Motor Daddy wrote:Flannel Jesus wrote:The argument has lost coherence at this point. "In base 10 it doesn't add up to 1 in both bases". That's what it sounds like the claim is now.

In both bases, 1.0 is the same, it is 1 WHOLE, or 100%

A .1 in base 9 means 1 of 9 pieces, or 11.111...% of the whole

.3 means 33.333...% of the whole

.8 means 88.888...% of the whole

There is no .9 in base 9 to represent 9 pieces. 1.0 was divided into 9 pieces

If 8 pieces in base 9 means .8 means 88.888...% then 9 pieces means 99.999...%

Hence it is not 100%, it is 99.999...% of 1.0 in base 9.

I’ve already told you this dude.

You’re not talking about counting any more.

You’re talking about linguistic tokens.

I saw your argument dude.

Technically base 10 is 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

No ten.

That’s called a fucking placeholder dude.

That’s what makes a base.

We currently use zero as our base placeholder.

You’re confusing so many things at this point.

The purpose of life is to give everyone individually what they always want at the expense of no being - forever.

The biggest problem of life is the, “hey, I don’t want this to be happening” problem for everyone.

Welcome to thinking.