Forum >> The Comic >> Buzz Comix Comments

Buzz Comix has a page where people can comment on specific comics. If anyone would like to leave a comment for "The Adventures of Link & Friends" it would be appreciated. Click here if you would like to leave a comment. Thank you.

Well, you see..I WOULD click here, if there were a here to click on, but seeing as how there is no here to go to, I can't go to here, please make a here, please.

-Taipan the Snakeman

I need a new quote..

There is a "here"?

Umm the link does work and I'm on my way to leave some feedback. :D

Told ya.

-Snakeman

I need a new quote..

I know that made no sense, but bear with me.

I need a new quote..

No. I refuse.

Disclaimer: The sensicalness of the above statement is not guaranteed.

Um...I think "Me" is loony. That can either be a compliment or just a random sentence. Yes, you all know a crazy person now!

"Zelda looks like she's going to eat someone."
-Megan

We all know you :D

Yes, you do. Hee.

"Zelda looks like she's going to eat someone."
-Megan

First of all, me is is quite sanitary, which in case you were confused, has to do with sanity, not cleanliness as the dictionary and the government would have you believe. Second, I can't really think of a second..so that brings us to... Third, which coincidentally is one THIRD of a whole! ..Wow, mind boggling isn't it? As my final statement, I would like to say that the Mitochondria are going to take over very soon, and many people will be aflame. (Bonus points if you have any idea what ANY of this means. And yes, I'll be counting the points)

I need a new quote..

Did you just talk about yourself as the third AND first person?

In his second post he used second person, which was quite odd, even for him. He also wished for the citizens of the Link & Friends forum to know that he was not a loony, and nor was he crazy.

I need a new quote..

You (Referring to the person "Me")are a bit confused, and thought you ("I", as "Me" would be in the first person) were using second person, when in fact you were using third person again. You are now letting everybody know this, by using second person in this post to show that you ARE quite sanitary, and stuff.

-Done in second person (The right way)

I need a new quote..

What does this have to do with the spherical or elongated organelle in the cytoplasm of nearly all eukaryotic cells, containing genetic material and many enzymes important for cell metabolism, including those responsible for the conversion of food to usable energy? Really, it's quite harmless. We won't hurt you.

Disclaimer: The sensicalness of the above statement is not guaranteed.

First, this shall be cleared up: This post and every post thereafter made by the individual writing this post will be written in the standard form of first person when referring to the writer of this post, and second or third person when referring to any other individual or thing.

Ok, now that that's cleared up.... "Me", I spoke with the Mitochondrians. They denied everything you said about them. In fact (and I confirmed this with the leaders of the federation), they are working on peace negotiations between themsevles, the republic, the federation, and the taelons (I even heard rumors that the yautja and new empire are in on it, too). The mitochondria also vehemently denied the use of any flame-inducing weapons or qualities.

Second, and I paraphrase, "Not all those who claim sanity have truly obtained sanity; not all those who claim sanity have even the potential for sanity within them." So, I think I need some proof of this alleged "sanity" and "sanitarily correct" property of which you claim is an aspect of your personality.

Furthermore, "third" does not mean "one third". it means third, as in the place which is signified by the numeral 3 (ie the whole number located on the number line after 2 and before 4). one third is a specific number, which is represented by the numerals 1 and 3, either by 1/3 or 3^(-1), in which the bottom numeral is the third whole number (i.e. the number located 3 numbers right, or +, of 0) located on the number line. And, as it happens, 3^2 = 9 and 3^(1/2) = 1.7320508075688772935274463415059. And beyond that, given y = 3, then y' = 0! betcha didn't know that?

P.S. How many points do I get?

P.S.S. Betcha don't know what P.S.S. stands for. :-)

Watch out, a psycho hobbit has gotten loose and is terrorizing the populace! Be very wary of him: He is to be considered armed and very dangerous! ::A cute, 3', red-faced, curly-brown-haired, and obviously well-fed hobbit wanders down the street...::

When I was very young, someone told me P.S. was the name of a pill that someone took when they were lonely (I don't know what it was supposed to do, what WOULD a pill that someone takes when they're lonely do?), and that's why they put "P.S." at the end of letters, because they wanted to let the person they were writing to know that they missed them. P.S.S. meant they took two pills. That "Post Script" stuff is nonsense.

Disclaimer: The sensicalness of the above statement is not guaranteed.

Well, going back to normal "speech," You get five points for the correct definition..but you didn't know what I was talking about..so....there's still about fifteen points left.

Or for those of you that have strephosymbolia (..two points if you can tell me what it means. Heheh..)

llew, gniog kcab ot lamron "hceeps," ouy teg evif stniop rof eht tcerroc noitinifed tub.. uoy t'ndidwonk tahw I saw gniklat tuoba..os....s'ereht llits tuoba neetfif stniop tfel rof taht noitseuq. (..I get bored.)

I need a new quote..

I must be strephosymbolic.. I think. But, it means what it means.. which is what you wrote, and anyone can plainly see. It's also a form of dyslexia that applies to seeing individual words, letters or symbols, as opposed to whole sentences, backwards.

Disclaimer: The sensicalness of the above statement is not guaranteed.

Well, to get to the point, "one third" is NOT a specific number, it's a fraction of a number, in most cases. But in your logic, (third being signified by the number 3) could one third not also mean 13 then? Or in the case of one sometimes signifying a whole, it mean whole3? Anyway, I'd give you one third of a point, which depending on your interpretation of the phrase, could be thirteen, which you shalln't receive, therefore, one point shall be rewarded due to the large number produced by your calculator.

I need a new quote..

Looks like I checked back too late to get into the dyslexia thing. Oh well. Maybe next time.

One third is a specific and exact number, in fact, and is defined by one part out of three, or the ratio 1:3 or 1/3, which is a specific number. There is no logical way to interpret one-third as thirteen because of the way the base 10 numerical system system that we use works. Third is not signified by the number three, but the number located at the numeral 3 on the number line (important difference.) one-third is one of three parts of a divisible whole, or in plain math talk, 1 divided by 3; "x-y" (ie "one-third", "two-fifths") is a standard way of denoting a direct relationship between two numbers; this relationship is also known as a ratio, and ratios are expressed as fractional numbers.

Watch out, a psycho hobbit has gotten loose and is terrorizing the populace! Be very wary of him: He is to be considered armed and very dangerous! ::A cute, 3', red-faced, curly-brown-haired, and obviously well-fed hobbit wanders down the street...::

I shall be quoting you this time.

"Furthermore, "third" does not mean "one third". it means third, as in the place which is signified by the numeral 3 (ie the whole number located on the number line after 2 and before 4)."

Hmm..so third is signified by the whole number three..I see. So why then, can one third not be interpreted (Maybe abstractly..) as 13? (Because third is signified by the whole number three, you would be forced to conclude one, or even first is signifed by the whole number one.)
In addition, one third (the fraction) 1/3, could be viewed as a specific number, I suppose..or not. True, it is one part out of three, but is that not a different number for every number it is a part of? 1/3 of 9 is 3, 1/3 of 3 is 1. If one third were a specific (Defined as DEFINATE) number, it could not actually be two different numbers, which in my example it clearly is.

I need a new quote..

Because that is a standard way of denoting the relationship of one number to another, which can also be interpreted as a fraction. Interpreting one-third as 13 is like interpreting five dozen as 512 (::Feels all cozy inside thinking of the number 512::)--there is a standard way of denoting certain relationships between numbers, be it the process of multiplication or division or what have you, but that standard process must be used if you intend to interpret things which, in our mathematical language, are defined by that process (as things such as one third, five eighths, three dozen, and eleven moles are).

The flaw in your argument is that you are speaking of combining two numbers through the process of multiplication or division (multiplication by 1/3, division by 3).

By an argument similiar to yours, I can prove that 1 = 0. Here it goes: X = 0. X/X = 0/X. 1 = 0. Simple, very simple. But, does it work? No. Why? because of certain properties of numbers and processes of the mathematics defined by rules set forth to show what can and cannot be done do not allow it.

Watch out, a psycho hobbit has gotten loose and is terrorizing the populace! Be very wary of him: He is to be considered armed and very dangerous! ::A cute, 3', red-faced, curly-brown-haired, and obviously well-fed hobbit wanders down the street...::

By the way, Hex... You knew I had problems when you first got involved with me. Everyone who knows me knows how nutty, geeky, and just plain weird (but perfectly sane, mind you!) I am. So why do you go bringing it up as if it's something out of the ordinary?

Watch out, a psycho hobbit has gotten loose and is terrorizing the populace! Be very wary of him: He is to be considered armed and very dangerous! ::A cute, 3', red-faced, curly-brown-haired, and obviously well-fed hobbit wanders down the street...::

..What's 512? And what's a geek? And WHAT is Bowser/King Koopa? And why does Luigi always get left out?

Disclaimer: The sensicalness of the above statement is not guaranteed.

512 is cute because it's a power of two. A geek is the person in the circus who bites off heads of chickens (Hex told you about that, I thought?) Bowser/King Koopa is an insane psychotic pyromaniac. Luigi keeps getting left out because he's too cool for this crew. Or... something.

Watch out, a psycho hobbit has gotten loose and is terrorizing the populace! Be very wary of him: He is to be considered armed and very dangerous! ::A cute, 3', red-faced, curly-brown-haired, and obviously well-fed hobbit wanders down the street...::

What's 512?
A Number

And what's a geek?
Someone who bites the heads off chickens.

And WHAT is Bowser/King Koopa?
A turtle that knowns the art of black magic.

And why does Luigi always get left out?
He's funny looking.

Interpreting one third (third, previously defined by you as signified by the whole number three) as thirteen makes sense. one (the number, whole) three (the number, whole) using their numerical counterparts (as defined by you, mentioned earlier) would be 13. Five dozen, on the other hand, can NOT be interpreted as 512. Dozen is a number defined as 12, and five is showing how many dozens, or 12s you have. You have 5 of them. one third, if signified by the whole number three, could then also be taken as the whole number 3 depending on the arrangement of the numbers. 13, being 13. 1/3 being the fraction of a number, which is STILL not specific, unless the fraction has a number which defines it. or 1 3, the number in question being 3 if not read as a sequence of two numbers. 1 3=3, 2 3s =6, 3 3s=9, etc. Also, your equation is flawed.

" X=0. X/X (0 divided by 0) does in fact = 0/X, but the point is, you didn't give the answer to 0/X, which is more simply stated 0/0 (still, 0 divided by 0) which is in fact 1, because 0 goes into 1 once. That does not prove that 0 is one, it proves that 0 divided by 0 is one. I believe that's all, for now anyway.

I need a new quote..

I don't see what's cute about 2^9, or 2^512, or whatever.

Why's King Koopa different from all of the other turtles?

And what's funny looking about green people, damnit?!

Disclaimer: The sensicalness of the above statement is not guaranteed.

Don't get off the subject. >.<
And he's bigger, and has horns, and spikes on his shell, and large pointy teeth, and smiles alot.

I need a new quote..

Why's King Koopa different from all of the other turtles?
He's the king.

And what's funny looking about green people, damnit?!
They're green.

But HOW did King Koopa become different, and become the King? And are the Mario games really an allegory for Russian politics?

Disclaimer: The sensicalness of the above statement is not guaranteed.

You know, if you scroll up and down this page really fast, it looks like a Mario game level (except going the wrong way). Somebody use some Zelda Avatars, damnit.

Disclaimer: The sensicalness of the above statement is not guaranteed.

Wrong, again. As I stated before, "5 dozen", by your definition, could be read as "5 12" which, in a grammatical sense, is 5[space]12. In a numerical sense, obviously, it is 60. But why? because the definition of the phrase "5 dozen" is "5 * the number we defined 'dozen' as". However, if strictly read as you seem to like reading one third, it would be read as "5 12", or 512 when spaces are stripped away, or something that is not a number if you leave the spaces inserted. But, by your own word, 5 dozen cannot equal 512 because that's not how it's defined. In a similiar manner, one third is defined as one divided by three or "1 / the number we have chosen to be the value of 'third'". Why? Definition. We could apply your "logic" and say that it's "1 3" and get 13 by stripping spaces, or something that isnt a number by leaving the space in, but that's breaking the definition of "one third", and therefore cannot be done. As for 1/3 not being a number, it is. It is one-third, which is a number; converted to fractional form, it is .33333333 (and keeps on going with 3's for eternity). A number and a whole number are not the same thing-- 18/19 is every bit as much a number as 21. it doesn't have to be a whole number or integer to be a number.

As for the 1=0 question, I'm sorry, you flunked. As defined in the first equation, X=0. When you divide both sides by X, you're really dividing by 0. We know that "X/X = 1", and 0 divided by anything equal 0, except in the case of 0/0. the definition of division is "what number can you multiply by the denominator to get the numerator?" Applying this definition, which is a semi-technical definition of division, we can say that 0/0 = ANYTHING, because 0*1000 = 0, which satisfies the equation. Therefore, we say 0/0 does not exist or is undefined, and cannot be done. Therefore, the second step -- X/X = 0/X -- cannot be done and the entire problem falls to bits and pieces, because you end up dividing by 0 on both sides. But the reason I say that a logic simiiar to the one you're using could be applied to prove that 1=0, is that if you ignore certain rules and standards which are predefined to allow us to proceed on to bigger and better math problems, you fail at the most basic level. You're tossing out the rules in your argument of "one third = 13".

Watch out, a psycho hobbit has gotten loose and is terrorizing the populace! Be very wary of him: He is to be considered armed and very dangerous! ::A cute, 3', red-faced, curly-brown-haired, and obviously well-fed hobbit wanders down the street...::

here's the thing. 5 dozen could not be read as 5 12. Dozen is a number equal to 12, when there is more than one dozen, it is a plural, as the plural of dozen is dozen, similar to the singular and plural for of fish, both being fish. If you take into account that in 5 dozen, dozen is a plural, and then covert dozen (meaning 12) into the number 12, you get 5 12s (or twelves, being the PLURAL of the number twelve in the case that there is more than one twelve) which cannot be read as 512 even if you take away the spaces. it would be read as 512s, which unless you are using it in an equation, which you are not, it is simply an alphanumeric entity.

On to why 1/3 is not .333333 repeating. 1/3 is only .333333 when it is defined as 1/3 of 1. if it's defined as 1/3 of 6, it's 2. one specific number, as you defined 1/3, cannot in fact be two totally different numbers, 1/3 is not a number, it is a specification that shows that you are taking one out of three parts of a defined, or specified number, and therefore only an exact (specific) number when has a defining number.

Next. 0=0. 0=X. X/X=0/X=0/0. You say that it cannot be done, when in fact in can. I will correct myself in saying that 0/0=1. It does =1, however it also equals any other number, therefore it IS possible, as X/X=0/X=0/0=Y, Y being an unspecified number with infinite possibilities. The end.

I need a new quote..

Adding to the last post, you stated

"and 0 divided by anything equal 0" "what number can you multiply by the denominator to get the numerator?" in two seperate quotes. Technically, 0 divided by anything is actually the impossible math problem. If you must multiply something by the numerator to get the denominator, you simply can NOT do it. 0/5 for instance, is NOT 0, like math would have you believe. zero times zero is not 5, it is zero, therefore it is impossible to do unless you define a variable. The variable could be..Y. 0/5=Y, where Y would equal nothing. Nothing, not to be confused with zero, of course. zero not meaning nothing, perse, but a total lack of something numerical. Nothing, meaning absolutely nothing, or in the case of 0/5, no possible answer. So in essence 0/Anything=undefined variable equalling nothing.

I need a new quote..

As to the latter two things, you should take a little bit more math, learn about whole numbers, integers, rational numbers, irrational numbers, imaginary numbers... the fun stuff. Second, the mathematical definition of "X/0", where X is any number, polynomial, or mathematical formula of any kind, is defined as undefined, because it cannot be done. This is covered in beginning algebra.

As to the first, that is exactly what I sam saying. 5 dozen is read as 60 because that is how it is *defined*. Similiarly, one third is read as 1/3 because that, too, is how the phrase "one third" is *defined*. Throwing *definition* out, one can conclude that 5 dozen is 512, but only when you throw *definition* out. The same goes for nine tenths--it only could be read as 910 if you ignore *definition*.

BTW, you multiply the denominator by the number to get the numerator, not the other way around. Look at it this way: y/x = z. y = zx. in the case of 0/5, which you used, it's what times 5 equals 0? 0 is the answer.

Watch out, a psycho hobbit has gotten loose and is terrorizing the populace! Be very wary of him: He is to be considered armed and very dangerous! ::A cute, 3', red-faced, curly-brown-haired, and obviously well-fed hobbit wanders down the street...::

Ok, I will admit that I misinterpreted, and was wrong about the 0/anything, my mistake. Further, X/0=Y, (definend by me as an undefined infinitely possibly number) because X is actually NOT any number plynomial, or mathematical formula of anykind, because you already defined it as 0. therefore it's 0/0, which in fact is my previously defined Y. as for throwing out the definition of dozens, and concluding that 5 dozen is 512, that is incorrect. If you throw out the definition for dozen (which is 12) you simply cannot conclude, no matter what you do that it equals 12, unless you redefine the word dozen, which you haven't done. one third IS defined as 1/3, the point of it is, you incorrectly defined the word third as the whole number three, and I was saying that if that is the case (which it is not) then it can be read as one three (three, as in you are taking one of the number three) or 13, if you were pronouncing seperately the numbers that combine to form the number 13, which in fact..ARE 13, or one three, just as you could say five hundred is 500, which is up to the interpreter, as it could be interpreted as Five, Zero, Zero. which is a number sequence, or Five Zero Zero, the number Five hundred.

I need a new quote..

That's not entirely correct. X/0=Y is Undefined because anything divided by 0 is undefined, as I stated before. Now, 0/X=Y means that Y=0, because 0 divided by anything is 0. In X/0=Y, X can be any number, polynomial, trig function, or any other formula, and the end result is that it is undefined. The same would go for, for example, ((X-3)*(X+1)) / (X-3) = Y @ X=3; the answer is undefined. You can come up with a near-equivelant-formula that renders the answer 4, but the answer itself is undefined. Similiarly, with X/0=Y, I can come up with an equation that's similiar to the original and renders an answer, but the actual equation itself can render nothing but undefined.

As to dozens, I was not throwing out the rule of one dozen = 12. I was saying that if you throw out the rule that "5 dozen" = "5 * the value of 1 dozen, whatever that may be".... it's the multiplication rule that is being addressed there, not the rule of the value of a dozen. The numbers to form 13 are 13, 12+1, 11+2, 14-1, -13+26, Sqrt(169), etc. the *numerals* to form 13 are 1 and 3. You cannot define the number 13 as the numbers 1 and 3, because those are numerals you are speaking of, not numbers--a different (but related) thing. Please keep numerals and numbers seperate.

Watch out, a psycho hobbit has gotten loose and is terrorizing the populace! Be very wary of him: He is to be considered armed and very dangerous! ::A cute, 3', red-faced, curly-brown-haired, and obviously well-fed hobbit wanders down the street...::

Once again you are wrong about X/0=Y being undefined, because anything divded by 0 is undefined. 0/0 is Anything. You already designated X as 0, therefore X/X=X/0=0/X=0/0=Y(the undefined infinitely possible number) Now if you were to say M/0=Y (M being undefined) you'd be correct. You seem to be forgetting that you ALREADY used X as a variable, and therefore cannot use it again representing a different number.

A quote from you. "Throwing *definition* out, one can conclude that 5 dozen is 512", which is wrong, throwing definition out, throws out the defintion of the word dozen, which is _defined_ as 12, which is like saying 5 Blionzera, which isn't a word, because dozen is no longer defined as 12 and no longer has a meaning, just like my previous non-existant word. If you throw out everybodies math skills, sure, you won't get 5 dozens as 60, but you also won't get it as 512, because just as nobody can multiply they cannot add in any way shape or form either.

As defined by the dictionary, a "numeral" is

"A symbol or mark used to represent a number."

The mathematic definition of number is..

"A member of the set of positive integers; one of a series of symbols of unique meaning in a fixed order that can be derived by counting." Or "A symbol or word used to represent a number."

Hmm..seems to me that the dictionary defines numeral and number as..the same thing? ..odd. A numeral, is in fact a number or character denoting, signifying, _meaning_ a number, when you write out 1, it doesn't mean a "letter" that can mean one, it _means_ one, which also makes 13, onethree, one three, or thirteen. Either way, suppose they are numerals, then the numerals 1 and 3 (which are still numbers, mind you) together, form the number (also a numeral..odd) 13. either way, when you are speaking, and say the word thirteen, or the word one, or the word three, you do not specifically say "I mean the numeral, of course" You just say it, and it is understood, either way.

The original arguement of yours was my incorrect (yes, I admit it) use of "third equals one third." Which fact it does not, I was simply poking fun at grammar, suggesting that a third, and third are completely different (more or less, but you get the point) I then suggested that one third equals thirteen (It does NOT, for the record) ONLY because you stated that the word, number, numeral, WHATEVER "third" equals the _whole number three_ which it in fact does not. You seem to be missing this fact.

I need a new quote..

Again, you're forgetting some of the basic rules of mathematics. You can't do anything to an equation unless it does not modify the answer of the equation. As defined in math (even in basic algebra), anything divided by 0 is undefined. you can go to the store, pick up a beginning algebra book, and it'll be in there, probably near the area where it talks about how you can divided/multiply/etc both sides by the same number, and etc, and still get an equivelant equation. In X/0=Y, X and Y have not been defined at all (except for that, obviously, y=undefined). I can choose to say "What is the value of Y in the equation Y=X/0 if X=19". Now, X=19. But 19/0 is still undefined. So the answer to that question would be (19, undefined), in the standard form of (x, y), which is how you write answers to equations with two variables. Now, given your equation "X/X = X/0", you again have the problem of anything divided by 0 is undefined; immediately, the problem dies with undefined's... in other words, no matter what value I put in for X (I can put in 10, 100, -123, etc), you get undefined's (ask your math teacher); also, there is no Y in that equation, only X; assuming that equation was given in its original statea and not simplified from having a Y beforehand, then Y=nothing, as Y doesn't exist in that equation (unless you were bored and decided to add it in sometime). you are correct, we defined X as a variable... know why it's called a variable? because the value can vary. I can use it to represent any number I choose--that's part of what it means for it to be a variable. a variable is simply a letter that i put in place of a number, to be defined at a later point in time.

As I already stated, I was speaking of removing the definition of what 5 dozen means, not what the number you get with a dozen. given dozen=12, but you throw out "5 dozen" = "5*dozen", then you could read that any number of ways, one being the way you proposed reading one third. You keep thinking i'm speaking of removing 2 rules regarding X dozen, when in fact I was only referring to one rule.

The dictionary definition and mathematical definition are often different; in mathematics such as this, a numeral is a symbole or mark representing a number. a number is a fact that exists; it is an idea, a concept, not a tangible thing. in the case of what you're talking about, you have the number 13. that's also the number D. it also happens to be the number 15, and happens to be the number 1101. it could be a number which is represented by two slashes and three dots. it could be reprensted by an infinite number of numerals, depending on the system (decimal, hexadecimal, octal, binary, some odd ancient obscure number system, etc, etc). Now, in decimal/base 10/the number system we normally use, we have 10 numerals, 0 to 9. These numerals are linked together to form what we commonly interpret as numbers. But if you used binary, for example, you have 2 numerals, 0 and 1. in Hexadecimal, you have 16 numerals, 0 thru 9, then A thru F (or simply, 0 thru F). But these numerals are linked together to form we what will interpret as numbers. In the end, numbers are concepts, numerals are the way we represent these concepts.

For the record, I never stated that "third" equals the whole number three. I stated that it equals the third position, or (without using the word in its own definition) the position after counting 1--2--3.

I understand that you were joking about that. I was, too, though I suppose I didn't sound like it. I apologize if I offended you or anything. But I was still right :-).

Watch out, a psycho hobbit has gotten loose and is terrorizing the populace! Be very wary of him: He is to be considered armed and very dangerous! ::A cute, 3', red-faced, curly-brown-haired, and obviously well-fed hobbit wanders down the street...::

It is very late, I'm getting rather tired, and I need to be up in a few hours for my math class. I was supposed to spend tonight doing homework, but this proved more... ah... stimulating? Well, I must be going so I can get a few hours of sleep in before I gotta drive out to school. If it's still going, maybe I'll drop another post in here tomorrow. If not, I wont (but i guess that was kind of obvious).

Watch out, a psycho hobbit has gotten loose and is terrorizing the populace! Be very wary of him: He is to be considered armed and very dangerous! ::A cute, 3', red-faced, curly-brown-haired, and obviously well-fed hobbit wanders down the street...::

First, You're forgetting that you ALREADY DEFINED X. I agree that it's a variable and can be defined as anything, but a variable can not be two numbers at the SAME TIME. Your equation, for example.

X=0 (Defines X) X/X=X/0 Now, that's true, I'll agree. But you are trying to RE-USE X, the first variable in the seonc formula (X/0) now since you've already defined X as 0, it can not also be anything else, it is 0, and JUST 0. Therefore X/0=0/0=ANYTHING.

Now...if you throw out the fact that 5 dozen=5 dozen, then you cannot use those words at all, and would have to say something like "one less then 6 packages of 12 eggs"

You most certainly DID define third as the whole number three, and I will quote you on it.

Furthermore, "third" does not mean "one third". it means third, as in the place which is signified by the numeral 3 (ie the whole number located on the number line after 2 and before 4).

I do not care how you look at it. "Third does not not mean one third." that is true. "it means third as in the place which is signified by the numeral three. (ie the whole number 3, which..duh, is after 2 and before 3.) So you are saying, that 3 is the whole number located after 2 and before 4, and that 3 (that VERY SAME 3) signifies third. Therefore wholenumber3=3=third=wholenumber3, it's not that hard.

And the dictionary HAS mathematical definition in it. the mathematical definition of numeral and number are the _same_exact_thing_ there.

Numerals 0 through 9...link together to form what we interpret as numbers..sure, ok. 1 and 3 link together to make 13..read that, 1 AND 3, or one space three. You're saying 13 is not a numeral, because only 0-9 are, so what is 13, it's two numerals, one and three, or one three, as I mentioned before, that represent a number. Binary is a bad example in my oppinion. 0=0 1=0 10=2. Those are numerals, 1 and 0. Ten doesn't equal 2 in binary, because there is no 10, 10 is one zero, therefore one zero equals two. So why can't one three equal thirteen?

Saying that third equals the third position is the same as saying it is three. the third position IS three. therefore that means that you said that "third=thirdposition=three=third" It forms a big loop there, doesn't it?

Hmm..I'm going to skip around in this a little bit as it comes to me, so bear with me, once again.

I am not necissarily saying that writing one third, means 13. saying one three (As we already got to the point that you DID point out that third=thirdposition=three=third) so saying one third, or one three if you substitue the synonym you gave us, COULD be interpreted as 13. If I ask you to name the two numbers..or numerals, whatever. .that are in the word/number WHATEVER, 36, you would either say.. three AND six, or simply..three six, which is then interpreted by the question asker as..what else? thirty six.

Anyway..one thing I'd like to say is, don't tell me you're right, you MIGHT be right about something, or something, but I don't see how you can still tell me how X can equal two seperate numbers in the same formula or equation or whatever. And I don't see how you can tell me that if you say that third equals thirdposition which equals three, that isn't the same as saying third equals three.

let me give you a few different definitions of the word third, as listed by the dictionary:

1. The ordinal number matching the number three in a series
(It matches the number, and in no way IS the number)
2. One of three equal parts
3. The quotient of a unit divided by three; one of three equal parts into which anything is divided.
(Which means that one third, the definition given above, is NOT an exact, definate, specific number)
4. coming next after the second and just before the fourth in position
5. Being one of three equal parts.

And..the number 13 also being the number (..sorry, but it's a letter) D, the number 15, and 1101. That's just..flat out..wrong, 13 is 13, 13 is not a letter, it is not 15, 15 is 15, 15 is not 13, 13 is not 15.

I need a new quote..

There is a fundamental flaw in your "13" spiel. It is generally accepted that you cannot use different number systems in the same equation. If you could, you would be able to say 13=15=D=1101=XIII, but you wouldn't be any closer to saying anything worthwhile. For those who are lost but are too stubborn to stop reading, those systems are Decimal, Octal, Hexadecimal, and Roman, in that order.

If I can use different number systems in the same equation, then in "13+15=X", define X. There are a lot of possible answers, of course.

Dec(13) + Dec(15) = Dec(28)
Dec(13) + Dec(15) = Oct(34)
Dec(13) + Dec(15) = Hex(1C)
Dec(13) + Dec(15) = Bin(11100)
Dec(13) + Dec(15) = Roman(XXVIII)
Dec(13) + Oct(15) = Dec(26)
Dec(13) + Oct(15) = Oct(32)
Dec(13) + Oct(15) = Hex(1A)
Dec(13) + Oct(15) = Bin(11010)
Dec(13) + Oct(15) = Roman(XXVI)
Dec(13) + Hex(15) = Dec(34)
Dec(13) + Hex(15) = Oct(42)
Dec(13) + Hex(15) = Hex(22)
Dec(13) + Hex(15) = Bin(100010)
Dec(13) + Hex(15) = Roman(XXXIV)
Oct(13) + Dec(15) = Dec(26)
Oct(13) + Dec(15) = Oct(32)
Oct(13) + Dec(15) = Hex(1A)
Oct(13) + Dec(15) = Bin(11010)
Oct(13) + Dec(15) = Roman(XXVI)
Oct(13) + Oct(15) = Dec(24)
Oct(13) + Oct(15) = Oct(30)
Oct(13) + Oct(15) = Hex(18)
Oct(13) + Oct(15) = Bin(11000)
Oct(13) + Oct(15) = Roman(XXIV)
Oct(13) + Hex(15) = Dec(32)
Oct(13) + Hex(15) = Oct(40)
Oct(13) + Hex(15) = Hex(20)
Oct(13) + Hex(15) = Bin(100000)
Oct(13) + Hex(15) = Roman(XXXII)
Hex(13) + Dec(15) = Dec(34)
Hex(13) + Dec(15) = Oct(42)
Hex(13) + Dec(15) = Hex(22)
Hex(13) + Dec(15) = Bin(100010)
Hex(13) + Dec(15) = Roman(XXXIV)
Hex(13) + Oct(15) = Dec(49)
Hex(13) + Oct(15) = Oct(61)
Hex(13) + Oct(15) = Hex(31)
Hex(13) + Oct(15) = Bin(110001)
Hex(13) + Oct(15) = Roman(XLIX)
Hex(13) + Hex(15) = Dec(40)
Hex(13) + Hex(15) = Oct(50)
Hex(13) + Hex(15) = Hex(28)
Hex(13) + Hex(15) = Bin(101000)
Hex(13) + Hex(15) = Roman(XL)

As you can see, I wasted a lot of time. But, as you can also see, there's no way that all of these answers would be acceptable. Never before has 13+15 equaled 26, and it should stay that way.

One third, or 1/3, is part of a whole. One whole. Not three wholes or six wholes. Just one. This is because X * 1 = X. Therefore, 1 is the default multiplier unless a different one is given specifically. For example, if you say "one third of 6", then the expression becomes:
X = (1/3) * 6
... make both fractions...
X = (1/3) * (6/1)
... multiply across...
X = 6/3
... simplify ...
X = 2

What's so hard about that?

And by the way, none of you are sanitary.

Death to Goombas! Save the Koopas!

I wash my hands every five minutes, so I'm sure you will find I am quite sanitary, and incidentally, it's already been defined on this forum that sanitary = sane.

Disclaimer: The sensicalness of the above statement is not guaranteed.

*skims*

Um, I don't think I got any bonus points.

"Zelda looks like she's going to eat someone."
-Megan

And..by the way, Mitochondria ARE catching people on fire, then they're going to kill everybody and take over the world with a Mitochondria/Human Ultra-hybrid.

I need a new quote..