/sci/ - Science & Math

It's rounded off for convenience

>>15986188
> why does expressing something with non-perfect notation doesn't seem to give a perfect solution?

>>15986188
0.9999… is a representation of THE LIMIT of 1/10 + 1/100 + 1/1000 +… which happens to be one. One is the LIMIT of that series. Therefore by convention the … in 0.999… indicates that we are talking about THE LIMIT. If you’re still skeptical find a book that has a rigorous treatment of limits. It will probably talk about decimals somewhere.

It almost seems like 0.99999... is exactly equal to 1, but of course as we all know that's absurd

>>15986201
>1/10 + 1/100 + 1/000…
I meant 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000…

>>15986188
Half the threads here seem to be about random yt videos I watch, I feel persecuted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMTD1Y3LHcE
the video is basically what >>15986201 said

>>15986201
> which happens to be one
That's 1/9 dumbass

>>15986208
good point, that must explain why I posted this>>15986204

we've has this same retarded thread thousands of times previously, the fact that you're incapable of developing any new material to troll with is evidence of your weak thinking ability and low iq

>>15986188
0.999... is just another way of writing 1 which is just another way of writing 3/3. Just because the letters are different doesn't mean the value is.

This thread again, well its not like there is any other threads so
1/3 is not 0:33... because you cannot put 10 numbers in 3 groups
1, 2, 3
4, 5, 6
7, 8, 9
0

>>15986188
>Ok, so 1/3 is 0.33333 forever.
wrong

>>15986344
/thread

>>15986188
this shit again?, go back to preschool

>>15986188
. . . / . . . = . . . . . .

The anser is 6

>>15986188
1/3 =/= .333...

>muh limits
Limits literally has the word "approaches" in it's definition.
It's all cope

>>15986836
my brainlet, 0.3... doesn't approach anything because it does not move, it is stationary, and so it is 1/3

>>15986188
Arithmetic is derived from real life. Three objects may be divided into three groups of one object. A single object, however, may be divided into three parts whose abstract sum is equal to 0.333, but which is more appropriately written as 1/3 when looked at in this way.

>>15986972
THAT DOESN'T FUCKING MEAN IT EVER EQUALS 1/3
IT CAN'T BE FUCKING TIED TO ANYTHING REAL OR IMAGINARY EITHER
WHAT TIES THEM TOGETHER IS JUST SOME FUCKING IDEA(CALLED LIMITS)
>BUDHEUH EVERYTHINGS AN IDEA AT THE END OF THE DAY EH EHEHEHE
SHUT THE FUCK UP RETARD

>>15986188
for 3/3 you're dividing a number by the exact same number, it's always going to equal 1

if you want 0.999... then you need to do 1/3 then multiply that by 3 which equals 0.999..., but your calculator will round it up to 1

Then you might say "hold on, gaylord. you can just do (1/3)x3 = (1x3)/3 = 3/3 = 1". And yeah you can, and that's why maths is clearly broken at a fundamental level

>>15986188
Because rationals are more fundamental than decimal expansions, and n/n = 1 is a defining property of the rationals.

>>15986201
>>15986204
its also a fake concept.
if that was true all numbers are irrational

>>15987203
if by irrational you mean infinite representation, they all need it, it's just that we omit the zero's

>>15987131
what makes 0 irrational ?

>>15987588
It isn't. 0/0 is an indeterminate form of a limit but the limit of n/n as n approaches 0 is still 1.

>>15986188
Division is a crutch dont use it, the civilizations closer to the fall of atlantis understood this

>>15986260
Expect 300+ replies.
Captcha: P8d0

>>15986188
Because the .999 becomes an infinitesimal just like the slice of an integral which equals 0

OP is treating the infinite decimal representation of real numbers as more fundamental than the integers (and rationals), which is stupid. They didn't start using infinite decimals until about 500 years ago and literally the main criticism was that it couldn't even represent one third exactly. The quantity "1/3" is "one third" and it is obvious why "three thirds" are equal to one.

>>15986188
fractions don’t exist in real life, it’s the mathematical equivalent to a fairy tale
you can make a story and it’s consistent with itself, except of course, reality.
you cannot represent fictive fractions like 1/3 as 0.33333… to begin with. you’re comparing apples and oranges, entirely different concepts.

>>15986836
the provable value from the definition of the limit as x->inf of the summation (3 * [1 / 10^x]) starting with x=1 is 1/3.

the notation 0.33333... is a shorthand way of writing that specific limit. if you adopt the standard axioms and the standard definition of limit, then 0.33333... is indeed equal to 1/3.

it's not that limits posit that infinite summation is a legitimate physical process or any other kind of philosophical thing.

limits are just mathematicians saying "well if we do this a hypothetically infinite number of times and it gets 'arbitrarily' close to one and only one value without reaching it, then we may as well define the value of the limit itself as that value" and then ran with it to see what kind of mathematics you can do with the idea of assigning a value to an 'infinite process'.

it just turns out that this mathematics tends to be very useful in a broad set of contexts, and whether or not it's philosophically valid as some kind of proof of the ontological validity of infinite series and other infinite processes is just a moot point.

>>15988719
show me the number one. what is the molecular formula for the number one? how much does it weigh? what color is it? where is it located?