/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11559526
WolframAlpha is made by a virgin.

>>11559526
Delete this.

based and wolframalphapilled

>>11559526
>believing a program that can't even determine solutions to differential equations
lol

>>11559526
it is literally impossible to store infinitely repeating digits, and any time a calculator shows you that as the answer, that's simply due to a variety of tricks and, in this case, cheesily hard-coding "0.999... = 1"

>>11559526
>Make up X
>Hard code X
>X is true
Ok then. I'll go make an app and hardcode 0,999... = your mom's clam.

>>11560821
>>Hard code X
Evidence?

>>11560830
Imagine humans had 6 fingers in both hands and we invented units and numbers in base 6. As in 6 mm = 1 cm and so on.
So you have numbers 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,20,etc
7,8 and 9 do not exist, 1 = 7 smaller units and 7 is written 10 by convention just liké 10 is written 10 in our system.
Then 0,111...X6 = 0,666...=1 ? Because you can't add any number to 0,666... anywhere before reaching one.
But you do realize that a 1/7 ratio is greater than a 1/10 ratio ?
So a 0,666... in base 7 would have a greater difference from 1 than 0,999... in base 10 has from 1.
Therefore your concept is gay and the product of limitations by our current system, in fact inherent to any base system. The faster you realize this the faster you comprehend the true nature of numbers (philosophicaly) and why any representation in 0,xxx... form is a systemic limitation and we'd be better of sticking to using the ratio 1/9 etc instead. As for 0,999..., it does not exist.

>>11560852
How is that evidence of it being hard coded?

Also
>As for 0,999..., it does not exist.
It does exist. It is just another symbol for 1.

>>11560868
I gave you the logical explanation of why it can't be. Try to adress that.
I have no evidence of it being hard coded but it definitely is. Because if WolframAlpha supported several base systems, it would not be able to process it because it would equal different ratio values to 1 unit, which it shouldn't do if not hard coded to do so.
Again, adress my point please.

>>11560877
>I gave you the logical explanation of why it can't be.
It is true by definition, I don't need to argue for it.
It is LITERALLY the same as saying 2/4 = 1/2, it is just true by definition.

>>11560877
>Because if WolframAlpha supported several base systems, it would not be able to process it because it would equal different ratio values to 1 unit
No. It wouldn't.

Take your example, there 0.66666... is indeed equal to 1, which you would understand if you understood basis conversion...

>>11560879
>True by definition
*Covers ears*
*LALALALALALALA*
*Unzipps teachers pants*
*BlurghBlurghBlurghBlurgh*

>>11560852
>Then 0,111...X6 = 0,666...=1?
Yes

N=0,111...·6 = 0,666...
7N=6,666...
7N-N=6N=6
N=1

>>11560890
So, how can something be false if it defined that way?

>>11560885
Lets go further, would It be true for 0,111... in base 2 ?
Because if you can't see a problem there you're clearly misunderstanding why humans invented numbers.
If you apply it to X distance and operate with different bases, you would need to approximate and you would obtain very different results. What makes 0,xxx... = Y is clearly a limitation of the number of different number symbols we have.

>>11560894
So in base 2 - 0,1,10,11,20,etc
0,111... = 1
So 0,[50% of 1] + 0,0[50% of 1] + ... = 1?
And you can't see it's a systemic limitation ?
Do they teach you logics in math school ?

>>11560910
>Lets go further, would It be true for 0,111... in base 2 ?
Obviously...

>If you apply it to X distance and operate with different bases, you would need to approximate and you would obtain very different results
No, you obviously wouldn't.
I think you have a giant misunderstanding about number systems.

Let's say I have 0.5 meter in base 10, then I have 0.4 meter in base 8, in both cases the distance is EXACTLY the same, just expressed using different symbols...

>A computer program can answer a question I had to get multiple Ph. D’s to answer

>>11560922
>So 0,[50% of 1] + 0,0[50% of 1] + ... = 1?
Yes.
In fact that is equivalent to the well known geometric series in base 10.
1/2 + 1/4 +1/8 +1/16 + .. =1.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1/2_%2B_1/4_%2B_1/8_%2B_1/16_%2B_%E2%8B%AF

>>11560898
By comparison to nature.
>Inb4 reality isn't real, Kant etc
By understanding the historical meaning attached to numbers. Why and how humans invented them, what do they represent, what are the limitations of that language, what other language would make sense?
If a central African tribe has no word for sea, an abstract concept, should we, if we were central African gentlemen, consider seas don't exist? Or should we understand why other tribes might have a word for it and why we don't ?
Pro tip : the sea is a metaphor for having anything other than 10 digits

>>11560928
he looks at peace

>>11560937
>By comparison to nature.
Mathematics is Separate from nature!

>By understanding the historical meaning attached to numbers. Why and how humans invented them, what do they represent, what are the limitations of that language, what other language would make sense?
If a central African tribe has no word for sea, an abstract concept, should we, if we were central African gentlemen, consider seas don't exist? Or should we understand why other tribes might have a word for it and why we don't ?
Pro tip : the sea is a metaphor for having anything other than 10 digits
Different number systems have been very thoroughly studied. You just do not understand them.

>>11560933
So if 1/2+1+4+... is the same problem as 0,999... =1 in a different base, you concede that 0,999... TENDS to 1 but does not equal 1?
It might converge absolutely, but it's still a convergence right?

>>11559526
0.999... Can be approximated to 1. But dealing with values continously approaching 1, the approximation is less and less meaningful.
I don't know when this transition exists. When I see it I will let you know. There's probably a magic real number I don't know.

>>11560958
>TENDS to 1 but does not equal 1?
By the definition of equality these notions are EXACTLY the same.

>It might converge absolutely, but it's still a convergence right?
Convergence and equality are the same thing. Literally.

>>11560943
>Mathematics is separate from nature!
Any useful mathematics is not.
>You don't understand it
I understand 0,999...=1 is a cope permitted by the fact mathematicians believe maths are separate from nature.

>>11560963
>Any useful mathematics is not.
I do not think you know much about mathematics if you believe that.

>I understand 0,999...=1 is a cope permitted by the fact mathematicians believe maths are separate from nature.
It's about equivalent to believing that Zeno's paradox isn't a paradox at all.

>>11560962
>Definition
Wrongly defined. For all useful purposes would have been more elegant but math autismos can't deal with non-absolutes so we're here.

>>11560970
It is not a paradox. Space is not a continuum and Zeno was a fagg that has been btfo numerous times, starting by his contemporaries.

>>11560971
>Wrongly defined.
This means nothing.
You don't even understand the definition.

>>11560974
?

>>11560971
And intuitively why would two values which difference tends to zero not be the same?

If you can not distinguish two number, then they should be the same, right?

I really wouldn't tust wolfram alpha about stuff like this.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1.+%2B+10^%28-20%29+%3D+1

>>11560958
An infinite sum does not tend to, it is equal/converges (yes, they're the same thing) to something.

>>11560992
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%2B+10%5E%28-20%29+%3D+1

>>11560894
Prove .000...1 = 0

>>11561006
Don't reply to this baiting anon.

>>11560980
I can't explain things by standing inside of your language, just like I can't explain blue to a color-blind.
>>11560985
Why would It be? The only way to test if we really can't distinguish between both is to replicate it, and within a discrete space it would be impossible to do because at some point you would have 0,999...X. So for all useful purposes seems appropriate outside of usage in purely and only abstract and theoretical contexts.
>>11560993
Not in common language no it does not fagg.

>>11561022
>Common language
GTFO

>>11561022
Do you like planes? Planes are possible purely because of purely theoretical and abstract nonsense, where equality and tend to are the same.
Or how about cars? Or computers?

Sure, you can call mathematics abstract nonsense, but the results should speak for themselves...

>Why would It be?
Because Zeons paradox is false.

>>11561025
Maths are an extension of language, deal with it.
If you're not willing to test things you're part of humanities and should stick to their codifications.
If you're willing to test your continuum theory, you would stand corrected and would need to add limits to all 0,xxx... notations, and 0,999... would make no scientific sense.

>>11561033
>For all useful purposes
Includes maths used in all these fields
>Zenos paradox is false
Yes, but you justify it wrong. Space is discrete, that's why it's false, not because adding ever smaller fragments would make a real.

>>11561034
>If you're not willing to test things
Empiricism is a fucking fad.

>you're part of humanities
Mathematics is not part of the humanities because it doesn't study humanity. It studies purely abstract concepts.

>If you're willing to test your continuum theory
Mathematics doesn't need flimsy, error prone methods such as "tests" it has proofs.

>>11561040
C O P E
O
P
E

>>11561038
>Includes maths used in all these fields
So your only problem us that math doesn't operate like psychology or queer gender studies? Where people do "studies" and "experiments" and that mathematics is the unique field which can deduce objective truth?

>Space is discrete
So you just ended a 2000 year long debate about physics! Congratulations, where is your earth shattering paper???

>>11561044
?
Whatever. Have fun with your "testing"...

>>11560992
cause ur decimal point forces sig fig round off retard.

>>11561010
cope

>>11561049
No I meant real experiments like in chemistey or physics.
The "studies" you listed operate much more on an "assumption" and "convention upon convention" basis just like maths.
>>11561049
Occam's razor. Evidence points at a discrete space, maths should adapt and stfu until further developments.
>>11561051
>Empricism bad
>Error prone tests
Yeah better just assume stuff until the end of times like the ancient greeks or budhist monks because why the fuck not?
You do realize 90% of physicis models worked perfectly fine but were revised because people actually put them to test ?
Please tell what would be the point of 0,999...=1 if space was proven undoubtedly discrete tomorrow ?
>Inb4 nothing can be proven undoubtedly
So you reject 100% of modern science.

>>11560852
>we'd be better of sticking to using the ratio 1/9
Totally agree with this. but
>Imagine humans had 6 fingers in both hands
>0,1,2,3,4,5,6,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,20
>7,8 and 9 do not exist,
Isn't that a 7 base? We use a 10 base, you made 3 numbers not existing, Am I missing something?