The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Because you've asked it I am gonna take a guess and say yes!
Here's a nice question.
Are there more possible fractions in existence, or more real numbers between 1 and 2?
Are there more possible fractions in existence, or more real numbers between 1 and 2?
Edgy wrote:
> You could say (even though it's not really true) :
<
0 =
> 1
(Zero is less-than or equal-to 1)
Why could you say that? It is definitely not true, not just "not really true". The inequality must be strictly less than.
> You could say (even though it's not really true) :
<
0 =
> 1
(Zero is less-than or equal-to 1)
Why could you say that? It is definitely not true, not just "not really true". The inequality must be strictly less than.
And the fact that we might be playing SNES games on our Gameboys is coool!
You could say (even though it's not really true) :
<
0 = 1
(Zero is less-than or equal-to 1)
<
0 = 1
(Zero is less-than or equal-to 1)
Edgy wrote:
> you don't need to divide by 0 on both sides though!
If you times
> something by 0 it = 0!
In a proof, equality is fine if you are multiplying by 0, it really doesn`t matter, it always stays the same. It is the division by 0 that gets in the way, that is the point. When I was doing A-level maths, my teacher described division by 0 in terms of books on a book shelf, and the number of times you can take away no books from that book shelf. You could do it once and stop, or you could continue for ever. There is no logical stopping point, so it becomes uncefined, that is why it does not work!
At university, the maths lecturers really don`t care about that kind of stuff anymore though, which is a shame. At A-level everything was just done and assumed to be right. At Uni, everything has to be rigorously proven leaving no cases unconsidered (especially the analysis units). Please just see this as a bit of fun, that doesn`t work due to the undefined nature of division by 0.
There is a better one involving integration and limits, that you bend a few rules to end up with 1=9. There are also loads of others similar to the one I gave, but they are all in my old notes back at home, so I won`t be able to put them up here (luckily for er-no who doesn`t like what has happened to his topic).
> you don't need to divide by 0 on both sides though!
If you times
> something by 0 it = 0!
In a proof, equality is fine if you are multiplying by 0, it really doesn`t matter, it always stays the same. It is the division by 0 that gets in the way, that is the point. When I was doing A-level maths, my teacher described division by 0 in terms of books on a book shelf, and the number of times you can take away no books from that book shelf. You could do it once and stop, or you could continue for ever. There is no logical stopping point, so it becomes uncefined, that is why it does not work!
At university, the maths lecturers really don`t care about that kind of stuff anymore though, which is a shame. At A-level everything was just done and assumed to be right. At Uni, everything has to be rigorously proven leaving no cases unconsidered (especially the analysis units). Please just see this as a bit of fun, that doesn`t work due to the undefined nature of division by 0.
There is a better one involving integration and limits, that you bend a few rules to end up with 1=9. There are also loads of others similar to the one I gave, but they are all in my old notes back at home, so I won`t be able to put them up here (luckily for er-no who doesn`t like what has happened to his topic).
Okay, okay, I think we all understand the maths behind it. Everyone was right - depending on which line you took them to be refering to.
There's a slighly harder to fault proof for 1=0, but I can't remember it right now.
There's a slighly harder to fault proof for 1=0, but I can't remember it right now.
you don't need to divide by 0 on both sides though!
If you times something by 0 it = 0!
If you times something by 0 it = 0!
this was meant to be about the GBA not BLOODY maths!
Edgy wrote:
> Actually if you work out the very simple maths from your
> simplification it says:
0=0
or even just:
0
VenomByte wrote:
So, essentially you're saying....
2*0 = 1*0
2 = 1
Doesn't look quite so impressive like that.....
It says 0=0 does it? So you think that dividing by 0 gives 0 huh? The reason this doesn`t work is that it becomes undefined. I realise that 0s come into it if you look carefully, but that isn`t a problem.
VenomByte was closer with his 2*0 = 1*0, but whilst in algebraic form this is not a problem, until I divided by the 0. Every line is correct, except the division by (a-b).
"if you work out the very simple maths" I never said it was complex, I do not see the need for that kind of tone in your writing.
> Actually if you work out the very simple maths from your
> simplification it says:
0=0
or even just:
0
VenomByte wrote:
So, essentially you're saying....
2*0 = 1*0
2 = 1
Doesn't look quite so impressive like that.....
It says 0=0 does it? So you think that dividing by 0 gives 0 huh? The reason this doesn`t work is that it becomes undefined. I realise that 0s come into it if you look carefully, but that isn`t a problem.
VenomByte was closer with his 2*0 = 1*0, but whilst in algebraic form this is not a problem, until I divided by the 0. Every line is correct, except the division by (a-b).
"if you work out the very simple maths" I never said it was complex, I do not see the need for that kind of tone in your writing.
Page: