/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14857081
at infinity

>>14857081
When the 9s following the 0 are infinite.

>>14857081
at no point in reality

>>14857081
Never, it just keeps on going even after the amount does not make any sense

>>14857081
when he gains consciousness and moves to a higher level of reality

When you combine it with a number that is equally close to 0.

>>14857133
>achilles doesn't win the race against a tortoise
oh guru, tell us more

>>14857081
Infinity.
Seethe more, Wildberger cultists.

Believing in actual infinities is no worse than believing in imaginary deities. We understand how calculus works, retards. 1 is the LIMIT of 0.999… but that is far from saying 0.999… = 1. This is how mathematicians treated infinity before the infinity schizos showed up

>>14857152
>LIMIT of 0.999… but that is far from saying 0.999… = 1.
they're the same picture

>>14857165
>the function NEVER touches the asymptote
>but also the function touches the asymptote at iNfiNiTy
give me a fucking break with this nonsense

>>14857152
>This is how mathematicians treated infinity
Some mathematicians

>>14857173
The function never touches the asymptote because the function is undefined at that point. 0.99... is a convergent sum.

>>14857173
>let's pretend finite is infinite
lol

1 = 9/10 + 1/10
= 0.9 + 1/10
= 0.99 + 1/100
= 0.999 + 1/1000
:
= 0.9... + 1/inf
= 0.9... + 0
= 0.9...

>>14857190
>1/inf
not a number

By your own logic:

1/inf + 1/inf + 1/inf…. = 0

when it could just as easily equal something else

>>14857194
>>1/inf
>not a number
1/inf=0

>>14857190
>= 0.9... + 0
0.9... + 0.0...

>>14857194
>1/inf + 1/inf + 1/inf...
that the same a 0*inf
0*inf is undefined

>>14857194
>1/inf + 1/inf + 1/inf...
that's the same as 0*inf
0*inf is undefined

>>14857211
so if I add 0 infinite times, I should get 1. Since 1/inf = 0

What axioms are you using to do algebra with inf?

>>14857216
infinity
An unbounded quantity that is greater than every real number.

1/inf step by step when dividing with 2...
1
0.5
0.25
0.125
0.0625
0.03125,
0.015625
When does this become 0 ?
It seems to me that the amount of numbers increases more than the decimal points

>>14857231
>decimal points
of zeroes

>>14857081
>he
when did numbers have gender?

>>14857231
>>14857185

>>14857231
Nice. The old infinity vs. infinity trick. Like the omnipotence paradox. Infinity NPC’s have no fucking clue how to respond

>>14857237
You have two conflicting trends. On one hand, the number of leading 0’s is increasing. But also, the non-zero decimal places after the leading 0’s are increasing. Saying that those just disappear is like saying 2^inf = 0…….

>>14857231
Why would 1/inf be the same as an infinite number of iterations of 1/2?

>>14857297
1/2 = 0.5
1/4 = 0.25
1/8 = 0.125
1/9 = 0.111..
1/18 = 0.0555...
1/11 = 0.090909...

I dont know these things but it seems to me that the complexity keeps increasing

>>14857310
K. Now why would 1/inf be the same as an infinite number of iterations of 1/2?

>>14857081
when does 0.99 become 99/100?

>>14857328
Wait

>>14857328
1/9...followed with 9nintillion 9's
You get 0.0... followed by more than 9nintillion numbers

Just because
1/64 = 0.015625

>64 is 2 numbers
>Answer has 7 numbers

So adding infinitely many numbers seems to me that the following numbers has to be infinitely greater

>>14857342
K, now how is any of what you wrote equal to 1/inf? Prove it's equal please. I don't believe you yet.

>>14857081
When you write 0.999... on paper, immediately

>>14857081
0,999999... is 1 :

1/9 = 0,111111...
2/9 = 0,222222...
etc.
8/9 = 0,888888...
9/9 = 1 = 0,9999999...


/thread
kthxbye

>>14857365
>1/9 = 0.111111...
How can this be true if 0.111111... * 9 = 0.999999... and not 1

>>14857368
>How can this be true if 0.111111... * 9 = 0.999999... and not 1

Lel, but IT IS true :
9/9 = 1 by definition of a/a = 1 for any Real.
And 9/9 is also equals to 0,999999.... (because 7/9 = 0,77777... , 8/9 = 0,88888..., etc.)

Then 9/9 = 0,99999.... = 1

Isn’t 0.999 repeating equals 1 proven in the first math classes you take in University

>>14857190
> 0.9... + 0
* .9... + .0...1

>>14857365
fucking midwit begging the question. if you are going to use
>1/9 = 0.111...
then first you have to prove that. which is of course exactly the same task as proving
>1 = 0.999...

>>14857081
when he increments

>>14857235
Even numbers are female.
Odd numbers are male.
But 1 is not a number, it is a unit.

>>14857460
ok. give us a better notation for the decimal expansion of a fraction.

>>14857460>>14857460
>fucking midwit begging the question. if you are going to use
>>1/9 = 0.111...

Haha f*cking brainlet swine, here is the proof :
1/9 = 100/900 = (90 + 10)/(9*100)
1/9 = 90/900 + 10/900
1/9 = 1/10 + 1/90

But...
1/90 = 100/9000 = (90 + 10)/(9*1000)
1/90 = 90/9000 + 10/9000
1/90 = 1/100 + 1/900

Etc. for 1/9000, 1/90000, etc.

Then :
1/9 = 1/10 + 1/100 + 1/1000 + ....
1/9 = 0,1111111....

0.999... simply means the number that can be approximated with arbitrarily small nonzero error by a number in the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...
That number is 1.

>>14857540
it doesn't, it means 3/3

>/sci/ struggles with basic calculus concepts
oh I am laffin

Math is hard, celebrate with me on my 10th time i have said this at /sci/

>>14857088
>>14857089
>>14857150
>>14857190
>>14857199
>>14857226
infinity is not real

>>14857652
well duh, that's in the definition

>you will never be a real number
ywnbarn
it fails to terminate, so it's not an accurate representation of what it's being applied to

>>14857081
For all epsilon > 0 there exists N such that, for all n>N, 1 - 0.99999...9 (n nines) is less than epsilon. Do you agree?

If you do, there's nothing to argue about, so please just shut up.

>>14857538
/thread

>>14857081
Never.

>>14857081
>When
Where do you see a process in time in that picture? It either depicts an individual decimal which is 1, or it doesn't.

>>14857081
When trannies become women

>>14857152
>We understand how calculus works
>completely fucks up the meaning of something as simple as limits
Lmao. Btw
>1 is the LIMIT of 0.999… but that is far from saying 0.999… = 1
Is the exact same thing. You highlighting "LIMIT" doesn't mean anything. It's as dumb as claiming the two sides of this equation are different because one explicitly says limit and the other doesn't

>>14857148
That retarded paradox comes from assuming you can divide infinitely which you cannot, in reality there is a fundamental limit (plank length)

>>14857150
Dirty fucking weeb is an infinitist nigger? No surprises there

If infinity doesnt exist, what is the last digit of Pi ?

>>14857081
>when does he become 1?
It doesn't.

>>14861672
pi doesn't exist

>>14861710
1 doesnt exist either, its an abstract concept

Why do these threads keep getting made?

>>14861716
>1 doesnt exist either
the numeral 1 most certainly exist since it correlates to a concept in real life

>its an abstract concept
abstractions can be wrong if they do not correspond to anything in reality

>>14857081
always has been...

>>14861672
same as the digit next to it

>>14857081
1/3=0.(3)
Multiply both sides by three.
1=0.(9)

>>14862544
>1/3=0.(3)
false

>>14857525
0 is female, 1 is male

>>14857089
What does an infinite 9 look like?

>>14861672
i

>>14862557
prove it

>>14857081
YWNBA1

>>14857081
Never ever

>>14857173
They're the same sentence, you cretin. You still have a childlike or midwit's mind that cannot understand that infinity does not mean "the biggest number you can imagine". It means non-finity, non-endness.

>>14863454
>it touches the asymptote
>it never touches the asymptote
>they're the same sentences
Clearly, you're the bigger cretin.

>>14857081
It doesn't "become" anything. It's just 1 by definition. You're arguing with definitions.

>>14857152
>1 is the LIMIT of 0.999…
1 is the limit of (9/10, 99/100, 999/1000, 9999/10000...)
0.999... is also the limit of (9/10, 99/100, 999/1000, 9999/10000...)
1 = 0.999... since limits are unique

>>14857152
>1 is the LIMIT of 0.999… but that is far from saying 0.999… = 1
0.999... is the sum 9/10+9/100+9/1000+... which is defined as the limit of the partial sums which is 1 so you are wrong by definition. lol

>>14857081
Take 1/0.9999...
At what point is it not 1?

>>14863203
Not the dude but you can literally see it, if you cannot see it.. you are doomed to be bathd at mathd

Honestly though, when the fuck do you use infinity? In almost all real world applications you never, EVER need to use infinity as a limit of anything.

Maybe in optics, or electronics you need to be VERY precise, but even there you don't need to be 'n' precise, just a millionth, or a billionth.

Hell, in mechanical, or civil engineering applications a 1000th degree of accuracy is enough

Why are mathematicians so autistic? Nothing in the universe at a scale we can interact with is going to be perfectly accurate, so why even bother? Why not just be pragmatic when doing math? Infinity is not real for all practical use cases

>>14863569
>Nothing in the universe at a scale we can interact with is going to be perfectly accurate, so why even bother?
Because it simplifies everything, retard.

>>14863572
Ok, but don't seethe at me when i put infinity straight into the integral limits on my next midterm mathematics autist

>>14863574
I'm not seething at you. I just feel sorry for you that you're too dumb to see how dragging around ridiculously small or ridiculously large factors and doing obtuse approximations quickly gets out of hand.

>>14857538
>1/9 = 1/10 + 1/90
>1/(9*10^n) = 0.9/(9*10^n) + 0.1/(9*10^n) = 1/(10^(n+1))+ 1/(9*10^(n+1))
>therefore it follows that .... + 1/(9*10^n) = ..... + 1/(10^(n+1)) + 1/(9*10^(n+1))
correct
>therefore if you repeat this infinity times you wont have the 1/(9*10^(n+1)) at the end
fucking retard

>>14857081
>>14857133
>>14857251
>>14863569
Since a Plank length is 10^-35, anything after that would be the same as 1 because you wouldn’t be able to measure the difference.
So 1 = 0.99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 9

>>14863599
I hope you're trolling and not actually this fucking retarded.

>>14863569
>Honestly though, when the fuck do you use infinity?
Every time you compute a derivative or an integral.

>>14863600
There’s no measurable difference between these two numbers:

0.99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 9 and 0.99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 99

And that’s a fact.

>>14863641
the difference is 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 9

>>14863557
>hand waving
lol retard

>>14863641
>There’s no measurable difference between these two numbers:
Multiply by a trillion and now there's a measurable difference. You're a legit mouth breather if you believe in what you're spouting here.

>>14863642
>>14863647
That’s only a difference on paper. In reality, we can’t measure anything smaller than a plank length.

So one number is based on reality, the other is mathematical fiction.

>>14863661
>That’s only a difference on paper
Multiply by a trillion and the difference on paper becomes one that's measurable in reality. You're literally subhuman. lol

>>14863668
Shh, let him discover the concept of limit on his own

How does this discussion help to further anyone's understanding of our reality?

>>14863661
I said there’s no measurable difference between these two numbers:

0.99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 9 and 0.99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 99

So why is that other retard talking about “multiplying by a trillion”?

>>14863661
>In reality, we can’t measure anything smaller than a plank length
You cannot but i can

>>14863679
It doesn’t.

>>14863682
what does a "measurable difference" between two numbers mean?

>>14863682
>So why is that other retard talking about “multiplying by a trillion”?
Maybe to illustrate to you why the two are not equal regardless of whether or not the difference is "measurable in reality", but he should have known better than to reason with a 80 IQ nigger.

>>14863692
a+r=b
where a,b,r are real numbers

>>14863682
The difference could be 9 meters.

>>14857081
RiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiightNOW! Wow! That was like a once in a lifetime event, so glad I was able to see it!

You were watching, right OP? I'd hate to think you might have missed it.

To the 0.99..=/= 1 train-chuggers, if they say "I will never suck a cock", they mean "I will most definitely suck a cock".

To the 0.99..=/= 1 train-chuggers, if they say "I will suck a cock after an infinite amount of time has passed", they mean "I will most definitely suck a cock".

>>14863802
not.faggotfaggotfaggot... = faggot?

>>14863811
in base 2, yes

>>14863829
>in base 2, yes
In baggot?

>>14863586
>if you repeat this infinity times
>you wont have the 1/(9*10^(n+1)) at the end

You're the retard, you made it an oxymoron like yourself.

>>14857081
The moment you run out of fingers to count the decimal digits, just round it up.
t. engineer

Whoa... are you seeing this /sci? I think OP just discovered another proof.

>>14857081
When you add repeating notation

>>14857081
It becomes one when you cannot practically tell the difference anymore.
Imagine you're 1mm short of a kilometer. Zoom out far enough that you can see the entire kilometer, and you cannot tell the difference between a kilometer and 999.990 meters

>>14865856
>It becomes one when you cannot practically tell the difference anymore.
Thats not how math works, practically someone might say that 46 and 47 nuts in a cup are the same, but mathmatically they are not the same

>>14857081
I'd like you to define what 0.999... means for me, anon.

>>14865856
This is what I said above. Humanity literally can't measure anything smaller in size than a Plank Length. So anything smaller than 10^-35 is the (like 0.999...(35 9's) is the same as 1, since we can't measure anything past that. In effect, nothing can be that small, for example 10^-40 doesn't exist.
I know the concept of "infinity" is useful for mathematics, but in reality there is nothing that is "infinite". Everything has a measurable size.

>>14866333
write the plank length in kilometers please

>>14866335
1km = 6.1879273537329E+37

>>14866344
*Plank Lengths

>>14866333
Sizes smaller than the planck length appear all the time in black hole physics

>>14866347
Okay cool then measure them. Oh wait, you can't.
If we can't measure something, then it's not science. At best, that would be soft-science; at worst, pseudoscience.

>>14866344
that's 1 kilometer written in plank lengths. write 1 plank length in kilometers.

>>14866351
Gotcha. 1.6e-38 km

>>14866350
It's measured by solving the equations of the black hole physics

>>14866350
I'm sure you know exactly what Planck's numbers are and you are going to explain them now and how they relate to being able to measure things.

>>14866354
>1.6e-38
but that number doesn't exist

>>14866356
Again, that's mathematical fiction. For example the idea that the "singularity" (which we have no confirmation of) exists as a point smaller than a plank length. But humanity will (likely) never be able to measure that. And since we can't measure it or test it, it's not science.

>>14866360
There is no such thing as a mathematical fiction
Also, spacetime is continuous, not discrete, because a discrete spacetime doesn't allow empirically measured symmetries. If the universe were some pixelated lattice it literally wouldn't work. It has to be completely continuous and smooth.

>>14866359
A number like that exists as mathematical fiction. But in reality it doesn't.
If you wanted to be extra cheeky, you could've asked me to write 1 plank length in Gigameters, Terameters, or Light Years.

>>14866360
>that's mathematical fiction
...you think the Planck's length is a measured value that's not a mathematical derivation?

>>14866364
No, you're right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPMn7SuiHP8

>>14866367
So then why you are treating one with religious zeal and dismiss the other as mathematical fiction?

>>14866376
Because I was wrong, and I come here to discuss things I don't know about so that I can learn about them.

>>14866378
That's fair.

>>14866378
watch this video >>14866374

>>14866382
Maybe later, but probably not.
The odds of humanity being in a "simulation" aren't worth discussing from a scientific perspective, since there's no way for us to test it. It's just dumb schizo-babble for philosophy students with nothing better to do.

>>14866362
Instead, I'm going to ask you to write 1 Plank length in milimeters.
Then I'll ask you to explain why does the number relating 1 plank length to 1mm exist in reailty, but the number relating 1 plank length to 1km doesn't.

>>14857081
When I want it to
Numbers are merely abstractions we use to observe and comprehend reality
If I say it becomes 1 after 70 9s after the 0 that's when it becomes 1
If i say the 9s go on for infinity it simply becomes an irrational number

>>14866388
Actually a good video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kuRatz2rj0

>>14866388
David Tong is a Quantum Field Theorist and professor of physics at Cambridge you moron

>>14866399
The other video is also a "good video".
Tong goes over why the chiral symmetry breaking of fermions implies that the universe is not computable on turing machines

>>14866401
Well if he believes in the possibility of living in a simulation, then he's retarded. I have little to no respect for academics who have no real world work experience.
And theoretic physics is still mostly soft-science and pseudoscience.

>>14866398
Basically, if your 0,9999999999... represents an irrational number then it goes on for infinity
If your 0,999999..... represents a rational number then at some point it becomes 1, you just have to figure out when

>>14863763
FUCK! I MISSED IT!

>>14866405
>Well if he believes in the possibility of living in a simulation, then he's retarded
He doesn't you fucking idiot. The video is a disproof of the possibility using Chien Shien Wu's experiment of the chiral symmetry breaking of fermions.
You are not intelligent at all, get over yourself.

>>14866410
>He doesn't you fucking idiot.
Okay good, now fuck off.

>>14866407
>If your 0,999999..... represents a rational number then at some point it becomes 1

If that Infinite repetition is truly infinite without an stop, but somehow becoming 1 at some point
Would that not mean that those infinite repetitive 9's would carry the count from the 1 and becoming 1.999...
Just because the repetition of 9's is infinite and does not have a stop

>>14866423
You're a genuine moron.
You argue that the "plank length" is the smallest unit in space, but what you're actually claiming there is whether space is a discrete lattice or if it is continuous and smooth.
That video goes over why it's not the case that space can be a discrete lattice and has to be continuous and smooth. He ties it in to the question of whether the universe can be simulated on a turing machine as we understand them.
You're a fucking idiot. Anyone who earnestly uses terms like "philosophy schizo babble" is not an intelligent person, as you have clearly demonstrated with your ignorance and arrogance.

>>14861663
>plank length
Why can't you go lower, mathematically speaking?

Imagine being such a fucking idiot that you don't know the difference between discrete and continuous topologies, but you call a Cambridge Physics professor a "retard".
Faggots like this should be outright banned from this board.

>>14866449
You can, both mathematically and physically speaking.

>>14866428
I didn't represent my point well, sorry
I meant thay if 0,999999... eventually becomes 1, then it isn't infinite nor irrational, it can have millions of nines, but if at some point it becomes 1 its not irrational
If your 0,999999... doesnt become 1 then it's irrational, it doesn't become 1 because that's the point of irrational numbers, to be an infinite fraction of something
Basically this poster is trying to turn an irrational number into a rational number, which is retarded because they're two different things
Sorry for bad english

>>14866499
No worries, it was more of an ponder for anyone
>But also
Just wanted to jump into the convo somehow

>>14866451
Just zoom out so much that the entire universe is scaled to planks lenght.. Trees are still there smaller than planks lenght amirite

>>14866499
Basically x=0,99999....99999
Y=0,999999999.......
X=/=y
This is high school math people ffs

>>14866516
The idea of there being a smallest unit to space, whether the plank length or something else, is the notion that space is a Pixelated discrete lattice.
That is not possible based on our knowledge of physics. Space has to be continuous. It is the continuum
The moron talking about smallest measurable distance had no idea what he was talking about.

If they were not equal, there would be a number between. There is not.

>>14866561
>smallest measurable distance
Not pro on the topic but it's concidered a 1 dimensional distance right? in a 3d space
I dont know why but it seems to me that it does not work that way

Like how can you determine a movement for example to be continious while having a minimum of continuity
>sry if it sounds stupid, hope the meaning got through tho

>>14866602
Like it was some sort of a "step" rather than a "line"

>>14866602
Watch the video I already linked where Professor David Tong goes over the derivation.

>>14866613
No time, have to clean

>>14857652
then how do you explain ur mom's weight?

>>14866617
When you get the time
For a tldw if spacetime where discrete there would be non trivial integer solutions to equations of the form a^3 + b^3 = c^3

>>14866622
I mean if there was a movement like a curve with 1planklenght going down and 2planklenghts right
It would be like |____ and not a curve or something, i dont know.. just talking

>>14866541
they're both 1

>>14866658
No

>>14866389
I think you might be too retarded to ask your question

>>14866766
I don't think so

>>14866541
>invents an infinite sequence with a last element
>calls it high school math
You are both retarded and misinformed.

>>14857382
9/9 = 1/1 = 1

>>14857081
What do you mean? "He" was never changing, he has always been 1.