/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10011602
** that also means that for a "god" to exist, the universe would have to be infinite in time.

>>10011602
mind.blown.
-a.lincoln
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t0lRt329wM

[math]0.\bar{9} \neq 1 [/math] and god doesn't exist.

>>10011616
prove it

>>10011621
lets take 1/3
1/3 × 3 = 1
What does 1/3 equal when converted from fractional to decimal?
It doesn't.
It always has a remainder, which lends to the fact there are always more 3's.
1/3 > 0.3
1/3 > 0.33
1/3 > 0.333
1/3 > 0.3333
1/3 > 0.33333
1/3 > 0.333333
1/3 > 0.3333333
...
1/3 > 0.333...

1÷3 does not strictly equate 0.333... in the same way 1÷4 strictly equates 0.25 or 1÷2 strictly equates 0.5
There is no strict equality of 1/3 in decimal notation. 1/3 is strictly greater than 0.333...

this lends proof to the following
[math]\frac{1}{3} > 0.\bar{3} \\ \big[ \frac{1}{3} × 3 \big] > \big[ 0.\bar{3} × 3 \big] \\ \frac{3}{3} > 0.\bar{9}[/math]

>>10011645
[math] \displaystyle
1 = \frac {3}{3} = 3 \cdot \frac {1}{3} = 3 \cdot 0. \bar{3} = 0. \bar{9}
[/math]

>>10011616
wrong and wrong, retard.

assume 0.99 recurring = x
100x = 99.99 recurring
subtract x from both sides
99x = 99
divide both sides by 99
x=1

>>10011657
wrong and right, retard.

>>10011645
x = 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + ...
10x = 9 + (9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000+ ...)
10x = 9 + x
9x = 9
x = 1

here's the proof.

>>10011663
Go back to elementary school and learn multiplication.

>>10011667
elaborate

>>10011669
can not do, it's already the apex of gargling shit

>>10011667
I'm quite sure it is (YOU) who needs to go back to preschool to learn multiplication.

>>10011669
0.99 × 10 = 9.90
0.999 × 10 = 9.990
0.9999 × 10 = 9.9990
the amount of 9 elements remains the same, and everything is shifted to the left past the decimal by a tenth's decimal place.
0.999... × 10 doesn't equal 9.999...
What you're doing is going from infinite 9 elements in 0.999..., to infinity+1 9 elements in 9.999...
Instead of shifting the decimal over, you have instead invented an entirely new 9 out of thin air.
This is equivalent to saying
0.99 × 10 = 9.99
0.999 × 10 = 9.999
0.9999 × 10 = 9.9999
this isn't how you were taught to do multiplication and you know it.

>>10011694
you obviously haven't taken calculus

>>10011702
You obviously haven't graduated middleschool.

>>9999999

best get

>>10011704
here you go bud
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999......

>>10011709
Wikipedia is not the arbiter of truth you stupid mongoloid. You're suffering an indoctrination to believe in worthless garbage. If you deny to understand how basic multiplication and division works, you have no merit in validity of discussing any more elaborate method of arithmetic.

>>10011715
the concept of a limit is used everyday
and there's many proofs for .999... = 1, do you have a brain

>>10011715
keep that up and you'll become the god of stupidity :^)

>>10011616
half right.

>>10011724
I'm the closest thing you have to a living God in every respect. I even personally witnessed the suicide of your former god.

>>10011694
>>10011704
>>10011715
>∞ ≠ ∞+1

>>10011729
right, ∞ isn't a number. it's a ~concept~

>>10011694
>0.999... × 10 doesn't equal 9.999...
prove it

>>10011718
The concept of infinity is default invalid and cannot be justified in logicism. Any implement of infinity in math isn't coherent or logical. This includes the usage of ellipses and overlines with repeating decimals under the definition these symbols are intended to mean "infinitely", as well as ellipses used to brainlet series like [1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ...]
there is no constant or singular definition to the usage of infinity as a mathematical concept, and instead behaves as a fanfiction plot device to arbitrarily reach any particular outcome an author might wish via skipping and ignoring the work required to get there.

>>10011741
>infinity in math isn't coherent
prove it

>>10011729
Infinity+1 should not even rationalize as an option. You'll hear infinity homos screaming all day that 0.000...1 cannot exist to add to 0.999... to sum 1, but at the same time attempt to justify infinity+1?

shit is brainlet garbage.

>>10011731
it's a value. it's big, bigger than any number

>>10011741
you haven't studied calculus either

>>10011748
0.000...1 = 0
Infinity+1 = Infinity

>>10011662
right and wrong, retard

>>10011750
You haven't even entered first year of highschool and you keep bawwing about calculus. Again, you don't even understand fundamental basic arithmetic operators. You're far past your scope to assume to be trusted to discuss calculus.

>>10011756
retard and retard, right

>>10011748
I have a math lesson for you.
there's two types of infinity.
countable infinity and uncountable infinity.

to count to positive infinity you can use integers if you prefer.

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ...

Uncountable infinity is a type of infinity that you can't count.

there are an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1.
and 0 and 0.5
and 0 and 0.25.
and 0 and 0.1
and 0 and 0.01
and 0 and 0.091
and 0 and etc.

>>10011755
You cannot add anything to infinity, and infinity doesn't equal anything. Infinity+1 is not an evaluation. You placing an equal sign after it has no functional relevance and is just wacky retarded headcanon.
As you wish to have infinity+1 9's in 9.999..., this could just as easily instead be 9.[infinity-1 9's]
whats your rationale now?
Infinity-1 = infinity?
so there are no numbers less than infinity?

>>10011766
You can't count to infinity you godforsaken retard. Holy shit, you're pining for that indoctrination dick hard. There is no difference in the usage of infinity as a number in either of those examples. You can't count to infinity so you cannot claim the integer counting is within the realm of infinity.

>>10011771
>Infinity+1
just means pondering if n+1 is any closer to inf than n is
protip: it isn't
inf + n = inf, where n is a real number

>>10011775
Infinity-1, i see that tripped you up. Go back.

Infinity-1 is what you had to justify, brainlet. I know it seems like you may think its easy to reiterate the same retarded shit that was just posted, but thats why you need to prove you own a working and keep with the flow of discussion.

So again.
What is your rationale for infinity-1?

>>10011774
it's a proof, not an indoctrination.
You can have an infinite sum which keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger.
that's the concept of infinity.

>>10011779
(1 + 2 + 3 + ...) - 1 = (2 + 3 + ...)
Still countable infinity.

>>10011779
>Infinity-1
just means pondering if n-1 is any further from inf than n is
protip: it isn't

inf + n = inf, where n is a real number
protip: 'real number' includes the negative numbers, 10y old children know that

>>10011783
You're divinely misattributing succession and iteration to "infinity".
Infinity is not required to sum as much as you want, and its acceptable to know that iterative summation will come to an end at some point. Labelling it with infinity doesn't defy or deny this fact that iterative summation will still come to an end at some point, so this label is nothing less than poor misdirection and deflection away from the fact that you're skipping NECESSARY work under the poor assumption it is trivial, arbitrary, and easily excludable via the usage of "et cetera" ellipses.

>>10011789
Thanks for affirming that you believe there are no numbers less than infinity.

Really fucks a hole in the whole "largest number" idea, don't it.

We can do this all day. Infinity constantly contradicts and invalidates itself.

>>10011804
kek

they're ALL less than infinity, it's in the definition FFS

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=infinity
An unbounded quantity that is greater than every real number.

>>10011796
That's all the work required because it's an infinite summation.
It doesn't matter where you infinitely sum the numbers, all that matters is that the sum is still going.

(2 + 3 + 4 + ... ) is a fine example because it's an on-going summation.
using inductive reasoning one might read that expression as

"the sum from n = 2 to infinity of (n)".

>>10011811
So which one is it?
Infinity is greater than all numbers?
Or [math]\infty - \mathbb{R} = \infty[/math], AKA there are no numbers less than infinity, because subtracting from infinity doesn't produce numbers?

>>10011816
>summation
as long as your playing with numbers, the result will be a number
You can at most say that the sum approaches infinity, i.e. its LIMit is infinity
infinity isn't a number, you can't reach it with numbers

>>10011818
both

infinity is separate from R

>>10011820
i'm aware it's not a number. most people in this thread are using it like one

>>10011823
Its seperate because its not even a number, and has no relation to numbers. Even that image isn't good enough because placing infinity off to the right of the real numberline disingenously assumes the left to right ordering has merit.

The infinity part should be placed above or below the R line.

>>10011825
>are using it
In many cases that is just fine.
The difference of the lim and the infinity itself is like a car vs the paint covering the car.
But you have to tread carefully.

1/inf = 0 is a case where you can get away with it.

>>10011833
R/inf = 1/inf

>>10011830
>has no relation

" greater than every real number"
ok bud

>>10011836
"Greater than every real number", yet there are no real numbers less than infinity.
>>10011818

>>10011838
1<inf

ok bud

>>10011840
Prove it

5 is greater than 1
If you subtract 1 from 5, you get 4
4 is less than 5
5 is greater than 1 and 4

Your turn.

>>10011843
> 1<inf
>prove it

>>10011846
Infinity - 1 = infinity
infinity - 10000000000 = infinity

yea? No?

if subtracting from infinity doesn't result in real numbers, then there are no real numbers less than infinity.

>>10011645
>casting pearls before swine

>>10011602
I think where you are fucking up is that 3 is the smallest Integer + Interval.

1 = Integer
2 = Interval
3 = Intermission

>>10011851

Wrong. Both don't contradict each other. Infinity of sets just means that the Set S has a Subset S' that is not equal to S, but has the same cardinality.
Infinity is just not a number, so addition and multiplication are not defined for it, it's just a property of sets.

>>10011602
>I also imagine that a humanly god is possible if there's an infinite amount
>of evolution (love) that makes the each generation of human kind even closer
>to perfection. For us, that means that god is love.

A humanly god would just be god manifesting in this reality, into human beings or any physical medium capable of interaction with us. I BELIEVE that what defines god(infinity) would be common in any reality, as it is the only constant in the omniverse(infinity). So once you reach a certain threshold you become a medium for god("the infinite amount of evolution" as you called it), then shit happens and the cycle of god repeats, our own cycle will end though. As you are a byproduct of god's infinite activity you can't be infinite, but you can be a temporary medium for god to manifest itself. You and me are both products of god and potentially god, you and me are the same.

Evolution itself has moved partly under our control, so do you agree that we could aswell go the other way and become abominations or outright regress if certain -unspecified here- trends are followed compared to others?

>>10012201
Also, don't overthink what I wrote, it does sound like bullshit metaphysics, this personal thought on infinity left me totally and completely terrified, but and also saved me from heavy suicidal thoughts.

>>10012122
Wrong.
There are no numbers less than infinity.

>>10012573

>>10011811

>>10012636
Wrong.
X - |Y| = C , where C < X
If there is no C, then there is no number less than X.

Saying "infiniddy da bigges...." is brainlet retarded shit. It isn't supported by any truth.

Also wolfram is shit.

>0,999... = 1 so god exists
damn....

>>10012658
X - |R| = C

Where R :≠ 0,
provides that C is a real number less than X.

>>10012658
4chan shitposters are shit

>>10012658
>infinity isn't big
[citation needed]

>>10012727
It's time to accept the truth that infinity is a lie.

>>10012732
It's time to accept the truth that shitposters lie.

>>10012735
It's time to accept the only lie here is infinity.

>>10011602
I remember a very simple formula that proves 9.9999... is equal to 10, which is basically the same idea.
If x = 9.9999...
then
10x = 99.99999...
then you just subtract x and you get 9x = 90, and x = 10.

>>10012201
That's sorta the way I see it.
I think we are capable of anything abominable in the process of evolution or whatever.

I recommend a book called "finding Darwin's god", I found it while I was at a psych ward.

I was there for over two weeks and found a lot of interesting information in it.

>>10012829
Thats not how multiplication works.

9.9 × 10 isn't 99.9, is it?

>>10012937
That's exactly how it works. When you multiply by 10, you move the decimal point one step to the right. 9.9 x 10 = 99.0, 9.99 x 10 = 99.9, 9.999 x 10 = 99.99 and so on.

>>10012829
>>10012937
>>10012949
the part i have a problem with is 99.99... - 9.99... = 90

idk, it's like saying 1 + 2 + 3 + ... - (2 + 3 + ...) = 1
i cannot compute

>>10012967
If we treat 9.99999... as a number, then subtracting it from itself would give us 0.

>>10012980
okkk maybe this is reasonable
it's still slightly hard for me to "see" that there isn't some tiny infinitesimal left over that isn't 0
i guess i have to stick with my way of thinking that no two numbers can be right next to each other, so .999.. must be 1 because it can't be "the number right next to it", nor can it be any farther away

>>10012988

infinitesimals do not exist in the real numbers, but you can define a number system in which they do.

>>10013011
is interesting

>>10012949
Read the post again.

>>10012832
Will save the title, thanks

>>10012573
1 is less than infinity.

>>10014979
Prove it.

You can't.

1 is less than 5.
5 - 1 = 4
4 is not 5
4 is less than 5
1 is not equivalent to zero.
5 is not equivalent to zero.
4 is not equivalent to zero.

>>10015032
I LOVE IT

playing an interger into a concept is a rigged game

thats why it goes on forever
you cant end what never wasnt in a way it wont describe, you cant catch it.

good fun tho

>>10015032
>inf is less than one
of all the stupid shit you nuts spout, this one takes the cake

>>10015152
Infinity is equivalent to zero. Yup.
X - |R| = C
Where R :≠ 0
provides that C < X
If C = X, provides that R := 0

Thats what happens when brainlets try to make a number with no valid connection to... well, numbers.

[math]\infty := 0 [/math]

You've got exactly a litre of Water and part it in 3. 1/3=0.333333333....

Then you put it together.

0.333333333.....*3=0.9999999999...

But:

0.333333333....=1/3
1/3*3=3/3=1

1=0.999999999999999.....

>>10015225
homeopathy math

>>10015227
There's at least one more water molecule in one of those parts than the others.
0.3333....4

If you had 1000 water molecules, you can't evenly divide them into 3 parts. The closest you will get is 333, 333, and 334.

Integers are important.

>>10015233
If in one of those parts one more molecule does exist, then the three parts aren't equal.

>>10015225
Still not quite right
[math]
X - |\mathbb{R}| = Y \\
\text{Where } \mathbb{R} : \neq 0 \\
• \text{Provides that } Y < X \\
• \text{ but IF } Y = X \text{, provides that} X := 0 [/math]

>>10015246
Yes. You can't divide a water molecule without breaking it down to its elements.
If you want to keep the 3 parts equal, then each part will be 333 molecules, but you'll have one left over which is required to add to the total of the 3 parts in order to sum the original 1000 molecule baseline.
Throwing away the single 1 molecule in attempts of justifying that "it's too small so its basically nothing at all" is the brainlet mentality behind thinking there is no small value to add to 0.999... towards summing 1; and thay such a small value should just be considered as 0.

Its not 0. The leftover part is not insignificant towards exactness.

10 / 3 =
3 + 3 + 3 (+1????)
3 + 3 + 3 = 9

10 / 3 = 3
9 / 3 = 3

9 = 10

>>10015668
an amazing display of intellectual power

>>10013064
I did. Now what?

>>10015702
9.9 × 10 is not 99.9

>>10011602
>godliness
also fairyness