form or being translatable to a kind of topological matrix of possibilities and residuals?