Which is better to follow: Theory or Reality?

Wut?

Theoretically, there is no reality,
But there cannot be theory without reality to base it off of,
so I cannot say either

You can have your beliefs,but you cannot let reality ever escape you.

I still don't know what you guys are talking about. ;_;

then don't post

I go by reality, but where reality fails I go by theory.

If you want to understand something but don't, you obviously ask for clarification. >.>

^^^

<_<

but posting one word statements that are off the topic in an intelligent discussion board, then continuing to post off topic is unnecessary.

that being said, I should stfu now.

@maraj: do you believe in sutff like religion/science or not. That's basically what it's saying.

*blinks*

Believe in, or believe? 'cause it'd be rather hard to disprove science and religion existing...>_>

Actually, the basis of this topic didn't spring from that at all. Sometimes reality and theory do not align. For example, theory says that there is a difference between 1 and 0.9repeating, but in reality there is no difference at all. The ideal gas law predicts how gases react in theory, but in reality gases don't act ideally at high pressures or low temperatures. Which do you believe is more accurate and should be followed: Theory or Reality?

...'k.

It seems fairly obvious to me that reality, where data is available, is preferable, but that probably just indicates I'm still confused and should gtfo.

*skidoodles*

In reality the difference is .1^infinity

>__>;;

Unless you mean that whole "you make the facts yourself" argument.

0.0^infinity1, actually >_>

You're both wrong. It's 0.1 x 10^-infinity.

In any case: I see theory as only useful for explaining things not already known in reality. If it conflicts reality, it's obviously wrong and shouldn't be considered to mean anything.

Well here an idea kinda stupid and sombody probably allready said,

We us theory,to help us explain reality.

That's actually almost exactly what I said, just you added the wrong "x10" and reversed the relation. Negative infinity is the difference with .9repeating being the first number in the function, whereas positive infinity is the difference with 1 being the first number in the function. x10 is wrong because order of operations, it does .1/10 of 10^-infinity, meaning it could never be the number for even the first nine in the number.

.1 * 10^1 = 1
.1 * 10^2 = 10

See?

Maraj: 0 to any power will always be 0. <__<;;

Srsly, .1^infinity or .1^-infinity depending on how you look at it.

*ponders*

...yeah, you're right, I just misread what you said. >_>

.1^infinity.

Are you saying that the difference is 0.111111111111111111111111111111111111infinity? That is what I'm getting from your statement.

It is 0.0000000000000000000000ifinity1.

.1 * .1 = .01 not .11

<__<;;

Uh, I said -infinity, not infinity. As in, 10 to negative powers, or in other words... x 0.1. >.>

The things we said were exactly the same. Mine was just showing it in scientific notation, since I hadn't thought much about what your post said and thought you had made a mistake trying to use it. Whoops.

But it would only be .1 if infinity was = to 1.

Lets just say infinity is now at 2.

.1 * 2/10 = .02

...or 3...

.1 * 3/10 = .03

So not even that works.

*Facepalm*

Did you forget how negative exponents work or something? >.>

Either that or you mis-read my post...

1 - 0.999... == 10^-∞ == 0.1^∞

Oh, yeah, I thought it was 10^-∞ = ∞/10 for some reason <___<;;

It's 1/10^∞, right?

Also, wouldn't that make the prefix ".1 *" obsolete?

Yeah, I realized that after reading Reikkien's post. >.>

But then, technically 0.1 doesn't exist in scientific notation, making it 1 and... Yeah, obsolete. Whoops.

1x10^-1

10 is already to the negative infinity power, though, so it stays basically the same. In this at least.

That is, if that's what you're trying to say...

That's my opinion. Theory is certainly useful for trying to predict the outcomes of the unknown, like when experimenting with chemicals for instance. But once the known is established, theory loses some use. That and doing things in reality is different in theory. Example: you could learn everything there is to playing the violin in theory, but that certaintly won't make you a wonder at playing it. The theory work will help, but it certaintly can't make up for doing things in reality.

Hmm so I suppose I could shorten that to: Theory is a great blueprint for building reality. As long as one remembers that the blueprint is not the building itself.