Out of interest I thought I would add that in a series like the Aussie V8s they only have a few final drive ratio's to select from. Then they can play with gears after that. So even in full spec race cars the choices are still limited

Quote from brandencox55 :

please help me with rfactor.my video card or graphics card will not play the game.since rfactor is backwards compatible with DirectX7 would it be able to play on my computer using DirectX7?

Depends on your card. TBH, while rF might support the DX7 code paths so much has changed since the early days that most DX7 cards probably do not have the grunt to run it any more.

Min requirement now I believe is 128Mb of vid memory which counts out almost all DX7 only cards.

Quote from breadfan :

I like this idea and I'll give it a try...although I think the hyperlinks won't be clickable then.

Don't make text unselectable, pointless and will pi** off users.

It does not work, you just do view source and then copy from the html. If someone wants the text they WILL take it. This is where copyright comes in. If you find the text taken just contact the site first, failing that their hosts.

NOTHING you can do, its the nature of the web.

Its as bad as right click blocking, pointless.

As a side note, If you want to see how delicate a race clutch can be you only have to look at Bathurst this year.

Tander/Scaife on pole with Tander as start driver. He messed the start, burnt the clutch and then stalled. In a later interview with Scaife he said they got lucky as the clutch came good (glaze scrubbed off) so they did not have to suffer slipping clutch all race like he has had to before.

So even a clutch made to take over 600bhp can burn and die in an instant. Just thought I should point that out

Quote from danthebangerboy :

Well, im not really sure what happened. I guess its lag, although no other people in the server said i was lagging (I asked) and due to it being a banger server i guess it would have been apparent if this was the case. If you look at the picture, thats what kept happening every few minutes. I was sat waiting to time out but i never did, and nor did anyone else. This was happening during races so there was no pitting/leaving the pits. I have never seen that red bar go that high before at i was concerned that my pc was about to die or something. Im fully updated with antivirus (avg8) so no problems there and i use enditall to kill every process that is not vital to windows in order to make lfs run better plus i have not changed anything with my comp yet this is a new problem that started on friday evening. Not a major thing but just a little worrying. Anyone know what could cause this??

You on a wifi link in your house?

Oher people in the house using your link etc?

Quote from swingkid :

example:
when i give permision to use a photo in a magazine
every body who buys the magazine gets a copy of my photo
but they still not allowed to use it themselfs
thats copyright!
i know that there are people who will use the photo as i know that there are people who use the skins witout permision
but that still doesn't make it right!
but whe do have to live with it (thiefs are everywhere also on the net )
col thinks that skins have no copyright !?
again:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrights
it aply's to all origionall work
my case was just pointing out that it is steeling
im not asking to do anithing obout it , i belive that would be a waste of time

Then when someone steals your skin use copyright law and take them to court. You have to use the courts to protect copyright, as the RIAA do .

It is not for LFS to protect your skin as it need to distribute it for others to see it. This is the way of EVERY online game there is at the mo.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Agreed. I was trying to get the point across to you. I suppose technically it's not zero, but it's not as big as a number (an infitesimally small number I mean)

And the point I was trying to get across is that 0.9~ must equal 1 BUT only because of the round trip of the render in base 10

To truly represent 1/3 in base 10 we really need to add 1/3 of 0.0(0)1 to 0.3~ but we cant and so 0.3~ is a good enough render that is accepted to mean the same. As an infitesimal value is a value (although we need to conceed it is not) to solve the render issue.

Quote from tristancliffe :

But at the level of 0.999...=1 we're not really considering base 10 or the actual number system itself, but the whole concept of mathematics itself. Regardless of what base you use, or even if you use bases, the concept itself holds true.

0.9~ has EVERYTHING to do with 1/n where n = base - 1. There can be NO disputing that. It has nothing to do with mathematics itself, just the base chosen to render a given value in which causes a "mismatch" in what can be rendered well in that base. It is the compromises that is required to make maths work.

1/3 in base 3 is 0.1 which is a perfect render (George, I pointed this out very early on btw). It becomes a problem rendering in base 10 for the simple fact 3 into 10 causes a recursion which means you can NEVER resolve the carried 1 so you end up with a problem if 0.0(0)1 as it were. Does not mean that 1/3 is not a valid number it is just being rendered in the best way given the limitations.

Analogue vs digital! The render of LFS by an NVidia card vs ATI card if you will. Both a view on the LFS world but both slightly different yet no less correct.

1 / 3 * 3 = 1, it can never be anything else and as all we can render 1/3 in base 10 as is 0.3~ then it stands to reason that 0.9~ = 1 as 0.3~ * 3 must be 1.

It IS a render issue of our chosen base. I think that is as concise and I can ever get

Quote from george_tsiros :

infinitesimal numbers are small, but they are not equal to 0.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Because lets say you get to a billion, trillion, dodechedronillion 9s. The difference is now tiny. No divide that tiny tiny difference by a billion, trillion, dodechedronillion. The difference is even tinier. Divide the new difference by a billion, trillion, dodechedronillion. And keep divided the new difference by a billion, trillion, dodechedronillion an infinite number of times.
You then end up (if ending up were possible when using infinities) with NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER

Come on then which is right lol

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

Quote from Becky Rose :

Technically the difference is 0.0(0)1.

Conveniently, that's the exact 'mass' I have decided to award all numbers in Becky-math.

^ Yay. Someone who actually gets the point I am trying to make

This is the last I will say on this.. I can almost hear the relief from the crowd. I hope it actually highlights the point I am trying to make because I do actually understand math.

Right... here we go.

1) The world is NOT in base 10
2) Humans currently have decided on base 10 to describe the world.

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

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.

Let me give some examples.

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.

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

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.

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.

When we changes from imperial to metric we also changed all the sizes of nuts and bolts etc. did 3/8" cease to be a valid size of bolt because it did not fix perfect into mm? Did 1/1000" cease to be a valid tolerance? No it is just those markers were in the "wrong" location for our new system so we discarded them.

"John, pass me that 9.525mm socket will you". Do the math

Accept, embrace and acknowledge the compromises we employ in the name of base 10 maths and it becomes a more powerful tool! 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

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.


As means of a sidetrack..... There is a Savant that quoted pi to 80000dp calculated in realtime. There were teams of people checking off his numbers as he spouted them out at machine gun speed stopping only for drinks etc. He only stopped at the 80000th dp as the point was proved, that took long enough and their books of pi didnt go much further anyway.


Luckily the Savant is HSA so is able to communicate in semi mormal terms unlike many Savants. He “sees” numbers as shapes and patterns, nothing else. I remember him saying 9 appears as a big shape. To test this they presented him with simple maths where the size of each number was opposite to how his brain worked and it caused a “number” blindness that made it very difficult for him to “see” the solutions.


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!


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

Last edited by Woz, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 20:01. Reason : corrected socket size

Quote from AndroidXP :

Is this a very well disguised troll attempt?

No, I have been around this forum for YEARS. If I wanted to troll I would have many times before. This is in OT is it not?

I started out wanting an answer and have yet to get one. All I get is the 10x-x "proof" and people saying that 0.9~ because it is ok!.

Even the Wikipedia post on 0.9~ has the follow phrase contained...

"Misinterpreting the meaning of the use of the "…" (ellipsis) in 0.999… accounts for some of the misunderstanding about its equality to 1. The use here is different from the usage in language or in 0.99…9, in which the ellipsis specifies that some finite portion is left unstated or otherwise omitted. When used to specify a recurring decimal, "…" means that some infinite portion is left unstated, which can only be interpreted as a number by using the mathematical concept of limits."

Let me repeat that VITAL part... "When used to specify a recurring decimal, "…" means that some infinite portion is left unstated, which can only be interpreted as a number by using the mathematical concept of limits."

That unstated part being my disputed 0.1*10^(-infinity) or the knifes share or the sliced cake

When you get into limit theory you accept that while 0.9~ never actually converges with 1 you accept it is 1. Again, you accept that it is really impossible to represent 1/n when n=base-1 yet there is a need to find a way to solve this problem

so 1/3*3=1 yet 1/3 can't be represented by base 10 without a bodge, yet nobody is willing to accept this yet is more than happy to break every rule in the base 10 number system to create a solution to the problem.

Why?

Quote from tristancliffe :

But the whole point Woz is that it ISN'T a bodge, a flaw or an inaccuracy. Rather it's your understanding of the concept of numbers and infinity that needs updating.

That 0.999... = 1 is not particularly advanced mathematics.

Where is the best place to read up on this then that does not fall back on 10x-x as the only proof?

"There are many proofs that 0.999… = 1, of varying degrees of mathematical rigour. A short sketch of one rigorous proof can be simply stated as follows. Consider that two real numbers are identical if and only if their difference is equal to zero. Most people would agree that the difference between 0.999… and 1, if it exists at all, must be very small. (WOZ: but as it exists it must be able to represent.. hence bodge) By considering the convergence of the sequence above, we can show that the magnitude of this difference must be smaller than any positive quantity (WOZ: Why?), and it can be shown (see Archimedean property for details) that the only real number with this property is 0. Since the difference is 0 it follows that the numbers 1 and 0.999… are identical. The same argument also explains why 0.333… = 1⁄3, 0.111… = 1⁄9, etc."

So that has not shown it then. Just saying the difference is so close to zero we will call it zero is not proof

Last edited by Woz, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 08:48.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

The problem with maths is it never accounts for the bit you need to lick off the knife.

If you cut a cake there's ALWAYS some left on the knife, thats the missing .0001 so that accounts for the .3333 if you cut a cake in thirds.

There's always a bit left on the blade so you can never reach more than.9999999999 recuring due to my stunning theory explaining the knife effect.

Maths is simple really .....................

Actually that if the BEST way to explain the fact that 1/x where x=numberBase-1 - 0.1~

Come on people, face it... Any 0.x~ is a bodge where the number is not easy to represent in the base you are trying to represent it. You can wrap the notion up how you like, say the limit of 0.9~ is 1 or whatever else you like but is a bodge imposed by base 10.

As I said before. 1/3 in base3 is 0.1 as nice clean number that does not need a bodge. move to another base and BANG... bodge time

1/3*3=1 fine but when you try and represent in a given base things turn to shite and you need bodges liKe 0.3~ * 3 = 0.9~ = 1

Last edited by Woz, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 08:06.

0.9~ tends towards 1 because it is an infinitley increasing number and hence DOES tend towards 1. It is IMPOSSIBLE to represent a single value because it is infinite in size.

infinity - 1 = infinity and therefore infinity is NOT a single number but an abstract concept for values that are impossible to represent.

If the concept of 0.9~ is a valid number you MUST accept that 0.1*10^(-infinity) is also a valid number.

Given this then the following is valid because 0.9~ is always 0.1*10^(-infinity) away from 1, it is impossible for it to be anything else.

1 - 0.1*10^(-infinity) = 0.9~

This means we have established a VALID way to create 0.9~ that involves subtracting a value from 1. this means...

0.9~ < 1

And therefore

0.9~ != 1

So which part of the above is NOT true. Please do not just spout the "what you learnt in school as a kid and have taken as gospel" that 1/3 = 0.3~. Why is the following NOT valid

1 = (3 * 0.3~) + 0.1*10^(-infinity)

Quote from geeman1 :

There is no difference. You are still thinking (subconsciously?) that the 9s stop at some point. They don't.
Zero, point and a huge amount of 9s is not the same as zero, point and infinite number of 9s.

no I am not. I am just using the base 10 number system to its logical conclusion.

0.9~ is actually 1 - 0.1*10^(-infinity) therefore 0.9~ < 1

The thing is that when you get to these sorts of numbers like 1/3 they actually fall outside what can be represented by base 10.

Do you dispute that in a base 10 system every dp is 10 times smaller than the one before? No... Good otherwise you would be wrong.

I accept that 1 / 3 * 3 = 1 it is impossible to be otherwise. It is a given.

The "notion' of 1/3 = 0.3~ is that, a notion. It is a value that is accepted to be 1/3 because it is so close as to make no difference. It is about the only representation that is possible in base 10.

In base 3 you can represent 1/3 = 0.1 and 0.1 * 3 = 1. Fine.

Someone here said not all maths is a calculator, the trouble is that the base 10 number system is what a calculator is. That is the missmatch. Do not confuse number manipulation with its representation

Quote from Bob Smith :

Woz - Yes but 0.9 recurring is only infinitely smaller than 1.0, so there is no calculation in which using 1.0 would not give, to all intents and purposes, the same answer.

This is the point I was trying to make there is actually a difference, it might be so infinitely small that it is ultimatly pointless but if you do not accept a difference you do not accept that every dp is 10 times smaller than the one before you do not accept the base 10 system.

Quote from speedway :

x = 0.999999999....
=> 10x = 9.999999...

10x - x = 9.99999...-0.9999....
9x = 9
x = 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wasnt that hard, was it?

edit: crap, got beaten by 2 minutes

yes I have seen the proof many many times and it breaks down because you are dealing with numbers that are not actually possible to represent.

Its a bit like dealing with equations where one value is infinity, maths start to break down. Such as

infinity -x = infinity

So using the "logic" in your "proof" any value of x = 0

10 = 0
7623786 = 0

Once you get to maths based around infinity and infinitely small numbers things break down and fall apart.

The fraction 1/3 is valid number but 0.3~ is only an accepted notation within the limitations of our base 10 number system to repesent a value that can't otherwise be represented in base 10. It is a rounding fudge for base 10.

In the context of 1/3 it means that at some point it is not posssible to represent the last digit and that some inifinite portion is left unstated.

The NUMBER 0.9~ though does not equal 1. Forget the context based "shorthand" and look at the base 10 number system.

Every DP is 10 times less than the DP before it. Given this you MUST accept that

0.9 < 1
0.99 < 1
0.999 < 1
0.9~ < 1

It DOES NOT MATTER that it has a never ending number of significant digits as you must also accept that every DP is 10 times less than the one before it therefore 0.9~ < 1.

Someone said work out 1 - 0.9~. Fine

1 - 0.9 = 0.1
0.1 - 0.09 = 0.01
.......

It will never reach 0, just closer to at each dp to 0. It only reaches zero when limits come into play!

If you accept that the NUMBER 0.9~ = 1 it means you believe every DP is NOT 10 times smaller than the one before.

This is what is meant by the number tends towards 1, getting ever closer BUT never reaching 1.

Don't confuse the NUMBER 0.9~ and the SHORTHAND REPRESENTATION for 3 * 1/3

This is all just semantics but needs to be pointed out

Last edited by Woz, Tue 7 Oct 2008, 12:14.

Quote from Jakg :

Errrr how would the decrypt them?

They don't have to. It is already an offence in the UK that incurs jail time NOT to provide encryption keys if they are requested.

Quote from wsinda :

Sure. Just calculate 1.0 - 0.99999999... Start writing down the decimals, and in a day or so you will see the answer.

Yes I know that 0.9999999.... "tends" towards 1 but the fact of the matter is that it is NOT actually 1 or you would just write 1 instead of .9999......

Does not matter how many 9s you write does it will NEVER reach 1 therefore it is not 1.

It is more to the fact that it is not possible to fully represent 1/3 in base 10 hence the rounding error in the maths that allow 1 / 3 = 0.333333... when infact 1 / 3 != 0.3333333...

We play a bit of Open Arena and Urban Terror at work at lunch (Both built on the open Q3A source)

Q3 is still the best 1V1 there is an mods like RA3 still hold it. Q3 is still ALWAYS in the top 10 online FPS in the gamespy charts BTW.

QuakeLive should bring Q3 back up in players again.

I always loved it because it was clean, simple, balanced and VERY pure in gameplay and physics.

Things like strafe/circle jumps meant there was a far bigger learning curve than many FPS.

I would hate to total how many hours Q3 has taken from my life, far more than LFS if I am honest

So if 1 / 3 = 0.33333333...

And .3333333... * 3 = .9999999....

And 1 / 3 * 3 = 1

Therefore 0.999999..... = 1

Hmmm

Quote from mcintyrej :

Why are you worried?

You should only be worried if your doing things wrong. Thats what its there for.

What are ID cars? Sound like a great invention to me.

Depends on what they decide is wrong tbh.

Bring in the thought police is all I say!!!

The countdown to the race has started...

I have my slab of beer ready and the TV booked for the day

Quote from sun :

Hi,

i just made a Cruise insim app for somebody and everytime they make a a command, it crashes the insim. I've tried looking at the code my self, but i cant find out how werre it keeps going wrong.

Can any body help me ?

thx

I dont get it. If you have finally learnt to code enough to write a complete Cruise app why cant you find a crash location and fix it? You should have encountered many many crashes and bugs by now you have had to fix writing a complete app. You have developed an app that deals with the complexity of network ccomms etc, you should have encountered many unexplained crashes to date as part of that process, some very complex.

The question you have just asked is the same as posting "My car is not working, whats wrong?" or "My PC is acting strange, what do I need to do to fix it?".

Did you just use the open source InSim app on this forum and make a change that has broken it or have you really created one from the ground up?

For those that have not encountered Sun here before... Be careful the norm is for him to ask you to write the code for him in the thread the question is asked.

As others have said, set your IDE to break on exceptions then run in debug and wait for the crash. You will now be able to look at the variables and see what they hold. This shoule let you see what the problem is.

Last edited by Woz, Sat 4 Oct 2008, 21:47.

This plugs that hole http://i267.photobucket.com/al ... 11/morbid_luv/butplug.jpg

Did I just post that eeek lol

Please can we get car body kit like this for LFS

http://www.foundshit.com/budget-ground-effects/

It would allow everyone to have different looking cars and bring loads to the game

Quote from amp88 :

The only reason I actually picked up on your point initially was because you sighed at someone else. While you were being all high and mighty knowing everything in the world I spotted your post was wrong and wanted you to feel suitably embarrassed about it. The first line of your post (after the patronising sigh) states "You do realise I take it that to flatshift you HAVE to use the clutch dont you?". This is blatantly false, it doesn't matter if you half qualify what you should have said later talking about race cars using technology. Even taking that into consideration (race cars using technology) it seems from the first line of your post that the race cars would use technology to use the clutch. This is clearly not the case in at least one application (V8 Supercars, as I mentioned). My point was valid, your post was wrong.

sigh.... he was talking about H pattern boxes so I was correct in that you HAVE to use the clutch!

We ALL know and agree that with fancy electronics you can do all sorts of stuff, that is NOT in dispute!

Again you have not read everything and wanted to shout down. As you dont read everything that relates to what is going on there is no point in comple...

Last edited by Woz, Wed 1 Oct 2008, 23:58.