/sci/ - Science & Math

I love the Dedekind cut but it always feels weird when I think about what its actually doing.

>02425950695064738395657479136519351798334535362521
>43003540126026771622672160419810652263169355188780
>38814483140652526168785095552646051071172000997092
>91249544378887496062882911725063001303622934916080
>25459461494578871427832350829242102091825896753560
>43086993801689249889268099510169055919951195027887
>17830837018340236474548882222161573228010132974509
>27344594504343300901096928025352751833289884461508
>94042482650181938515625357963996189939679054966380
>03222348723967018485186439059104575627262464195387

All irrationals terminate at these final 500 decimal digits. These are also the last 500 digits of the largest prime number.

I'll take my nobel prize.

>02425950695064738395657479136519351798334535362521
>43003540126026771622672160419810652263169355188780
>38814483140652526168785095552646051071172000997092
>91249544378887496062882911725063001303622934916080
>25459461494578871427832350829242102091825896753560
>43086993801689249889268099510169055919951195027887
>17830837018340236474548882222161573228010132974509
>27344594504343300901096928025352751833289884461508 >94042482650181938515625357963996189939679054966380 >03222348723967018485186439059104575627262464195387

All irrationals terminate at these final 500 decimal digits. These are also the last 500 digits of the largest prime number.

I'll take my nobel prize.

You people are chumps.

>>7670844
Thats a fallacy, prove this part right here:

[math]\displaystyle 3 \cdot \frac {1}{3} = 3 \cdot 0.333...[/math]

Prove the equality. Oh wait, you can't its an arbitrary axiom. Dedekind and set theory shits on your amateur mathmatics. >>7670817
This nig knows whats up

You people are chumps.

>>7670844
Thats a fallacy, prove this part right here:

\displaystyle 3 \cdot \frac {1}{3} = 3 \cdot 0.333...

Prove the equality. Oh wait, you can't its an arbitrary axiom. Dedekind and set theory shits on your amateur mathmatics. >>7670817
This nig knows whats up

You people are chumps.

>>7670844
Thats a fallacy, prove this part right here:

<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML">
<mstyle displaystyle="true" scriptlevel="0">
<mn>1</mn>
<mo>=</mo>
<mfrac>
<mn>3</mn>
<mn>3</mn>
</mfrac>
<mo>=</mo>
<mn>3</mn>
<mo>&#x22C5;<!-- ⋅ --></mo>
<mfrac>
<mn>1</mn>
<mn>3</mn>
</mfrac>
<mo>=</mo>
<mn>3</mn>
<mo>&#x22C5;<!-- ⋅ --></mo>
<mn>0.333...</mn>
<mo>=</mo>
<mn>0.999...</mn>
</mstyle>
</math>

Prove the equality. Oh wait, you can't its an arbitrary axiom. Dedekind and set theory shits on your amateur mathmatics. >>7670817
This nig knows whats up

<span class="math">\sqrt{2}[/spoiler] is irrational, and <span class="math">\sqrt{2}\sqrt{2}=\sqrt{4}=2[/spoiler] is rational.

Are there any irrational numbers multiplied by some other irrational number so that you end up with a rational number?

>>6929668
>>6929664
>>6929649
>>6929608
>>6929590
Thank you, reading up on this stuff is incredibly fascinating. I feel strangly peaceful seeing the complete representation of every possible value in any possible way represented.

Dedekind cuts are also facinating to me