The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
There is news floating around at work that when the GBA is released in the UK a special adapter will be released so that you can also play your SNES game on the GBA!
I am sorry but I may have to go and lie down! play any SNES game on the GBA,play any SNES game on the GBA while walking around the house, while sitting in a car, no leads, phwewww calm down, this is soo good! and even if Nintendo say no to this add-on the great news is that some company has already got an unofficial one planned.
and more news GBA game no more then £30 and the GBA no more then £70! yeahh great!
(and this unofficail add-on for the GBA,it will probably cost about £40 but then again there is 'talks' of an arieal with this one so u can watch terrestrial channels!)
What do you think?
I am sorry but I may have to go and lie down! play any SNES game on the GBA,play any SNES game on the GBA while walking around the house, while sitting in a car, no leads, phwewww calm down, this is soo good! and even if Nintendo say no to this add-on the great news is that some company has already got an unofficial one planned.
and more news GBA game no more then £30 and the GBA no more then £70! yeahh great!
(and this unofficail add-on for the GBA,it will probably cost about £40 but then again there is 'talks' of an arieal with this one so u can watch terrestrial channels!)
What do you think?
Page:
'A Deceptive Aesthetic: Nikita Mikhalkov’s Burnt By The Sun and the Illusionary Power of Mise-en-scene' - 2008
Montage Film Reviews freelance writer Oliver Pfeiffer BA (Hons) has written a review of the Russian film 'Burnt by the Sun' 1994 (dir. Nikita Mikhalkov).
To read the review see Here
Montage Film Reviews freelance writer Oliver Pfeiffer BA (Hons) has written a review of the Russian film 'Burnt by the Sun' 1994 (dir. Nikita Mikhalkov).
To read the review see Here
VenomByte wrote:
> Ah, but essentially 1 and 2 are still real numbers. 1.0 and 2.0 are
> no more real than them in the same way that 1.00 and 2.00 are more
> real than 1.0 and 2.0
Er....maybe
If thats so... then why isnt 1, 2 or 1.0, 2.0 considered... in that crazy, devil may care world of mathmatics... imgainary numbers...
Even though to everyone else all numbers are imaginary?
> Ah, but essentially 1 and 2 are still real numbers. 1.0 and 2.0 are
> no more real than them in the same way that 1.00 and 2.00 are more
> real than 1.0 and 2.0
Er....maybe
If thats so... then why isnt 1, 2 or 1.0, 2.0 considered... in that crazy, devil may care world of mathmatics... imgainary numbers...
Even though to everyone else all numbers are imaginary?
*inexplicably regrets ever having posted in this thread*
VenomByte wrote:
> Ah, but essentially 1 and 2 are still real numbers. 1.0 and 2.0 are
> no more real than them in the same way that 1.00 and 2.00 are more
> real than 1.0 and 2.0
oops!
should read
> no more real than them in the same way that 1.00 and 2.00 are NO more
> real than 1.0 and 2.0
> Ah, but essentially 1 and 2 are still real numbers. 1.0 and 2.0 are
> no more real than them in the same way that 1.00 and 2.00 are more
> real than 1.0 and 2.0
oops!
should read
> no more real than them in the same way that 1.00 and 2.00 are NO more
> real than 1.0 and 2.0
Ah, but essentially 1 and 2 are still real numbers. 1.0 and 2.0 are no more real than them in the same way that 1.00 and 2.00 are more real than 1.0 and 2.0
Er....maybe
Er....maybe
But...
1 and 2 are integers...
1.0 and 2.0 would be their real numercal alternatives...
1 and 2 are integers...
1.0 and 2.0 would be their real numercal alternatives...
look read the title guys!
FUTURE OF GAMING!
NOT
FUTURE OF MATH
ask tony for it,leave my topic alone
FUTURE OF GAMING!
NOT
FUTURE OF MATH
ask tony for it,leave my topic alone
To the best of my knowledge, the number of fractions in existance is countably infinite, therefore the number of rationals between 1 and 2 is bigger as it is uncountable.
I recommend you read the work of Georg Cantor, on infinite sets.
VenomByte wrote:
> Here's a nice question.
Are there more possible fractions in
> existence, or more real numbers between 1 and 2?
The cardinality of the set of real numbers between 1 and 2 by far exceeds the cardinality of the set of rationals along the entire number line from - to + infinity. To answer your question precisely.
The former is equal to the Continuum, the smallest known uncountably infinite number, and the latter is aleph-null, the number of integers or the number of rationals, which is the same. The former is equal to the latter raised to the power of itself. Self addition or multiplication does not increase the size of an infinity, but this does. And there are an infinite number of types of infinity. I'm not sure if this is a countably infinite number, though.
> Here's a nice question.
Are there more possible fractions in
> existence, or more real numbers between 1 and 2?
The cardinality of the set of real numbers between 1 and 2 by far exceeds the cardinality of the set of rationals along the entire number line from - to + infinity. To answer your question precisely.
The former is equal to the Continuum, the smallest known uncountably infinite number, and the latter is aleph-null, the number of integers or the number of rationals, which is the same. The former is equal to the latter raised to the power of itself. Self addition or multiplication does not increase the size of an infinity, but this does. And there are an infinite number of types of infinity. I'm not sure if this is a countably infinite number, though.
Page: