[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 604 KB, 2181x3022, 1.000.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11601597 No.11601597 [Reply] [Original]

Onetards unable to recover

>> No.11601623
File: 3.18 MB, 1280x9898, Eternity.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11601623

>>11601597
The core of the problem in the minds of those who believe less than 1 is 1 is this:

Their inability to comprehend that ".999..." isn't the same as "1" is directly tied to their inability to grasp eternity and infinity. Their minds have basically been programmed to believe eternity and infinity are impossibilities. Over the course of many generations of indoctrination into an alien worldview, their parents and their parents etc gradually "learned" to be unable to comprehend it and this "learned disability" was inherited, and encouraged/fueled by various external factors from the echoing modern culture.

So basically, they're mentally damaged.

This difficulty they have with eternity/infinity shows up in many different fields, from math to astrophysics.

This mental handicap is inherited directly from the (((Abrahamic))) religions, more specifically (((Christianity))) for us Westernerns. In it's origin, the inability to understand infinity and eternity is 100% Judaic in thought/philosophy. In contrast, the non-Jewish man; the Pagan man, at least the /European/ Pagan man, never had any problem with infinity and eternity. (((Christianity))) introduced into the minds of people the idea of life and the world/universe being linear, starting from point A and ending at a point B, whereas in the Native European worldview everything is an infinite circle.

That's why many people today can't understand that .999 repeating forever will never reach 1 - they refuse to accept the idea of an infinite/eternal repetition. Saying "it's 1" is their method of escaping from the uncomfortable (and to them insurmountable) challenge which the concept of infinity/eternity is to their Judaically-induced mental disease.

>> No.11601627
File: 71 KB, 696x1072, 1579345004284.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11601627

>>11601623
Very related. An admission from a onetard, showing he can't mentally accept that infinity/eternity can be real.

>> No.11601628

>>11601623
The core of the problem in the minds of those who believe more than 1 is 1 is this:

Their inability to comprehend that "1.000..." isn't the same as "1" is directly tied to their inability to grasp eternity and infinity. Their minds have basically been programmed to believe eternity and infinity are impossibilities. Over the course of many generations of indoctrination into an alien worldview, their parents and their parents etc gradually "learned" to be unable to comprehend it and this "learned disability" was inherited, and encouraged/fueled by various external factors from the echoing modern culture.

So basically, they're mentally damaged.

This difficulty they have with eternity/infinity shows up in many different fields, from math to astrophysics.

This mental handicap is inherited directly from the (((Abrahamic))) religions, more specifically (((Christianity))) for us Westernerns. In it's origin, the inability to understand infinity and eternity is 100% Judaic in thought/philosophy. In contrast, the non-Jewish man; the Pagan man, at least the /European/ Pagan man, never had any problem with infinity and eternity. (((Christianity))) introduced into the minds of people the idea of life and the world/universe being linear, starting from point A and ending at a point B, whereas in the Native European worldview everything is an infinite circle.

That's why many people today can't understand that 1.000 repeating forever will never reach 1 - they refuse to accept the idea of an infinite/eternal repetition. Saying "it's 1" is their method of escaping from the uncomfortable (and to them insurmountable) challenge which the concept of infinity/eternity is to their Judaically-induced mental disease.

>> No.11601636
File: 605 KB, 1416x1600, (You).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11601636

>>11601628
>1 isn't the same as 1

>> No.11601660

>>11601636
But it's not 1, it's 1.000... . Fucking retard.

>> No.11601694

>>11601627
"1.000... repeating forever" (whatever the fuck that is) is just 1, retard. I've not seen anyone saying otherwise, yet here you are inciting religious doctrinal history to justify the non-beliefs of literally nobody. The problem is whether NEARLY 1 = EXACTLY 1, not whether (the unnecessary decimalisation of) EXACTLY 1 = EXACTLY 1.

The bottom line is that this is nothing more than a decimal approximation, and no such equality holds as mathematical fact. 9.9999.... does not equal 1, but 1 is a "good" approximation of 9.9999.... Coincidentally, 1 is also a "good" approximation of 9.999....998, 9.888...., or (more extremely), 5.555... It may be useful to instantiate notions of infinitesimals and limits for analysis, but, purely and simply, this is not an equality.

>> No.11601732

>>11601694
"0.999... repeating forever" (whatever the fuck that is) is just 1, retard. I've not seen anyone saying otherwise, yet here you are inciting religious doctrinal history to justify the non-beliefs of literally nobody. The problem is whether NEARLY 1 = EXACTLY 1, not whether (the unnecessary decimalisation of) EXACTLY 1 = EXACTLY 1.

The bottom line is that this is nothing more than a decimal approximation, and no such equality holds as mathematical fact. 1.000.... does not equal 1, but 1 is a "good" approximation of 1.000.... Coincidentally, 1 is also a "good" approximation of 1.000...1, 1.111..., or (more extremely), 1.555... It may be useful to instantiate notions of infinitesimals and limits for analysis, but, purely and simply, this is not an equality.

>> No.11601924

>>11601660
An infinite amount of 0s is the same as 0, which itself is infinite.

>>11601694
>"1.000... repeating forever" (whatever the fuck that is) is just 1
Exactly. Thank you for admitting this.

>9.9999.... does not equal 1, but 1 is a "good" approximation
So it's not the same as 1. Thanks for admitting. Good.

>> No.11601971

>>11601924
if 0.999... is not 1, then 1.000... is not 1.

>> No.11602057

>>11601924
Holy fuck you're a retard. That wasn't me (OP), that was someone arguing against me. That's why I caricaturised him in my follow-up comment.

>> No.11602062
File: 247 KB, 1700x2200, onetard.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11602062

OP fix your image. This is the original.

>> No.11602074

DEUS VULT!

We have retaken the realm of Mathematics for the ONE TRUE FINITE UNIVERSE. And sacked Constantinople.

We are FREE from the TYRANNY of the oppressive infinity SODOMITES and their GOD CURSED heresies! We sleep secure at night knowing our rectums are SAFE from their perversions.

PRAISE GOD!

>> No.11602105

[eqn] 1.000... = 1 + \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} 0*10^{-n} [/eqn]
[eqn] 0 * x = 0 [/eqn]
Therefore
[eqn] \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} 0*10^{-n} = \sum 0 [/eqn]
[eqn] 1.000 = 1 + 0 = 1 [/eqn]

>> No.11602110

>>11601694
My bad, was pretty tired writing this. It should have read:

>0.9999.... does not equal 1, but 1 is a "good" approximation of 0.9999.... Coincidentally, 1 is also a "good" approximation of 0.999....998, 0.888...., or (more extremely), 0.955 or 0.555....

>>11601732
This is wrong. 1 is an approximation of 0.999... 0.999... does not equal 1. Again: it may be useful to instantiate notions of infinitesimals and limits for analysis, but, purely and simply, this is not an equality.

>>11601924
>Thank you for admitting this.
I do admit that the unnecessary decimalisation of exactly 1 (1.000...., which is meaningless garbage) does equal exactly 1. But I criticised invoking this argument in the first place as no one denies this. Except of course >>11601971, who is now equating 1.000.... with 0.999.... False equalities everywhere.

Why is this even an argument?

>> No.11602126

>>11601597
1tards can't meme

>> No.11602136

>>11601971
>>11601597
Complete and utter retards.
How would you evaluate 1 + x/10 + x/10^2 + x/10^3 + ... + x/10^(n-1) + x/10^n, given that x is *always* 0 for any positive num. n?

>> No.11602176

>>11602062
Oh really? What a genius you are

>> No.11602179

>>11602105
Why does the sum to infinity just vanish?

>> No.11602182

>>11602126
How so? Multiple of you took the bait

>> No.11602186

>>11602136
I checked it and the result is 1 for n=1,2,3,4,100. But that's not how mathematics works. You don't prove anything by testing it for some values, onetard

>> No.11602187

>>11602182
1tards are perpetually taking the bait

>> No.11602199

>>11602187
What bait? Or are you claiming that your whole belief (that 0.999... does not equal 1) is bait?

>> No.11602259

>>11602199
0.9999... != 1 is the /sci/ version of "turn 360 degrees and leave the way you came" on other boards. It's a way of identifying and hazing new users.

>> No.11602296

>>11602259
I doubt anyone creating such threads does it to filter out new users

>> No.11602355

>>11602199
Of course 0.999... != 1. But at the same time, you are a loser who is taking the bait. Both of those are true.

>> No.11602365

>>11602355
How is a thread where someone tries to argue for a position he seriously has bait?

>> No.11602420

>>11602365
Because you're a loser that's how

>> No.11602435

>>11602420
Ah yes

>> No.11602808

>>11601971

"0.999..." is less than "1" -- It will never reach 1.

"1.000..." and "1" are the same thing. One zero is the same as infinite zeroes.

>> No.11602927

>>11602808
Why is one zero the same as infinite zeroes? Prove your statement.

>> No.11602972

...
???
!!!

All of these are not math.
1=1
0.999... Equals nothing math its an approximation.
...
Repeats to infinity...
The world would be better if all these people just wrote out the full answer.

>> No.11602998

>>11601623
Reality is too painful right now

>> No.11603347
File: 97 KB, 1654x2339, For 1 tards.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11603347

>>11601597
>>11601623
>>11601627
>>11601628
>>11601660
>>11602062
>>11602074
>>11602126
>>11602110
>>11602355
>>11602808
>>11602972
.9...=1
Period.
End of reasonable discussion on this topic. Pic related is a PROOF that it equals one, and you are either baiting or mathematically illiterate for suggesting otherwise.

>> No.11604129
File: 211 KB, 1344x1274, limit.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11604129

>>11603347

>> No.11604254

>>11604129
In math, saying it's "approaching" a value and it "equals" a value means the same damn thing. You're like a creationist who thinks evolution is "just a theory" because they don't understand that "theory" in science means something totally different than in common vernacular.

>> No.11604284

>>11604254
>You're like a creationist who thinks evolution is "just a theory" because they don't understand that "theory" in science means something totally different than in common vernacular.
You're comparing apples to oranges those aren't the same at all.
>In math, saying it's "approaching" a value and it "equals" a value means the same damn thing.
Where does it say that?

>> No.11604331

>>11604284
Wrong, it's literally the same thing.
How does YOUR definition of "approaches" fit in with mathematicians using literally the same language on constant limits? Ex: lim(5)->5 They still say that 5 approaches 5.

>> No.11604370

>>11604331
>5
That's not a function you retard
The function for .999.. Will never reach 1 no matter what number you put in that x, please drill this in your head. Same for 1/x.

See the harder retard.
Shake like a maggot.
You know you're wrong all you have to do is admit it .999..=/=1.

>> No.11604373

>>11602296
They do it to mock newbies and to have fun. Running them off isn't the goal.

>> No.11604392

>>11604370
Yes it is a function, you retard. It's f(x)=5
I left out the "f(x)" part because I thought you at least understood Jr. High level algebra. Clearly I overestimated your intelligence, sorry.

>> No.11604507

>>11601597
Nope, first argument is wrong. I can name a numbr between 1 and 2. No matter what you do, you CANNOT name a number between 1.000.... and 1, since they are equivalent. If you can, I concede, and you will be right.
Second reason is also wrong, since an infinitely small thing can't exist, since any attempt at creating some "infinitesimal" is an attempt to quantize a continuum. But the continuum is precisely that which has no smallest range (that is literally it's definition), which is why your infinitesimal expresses the same properties as zero (since the smallest range on a continuum is zero).
In the third argument, you are attempting to generalizethe properties of an infinite SERIES OF NUMBERS with an INFINITESIMAL VALUE. How you could be this retarded, I don't know. I just assume it was a joke or a last minute thing you threw on there without looking at.

>> No.11604516

>>11604370
>The function for .999.. Will never reach 1 no matter what number you put in that x, please drill this in your head.
I don't think you are able to mentally resolve what those three dots mean

>> No.11604550

>>11604392
f(x) = 0.999...
lim x-->infty f(x) = 0.999... != 1

btfo

>> No.11604834

>>11604550
Did you respond to the wrong comment?

>> No.11604854

>>11604507
Yes I can name a number between 1 and 1.000... - (1 + 1.000...)/2. Saying they are equivalent is circular reasoning.

Now I must say, my post was obviously a caricature of that other post, but your post still isn't correct. As I just said, the first thing you said is circular reasoning. The second thing you said is blatantly false - there are infinitesimals which are clearly not a continuum in the surreal numbers.

Only thing you're right about is the last thing, which is literally just a copy of the 0.999... =/= 1 idiots

>> No.11604857

>>11604550
f(x) = 0.999... = 1
lim x-->infty f(x) = 0.999... = 1

btfo

>> No.11605008

>>11602259
laughing and lurking laughing
>(other than this 1 post here)<3

>> No.11605110

>>11604854
Is 1.00000 less than 1 or greater than 1? Since it is neither, they are equal. Whereas 0.999... is obviously less than 1.

>> No.11605116

>>11604857
Except 0.999... is not 1

>> No.11605170

i know that the 1 thing is a meme and mathematical convention decides on the rules of the game but can i get some therapeutic readings to disarm my intuitive misgivings
my autism is preventing me from just accepting the 1 thing as truth without challenging it to the best of my ability but i'm too dumb and lazy to do it

>> No.11605197

>>11605110
1.000... is obviously more than 1

>> No.11605199

>>11604550
Except 0.999... is 1

>> No.11605343

THE LIMIT of 0.999..., i.e. the number 0.999... APPROACHES is 1, but the number 0.99999.... NEVER reached 1, and thus itself is never EQUAL to one

>> No.11605350

>>11605110
>Whereas 0.999... is obviously less than 1.
you're gonna need a better argument than "obviously", mate

>> No.11605366

>>11605343
a number doesn't approach anything lmao

>> No.11605424

>>11603347
Can you prove that decimal logarithm exists for any positive number without underlying assumption that 0.999... = 1?

>> No.11605444

>>11604254
Ok, now I get it, mr. Monkey Man. People become onetard for the same reason they become atheists -- because they can't understand concept of eternity.
0.999... approaches 1 ETERNALLY, that means it will never get there.

>> No.11605456

>>11605424
[math]\log_{10}x = \sup\{ y \in\mathbb{R} \mid 10^y \leq x\}[/math], the set is non-empty by the archimedean property (as long as x>0), and the supremum exists by the least upper bound property.

>> No.11605462

>>11605456
Prove least upper bound property. You may say, it's axiom, but it isn't obvious enough to take it as granted and build your theory upon it.

>> No.11605464

Let's solve this question democratically.
https://www.strawpoll.me/19873902

>> No.11605477

>>11605462
it's an axiom, it can't be proved. you can only give an argument why is this axiom reasonable.
the intuition and motivation behind R is that real numbers are in 1-1 correspondence with all possible lengths of line segments. rational numbers don't suffice, for example the length of the diagonal in a unit square doesn't correspond to any rational number. we conclude that the rational number line has holes inside, the least upper bound property says precisely that there are no holes.

>> No.11605484

>>11605199
Except its not

>> No.11605485

>>11605477
So you admit your proof is circular

>> No.11605488

>>11605485
no.

>> No.11605496

>>11605477
Oh the least upper bound property can absolutely be proven both in Dedekind and Cauchy sequence construction of the real numbers.
For Dedekind cuts, simply take the union of all the numbers.
For Cauchy sequences, the construction is a little bit more complex but still possible.

>> No.11605549

>>11605464
1 equals 0.999..., but 0.999 doesn't equal 1.

>> No.11605783

>>11605350
How is it less, retard? 9 is greater than 1.

>> No.11606008

>>11605116
Except it is

>> No.11606010

>>11605549
>Symmetric property: For any quantities a and b, if a = b, then b = a.

>> No.11606169

>>11606010
Aspie detected

>> No.11606593

>>11606169
>It's autistic to point out something both correct and directly relevant to a previous point.
Fuck off, retard.

>> No.11606678

Are you people seriously wasting your life in this thread? The OP literally admitted he is just trolling clueless newfags

>> No.11606881

>>11606678
More like trolling 0.999... =/= 1 fags, but yes

>> No.11607542

If 0.999...=1
Then 0.00...01=0
but then 0/0.00...01 is 0, however we know 0/0 is indeterminate
Proof 0.999.!=1 by contradiction
QED

>> No.11608512

>>11607542
I hope this is bait

>> No.11608663

>>11608512
No. Why would it be?

>> No.11609745

>>11608663
>but then 0/0.00...01 is 0
Why would it be like this? You literally just threw that statement in there without proof or logic behind it.