Fellow fedizens!

[iron_bug@friendica.ironbug.org]

@LucasWerkmeister I didn't know any of the mentioned "misconceptions". it was the first time I had read that weird assumprions.

[angelastella@social.treehouse.systems]

@mina @LucasWerkmeister

Tools and methods talk gets too meta and that's the stuff holy wars are made of.

[gcvsa@mstdn.plus]

@LucasWerkmeister Also useful:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[fishidwardrobe@mastodon.me.uk]

@LucasWerkmeister i have said it before and i'll say it again: some of these are pretty silly. this may be more a reflection on the target readers than the writers — but does anyone *actually* believe there is a scientific basis for astronomy, for example?

(some others of these, on the other hand, are not silly at all.)

[mariellequinton@ottawa.place]

@fishidwardrobe @LucasWerkmeister are you confusing astronomy and astrology?

[stylus@social.afront.org]

@LucasWerkmeister but in that universe we have the Misconception Paradox, which is that anything listed in the article will become an uncommon misconception by February 8, and new common misconceptions will need to be found. It's ultimately self-defeating.

[ahimsa_pdx@disabled.social]

@LucasWerkmeister
I looked throught the first list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions_about_arts_and_culture ) to see which ones I didn't know about.

Here's one common misconception that I learned is wrong. Hemingway did not write the famous 6 word story, "For sale: baby shoes, never worn." So, thanks, learned something new!

Going to keep reading, hoping to learn some more ...

[arratoon@beige.party]

@mariellequinton @fishidwardrobe @LucasWerkmeister Pfff, you’re saying stars and planets actually exist? Yeah, right… 😉

[edavies@functional.cafe]

@fishidwardrobe IHYM “astrology”.

(I Hope You Mean)

@LucasWerkmeister

[fishidwardrobe@mastodon.me.uk]

@mariellequinton @LucasWerkmeister only in spelling… oops…

[smartmanapps@dotnet.social]

@LucasWerkmeister @sandyarmstrong
The problem is that some of their "corrections" are in fact misconceptions themselves. Welcome to what happens when your next-door-neighbour Joe Blow can edit/admin a page and not check it's correct. I always say Wikipedia is "like an encyclopedia" in the same way that Madonna is like a virgin. Go to reputable sources in the first place (like Maths textbooks for Maths)
https://dotnet.social/@SmartmanApps/115207044364101854

[smartmanapps@dotnet.social]

@LucasWerkmeister @sandyarmstrong

[sandyarmstrong@hachyderm.io]

@SmartmanApps @LucasWerkmeister I hope nobody takes any source as absolute truth, be it wikipedia or anything else. It's still a great list and a fun starting point to learn new things.

Also, I disagree with your counterexample. 🙂

[raccoon@techhub.social]

@LucasWerkmeister
@mcjevans

[raccoon@techhub.social]

@SmartmanApps @LucasWerkmeister @sandyarmstrong
This is a really old misconception that, itself, has been debunked. Numerous fact-checks of Wikipedia have found that, even though it contains inaccuracies, it is just as if not more reliable than other Encyclopedias, on top of having more sources you can follow.

[smartmanapps@dotnet.social]

@sandyarmstrong @LucasWerkmeister
"I hope nobody takes any source as absolute truth" - Maths has proofs, therefore absolutely true. The page including the claim that 0.(9)=1 paradoxically includes the proof that it can never equal 1 - it's a hyperbola with an asymptote of 1 😂

"I disagree with your counterexample" - you can disagree all you want and you'll still be proven wrong by the Maths of infinite sums and hyperbolic graphs, both of which we teach to high school students

[smartmanapps@dotnet.social]

@Raccoon @LucasWerkmeister @sandyarmstrong
"This is a really old misconception that, itself, has been debunked" - says person failing to cite any such "debunking".

"Numerous fact-checks of Wikipedia have found that" - there are NO Maths textbooks referenced.

"it is just as if not more reliable than other Encyclopedias" - both of which are way less reliable than Maths textbooks 🙄

"on top of having more sources you can follow" - none of which were Maths textbooks

[sandyarmstrong@hachyderm.io]

@SmartmanApps @LucasWerkmeister yes, math has axiomatic truths. But a website (or a fedi post, for that matter) may not be accurate in discussing them.

I think the wikipedia entry here is pretty clear that it is talking about real numbers, in which case 0.(9) is not a hyperbola, but is in fact a rational number, 1.

[smartmanapps@dotnet.social]

@sandyarmstrong @LucasWerkmeister
"yes, math has axiomatic truths" - and literal proofs.

"may not be accurate in discussing them" - Maths textbooks are, none of which were referenced by the Wiki article.

"it is talking about real numbers" - yep

"in which case 0.(9) is not a hyperbola, but is in fact a rational number, 1" - no, it is in fact 0.(9). It can never equal 1 unless you add a 0.000...0001 to it, but the last digit is always a 9, and add another 9, and add another 9, and...

[sandyarmstrong@hachyderm.io]

@SmartmanApps @LucasWerkmeister my friend, let me introduce you to 1/3