Rantanen vs Necas points race to end of season.

[behemolari]

“Ah, yes, scientifically speaking, 1 is a whole unit, brimming with ontological existence, while zero is a quantum void, a mathematical singularity where nothingness itself paradoxically exists. To claim 1 is 100% of zero is akin to suggesting that a photon has mass! The very nature of zero is that it represents the absence of any quantity, while 1 is a distinct, indivisible entity in the set of natural numbers. So no, 1 can’t possibly be 100% of zero, because that would imply the universe itself is a cruel joke, where the potential of zero is arbitrarily superseded by the certainty of 1.”

We don’t need actual facts getting in the way of a sportsbro’s joke!

NEEEEEERRRRRRDDDDDSSSSSS!

I absolutely love the part where Rantanen goals is quantum void

 

[a mangy Meowth]

“Ah, yes, scientifically speaking, 1 is a whole unit, brimming with ontological existence, while zero is a quantum void, a mathematical singularity where nothingness itself paradoxically exists. To claim 1 is 100% of zero is akin to suggesting that a photon has mass! The very nature of zero is that it represents the absence of any quantity, while 1 is a distinct, indivisible entity in the set of natural numbers. So no, 1 can’t possibly be 100% of zero, because that would imply the universe itself is a cruel joke, where the potential of zero is arbitrarily superseded by the certainty of 1.”

We don’t need actual facts getting in the way of a sportsbro’s joke!

NEEEEEERRRRRRDDDDDSSSSSS!

 

[Czechboy]

Tomorrow's math lesson is ready. Thank you HF.

 

[lionsDen]

He is but I was still surprised the Stars selected him over Makar.

In all fairness hesk at the time was absolutely the right pick. You can’t go wrong with either player as they are both great pkayers

 

[ijuka]

“Ah, yes, scientifically speaking, 1 is a whole unit, brimming with ontological existence, while zero is a quantum void, a mathematical singularity where nothingness itself paradoxically exists. To claim 1 is 100% of zero is akin to suggesting that a photon has mass! The very nature of zero is that it represents the absence of any quantity, while 1 is a distinct, indivisible entity in the set of natural numbers. So no, 1 can’t possibly be 100% of zero, because that would imply the universe itself is a cruel joke, where the potential of zero is arbitrarily superseded by the certainty of 1.”

We don’t need actual facts getting in the way of a sportsbro’s joke!

NEEEEEERRRRRRDDDDDSSSSSS!

It has nothing to do with what you're saying. You just cannot scale 0. It's undefined. Multiplication as a group operation is only defined within the range ]0, inf[.

For a non-commutative multiplication operation, you cannot have 0 as the constant, at least if you want it to be bijective(generally desirable for scaling). The entire distribution would collapse onto 0.