the fact that i haven't done it before i created the thread does not mean that it can't be done after the thread.

plus: you are not helping. you say it is impossible. you crushing my hopes is not helping.

i won't say anything more. just look at the screenshot. anyone with half a brain will understand.

you scared? you said it is a physical impossibility... do you take it back? or are you scared of the impossible?

chicken.

i say it is possible and it is easy too. wanna bet? i think you're chicken. and a noob.

so, if i actually make it*, what do i win?

*: make my 240 degree momo use only the 240 degrees of a car like the xrg that has 720 degrees

a physical impossibility? are you sure?

this thread is really going the wrong way.
i want to move the momo wheel in exact same way as i would in a same car. i turn it 90 degrees to the left, i want the car to steer as if i moved its wheel 90 degrees to the left, not 270! accuracy in motion is something undesirable?

i think the way it is now it is not realistic. the way it is now, the virtual wheel (the game) turns significantly faster than the physical wheel (my momo). i would like to be able to turn the momo exactly as i would irl.

forces would be more accurate too.

it hasn't got to do with physics. at all. i want to map the 240degrees of the momo, to the same 240 degrees of the car's wheel.

we have fudges for linearity, why not a similar one for what i am proposing?

Quote from tristancliffe :

. With only 240° of lock, you can either have a totally linear wheel, where (say) 1° of lock = 0.375° in game lock,

actually no. i want 1 degree of rotation of my momo to result in 1 degree of rotation of the car's wheels. now, what happens if the car's wheels turn more than the respective steering wheel angle, i dunno, just lock it i guess.

"Wheel turn compensation:
Adjusts the turn ratio of the users wheel to the LFS car. "
here

ok then, next time you crash your xrg, never drive it again, because you can't do that in real life.

tristan, get a grip ...

it should be an option, at least. i consider this to be somewhat of a serious issue.

i have a momo racing wheel which has 240 degrees of rotation. how do i set it up so that turning the momo will result in the same degrees of rotation in LFS?

ktnxbye

what's a 'so hunt'

Quote from shiny_red_cobra :

far more than anything else in your system,

are you sure? 'cause iirc, the q6600 is not "far less" power hungry than the 9800GT . just being accurate :P

psu is ok i guess.

how is the power at where you are located? any power spikes/dips?

stress test it. atitool/cpuburn/superpi, whatever floats your boat. remove one stick of ram

i'd say the 9800 is halting the system, but that might just be the ati fanboy in me :P

Quote from samjh :

Tristan is right.

no, he is isn't and i gave an explanation which tristan accepted

Quote from samjh :

0.333... is 1/3.

i've said the same thing. he can't get it. seems it is beyond his levels of comprehension. that, or he just won't admit he was in error. those reluctant to admit their ignorance can't learn math.

Quote from Woz :

Come on then which is right lol

And dont say it depends on context because that is what I have said already.

strictly speaking, tristan is wrong. he is describing 0.999(9) as a sequence. see point #3 .

in base 3, 1/3(10) is written as 0.1(3)

heh heh heh

( 1/3(10) = 0.1(3) )

much like 1/2(10) is written as 0.1(2)

at least that's what i think at the moment

which means that

0.333(3)(10) = 0.1(3)

an infinite number of digits in the decimal system ... needs only one digit in an other system.

Last edited by george_tsiros, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 21:28. Reason : baking noodles

Quote from Woz :

It is analogue vs digital if you will, as such 1/n where n is base -1 will ALWAYS presents a "problem".

base... 10... 10-1=9... 1/9 ... 1/9 is a problem? i think it's a fraction. it's a rational number. hardly what i would call a "problem".

Quote from Woz :

Maths is just a tool we use to describe the around us. It is NOT perfect but full of compromises that are used to improve the usefulness of the said tool.

and have you studied... how much, exactly? ODEs? PDEs? vector analysis? multivariate? tensors? have you actually studied enough to know where math is lacking? considering your previous thoughts on the matter of simple arithmetic, you lack even the most basic knowledge on this subject. sorry, you are not one who will be taken seriously when you talk about the shortcomings of math. Even if you have studied almost anything that can be studied, you will gain the knowledge that math is built-in in this world when you study the advances made in quantum mechanics and particle physics the last 100 years.

Quote from Woz :

Infitesimal numbers might as well be 0. Cool, yet pi has infitesimal precision and the more digits employed in the calculation the "more correct" your result. pi is not 3.14 but for many calculations that is all that is required.

infinitesimal numbers are small, but they are not equal to 0. Pi is accurate. it is the ratio of the circumference of a circle (ANY circle) to its diameter. If you start writing out 3.14159... then it is an approximation. but 'Pi' is accurate. much like when you say '1'. it's absolutely accurate.

Quote from Woz :

It is all about the precision required for the task at hand, no more.

Quote from Woz :

We accept the 0.0(0)1 from Becky maths has 0 "significance" because it allows our base 10 number system to have a “consistency” which allows it to be a better "tool" for our needs. Does not mean it is right, just a compromise.

becky-math might have compromises, but 0.333(...) is not a compromise. it is an other way to write 1/3. much like 2/6, -1/-3, etc.

Quote from Woz :

There is actually NO 1, 2, 3 etc. They are all just markers on a line that represent a "mass" for want of a better word (thanks Becky) that we have attached a value to. Trouble is that line does not actually have markers, it is analogue. We see fit to divide it into factors of 10 between markers we have called 1,2,3... because that allows us to have a frame of reference.

'1' is analog? well, '1' has a certain significance, unrelated to any numbering system. actually, representation systems are unrelated to what you can do with numbers. in number theory anyway, '1' symbolizes a number with certain properties. etc.

Quote from Woz :

Try and hide behind 0.9~ is 1 because 0.0(0)1 is so small we will call it 0 and sooner or later it will bite

0.999(...) does not end with a '9'. it doesn't 'end'. there is no ...0001 in the 'end'

Quote from Woz :

If you try and travel millions of light years that infitesimal might become the difference between landing or smashing into a sun. It is all just about the precision required for the task at hand, no more.

someone take the calculator from this guy's hands. we are not talking about engineering here. we are talking about math. in math there is no 'just about the precision'.

Quote from Woz :

Base 10 numbers are not “real”, real numbers they are a continuous stream of values in infitesimal steps that DO not fit base 10. It is imperial vs metric, analogue vs digital!

this is marginaly pseudoscientific. there is no "real" in math. we define "real numbers" to be a set with very strict definition. we don't make up words or characteristics.

talking about the "Reality" of a number is as serious as is talking about the "politeness" of them. 8 is more polite than 4 because it has more curves, it is not angled and angry like 4.

Quote from Woz :

Thats me done. Feel free for the “last word” and trash what I have said

yeah. math loves you too. but you make me sad that instead of learning new things or correcting your mistakes, you spout unscientific nonsense and ignore whatever knowledge comes your way, saying "that's me". there is a word, in greek, for what you do. Εθελοτυφλείς. "being willingly blind"

has lerts seen this guy? http://www.timecube.com/ ?

Quote from wsinda :

... meaning that they are not in set R.

where is arithmetic defined?

also, we do calculate with complex numbers, but in many areas (for us physicists at least, i'll mention electromagnetism and quantum mechanics) we keep the real part of the number because that is the one that is representative of physical reality.

i insist that you can do arithmetic (in the strict sense) only with real numbers. infinity is a concept, not a real number. that is why the set including +/-inf is not R.

Last edited by george_tsiros, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 10:12.

Quote from Becky Rose :

badly?

i don't think he has ever actually "finished a single sentence" as in "completed a single coherent thought"

a short note about a comment made earlier. when i said you can't do arithmetic with infinity, countable or not, is that you can't have infinite bananas. you can have any real number of bananas or fractions of bananas or any other real number of bananas. you can't have infinite of them. arithmetic is what you do with real numbers. R. you can extend some functions that work in the R set, to work in the extended real set, but that is not arithmetic in both the strictest and the practical sense.

Quote from breadfan :

I don't get it why some people still try to prove that 0.999recurring equals 1.

0.9999.... tends to 1 (which is its limit) but will NEVER REACH 1, thus 0.999... cannot be equal to 1.

an entire page on wikipedia, devoted exactly on this subject, with proofs, references and whatever, by knowledgeable people, doesn't just give you the idea that you just might not have understood something?


you sound like lerts trying to "disprove" the conservation of momentum.

Quote from wsinda :

Yes, you can.
... and 10^(-infinity) will be zero

great results i see there. did you notice that it says 'extended' real line? as in, "stuff you can do, theoreticaly, about quantities that can not be measured" ? you can add stuff up. countable stuff. you can't count to infinity. you can't do arithmetic with infinity. and by 'arithmetic' we mean "add quantities up and come up with real results".

0.333... is not an approximation. it is the decimal form of 1/3. quit insisting. it is an other way to write 1/3. it is not just equal.

here you go about arithmetic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic see any mention of infinity? also note that it says "These new elements (+/-inf) are not real numbers"

Last edited by george_tsiros, Tue 7 Oct 2008, 21:56.