Is free-will an illusion?

That's not true, is it? Only three posters have commented and one of those, Fil Albuquerque, clearly does understand the maths, he has even posted links to show that the maths is correct.
And for your benefit I posted a link to Peter Suber's dead simple explanation of countable and uncountable infinities. If you haven't exploited that resource, the responsibility for your ignorance is wholly your own.

True; I'm not a genius like you! Glad FA is in your company of "knowledgeable people."

It seems to me that some things are more random than others., according to the general rule that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else

Furthermore in a a Megillah where numbers lack what we usu think of as reality but are purely a rumination of the humanoid mind I don't see where they matter much to the essentially apparent controversy

Okay, but it's fully explained above. So, you either understand it or you don't. Apparently you don't.

Be careful when using "FA" to apply to Fil. People can get mixed up!

Freudian slip? LOL

I'm sure both of them could have predicted this random choice of my words with their "formula."

Here is the link:

http://www.mymathforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=35572

I spelled acceptable wrong. There is no edit on the forum for new comers unfortunately.

Well this link isn't working. I wonder why.

The title of the topic is "A Natural Number as an Endless String of Digits."

It is under the subtopic: Real Analysis & Topology

What "they" seem to not comprehend is that nature is unpredictable; therefore, human behavior is unpredictable. That's simple logic.

They may be able to "predict" certain patterns of behavior in a fixed group, but not universally.

I agree. And until nature is predictable to such a high degree that any other influences on a human being can be assumed negligible, we will not be able to predict human behavior to good accuracy.

u r such evil edge, what nature is predictible is the end of values
if ur nature is nothing then any that u would come up with is below it
u cant b over ur nature over what u r absolutely, that is why all positive logics are realizin the will of conscious true means only if all is evil
so the true conscious is what is survivin to still in any form same while all is **** from the start

ur inventions of elses abuses is pathetic, how far u really believe urself invention while clearly forcin the supports of what u know are constant that u dare enslavin them for such dirty cheap wills
u really believe that if u continue to gather eachothers in relative existence means u can make a world that last and even a universe forever
creepy evil nuts brains and heads up

Okay, let's try this link: http://www.mymathforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=35572
Also, have you noticed this thread: http://www.mymathforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=35509

About your notation; what you want is the floor function.

Thanks Ughaibu that was actually useful. I forgot there was a greatest integer function.

We can, of course, predict some things in nature, like eclipses and the arrival of meteors. And we can even predict certain kinds of human behavior. The trouble with humans, however, is that once they know what has been predicted of them they CAN be contrary and do otherwise. I suppose that if you know the predictee's personality very well you might be able to predict whether or not he will rebel. But predictions will always be statistical in nature.

Those things that results from repeated natural occurrences can be predicted, but universal human behavior cannot be predicted. Some group behavior can be predicted to a certain degree, but they are limited - as you say will always be statistical in nature.

Experiments at Stanford and Yale have shown that "normal" college students with above average intelligence can be instructed to torture others under certain circumstances. That cultures like in Japan and Germany during the last century have tortured and exterminated people are probably based on the same human norms of group behavior. We have seen during the recent elections that it didn't matter what the primary candidate for the republicans said, lied, and flip-flopped, but still got the majority votes from his party.

I believe they are of the same human phenomenon of group behavior regardless of the potential results from such a choice.

And then there is the factor of culture. Japanese "cruelty" reflected to a large extent behavioral standards prescribed by Japanese culture in earlier times. But I've know too many traditional Japanese men whose personalities indicated no tendency toward cruelty--yet culture is to some degree part of the content of the individual (personality) as well as his society.

"Culture" from MPOV is too limiting, because almost "all" cultures have practiced some form of inhumanity to others and to their own "culture/group."

Well put Cis. Even more remarkable that the race was so very close. I suspect the gap might have been much wider had the winner not campaigned at all

Me thinks the same, because all it did was give the republicans more ammunition for negative rhetoric. The irony is how they complained about the negative ads from democrats.

They are immune to their own hypocrisy.

I see you've started a thread at AoPS.
Another site, where I think you'll get a quick response is: http://www.reddit.com/r/math/new/?sort=new