dreamspace

Gibson R9

yes, saw that Reminds me of those old HIV-positive blood transfusion cases. IB4 threads turns into a public healthcare thread.

This topic is the math worlds equvilant to the guitar worlds "TOANZ IS IN THE FINGERS, TRUE/FALSE?" question. It's been discussed to DEATH and back, for many many MANY years.

I think what most people here here are missing is the 0.999... part

But the clifs are: statement 1) 0.999... = 1 is true 0.999, 0.9999, 0.99999 != 1, but 0.999... = 1 2) "2 = 1" is false.

Stopped reading here The example I used, was used by our calc professor, on the subjects on proofs (or in this case, INVALID proofs) His whole example went as this: " Example 1.4 We start with: a = 2 We then multiply with A on both sides: a^2 = 2a Subtract 4 from both sides: a^2 - 4 = 2a - 4 apply the Difference of two squares on left side, and factorize out 2 on the right side (a-2)(a+2) = 2(a-2) divide by (a-2) on both sides and get (a+2) =2 but since we started with a = 2 we get 2 + 2 = 2 4 = 2 solution: We've done a couple of formal errors, but the the one that leads to the catastrophic failure is when we divide with (a-2), since (a-2) is (2-2) = 0, which causes Division by Zero. As you see, the whole point was to show division by zero.

There's a whole bunch of examples, pick and choose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invalid_proof

okay then, set the equation to a = b, instead of a = 2. The whole point was to show that the OP is wrong since his proof is invalid

If a = 2 then a^2 = 4, not 2a. Where the hell do you stoners come up with this? Please stay as far away from college as humanly possible. you multiply both sides with a, you don't square both sides. and the post was to show that 2!=1, since you divide by zero when dividing (a-2) from both sides)

'nother classic version of the "2=1" with division by zero a = 2 a^2 = 2a a^2 - 4 = 2a-4 (a-2)(a+2) = 2(a-2) (divide both side with (a-2) ) a+2 = 2 2+2 = 2 4=2 2=1

I believe the OP's premise was x = 0.999...(infinite amount of decimals), not x = 0.999, just to get the numbers right.

dude, next time you go amp shopping, hand the seller a 1$ and show him with mathematical induction that if 1$=2$, then 2$=3$ etc, so that your 1$ bill = whatever amount he's asking.

Most Yngwie clones claim that they're "Blackmore inspired".

Originally posted by takedeepbreaths biotch! damn, huge boobs

Originally posted by Snakebite20 This dude is great! Now he needs to slow down and focus on: 1) Bends 2) Phrasing 3) Vibrato 4) Subtleties And then get back to his chops! sorry dude, just like Michael Angelo, he can't drive 55.

Originally posted by sah5150 Everyone sucks and plays with no feeling and is sloppy with bad tone if they play fast. If they play slow with wide controlled vibrato, they have feeling and are great, with excellent tone. I would rather hear three slow notes than 1000 perfectly executed sweep picked notes per unit time. So, net/net, this kid sucks... Age is no excuse. He should not play fast anymore and then he will be good. Especially if he spends the next 10 years developing wide, controlled vibrato. No more posts are necessary on this thread. Thank You, Steve tssss...you forgot to use B.B King as an example

Gotta love it when the guys are coming with the good ol' "I'd rather put on my '84 SRV vhs and see some REAL geetar playing" bah...give the dude a break, you probably wouldn't have said the same thing to him if he was playing in front of you

Fantastic, does this mean that I can sue Metallica for the "emotional distress" I had, in the time after I bought St. anger?

geetar pwnage: http://youtube.com/watch?v=rRzfgHO45g8

so, who would you pick? here's two bands that evolved same. started out as rocking bands! went over to waaaaay more commercial rock 'round 1986- from there they went to a more funky sound in the early 90s and then in the late 90s they started to rock again... KILLER guitarists. and pretty good vocals back in the day. I'd pick Europe

I think that he used to kick ass back in the Images and Words days.

Sign me in!