If you're american you haven't broken 4 until you are on this list.
https://www.trackandfieldnews.com/archive/U.S.Sub-4s.pdf
If you ran the sub-4 1500 equivalent or broke 4 in a road race or whatever it is not the same as what the men on that list did and it never will be.
no.
if you brok 4 by .00000001 would you say "aw shucks... i gottarun that again. lemme go get some gatorade."
NO!!! you're gonna say "hot dog i jsut broke four"
breaking four is breaking four...no matter what!
do-not-question-me! wrote:
breaking four is breaking four...no matter what!
Not a single person has questioned that.
OK I finished reading this thread, and seriously...some people are just dumb. To those "finance gurus" who thought they were smart cause they do finance and stuff...i'm sorry, but no. If you've actually done ANY sort of quant finance, IE using stochastic calculus, etc. you'd know quite a bit of real analysis. and THE MOST BASIC of analysis classes will teach you that .9 bar is 1.
To those people laughing at a wikpedia article, I dare you to read any wikipedia article involving math. You wouldn't understand a word. And that's because you're dumb.
To those saying there is no "real-world" applications of infinity. OK maybe not. But we're having a theoretical discussion here. Someone running .9 bar is not happenng in real life. It cannot. But we're talking about THEORY.
.9 repeating is 1. I repeat, .9 repeating is 1. .99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 is not 1. But when we say .9 "bar" we're talking about the concept of infinity. Some of you will never get the concept of infinity. We can't all be Ramanujans. I have nothing against those who aren't. But don't argue something you don't know anything about.
if its hand timed, would you need 3:59.90 to be given a time under 4?
Speaking of Ramanujan, why is the number 1729 special?
Ha, ha, ha... "natural laws"... man invented numbers, buddy.
Tree Frog wrote:
Ha, ha, ha... "natural laws"... man invented numbers, buddy.
Kronecker would disagree. Well with the natural numbers anyay. He would agree about the rest though.
IllinoisMaster wrote:
Speaking of Ramanujan, why is the number 1729 special?
It's the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways.
1^3+12^3=1729
9^3+10^3=1729