/sci/ - Science & Math

>drop ball on the moon
>it floats
>mon visage

We did not evolve from monkeys!

>>2342137

>>2342148
>>2342137
I think they did a pretty good job covering the evolution based misconceptions. It has its own section on the page.

Evolution does not claim humans evolved from monkeys,[94] chimpanzees[95] or any other modern-day primates. Instead, humans and monkeys share a common ancestor that lived about 40 million years ago.[96] This common ancestor diverged into separate lineages, one evolving into so-called New World monkeys and the other into Old World monkeys and apes.[97] Humans are included in the Hominidae family, which also includes chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Similarly, the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, which lived between 5 and 8 million years ago, evolved into two lineages, one eventually becoming modern humans and the two extant species of chimpanzee.[94]

>>2342108

Im gonna have to go with, humans only use 10% of their brain. However, i dont rage when I hear it. Its just the one that seems to be the stupidest to me. I dont know why, I guess I feel likes it implies things that I dont like. Maybe it just feels like im being called stupid when i hear it. I dont know... maybe i need to use a few more %.

>>2342160
...I think I know that Ty B.

This is more a bias than a misconception, but it always annoys me when people assume everyone else is like them. One time a girl with no self esteem told me that everyone must have low self esteem, because we all make mistakes and none of us are perfect. She also thought that everyone is extroverted, like her, and would argue with people if they said they were introverted. Somehow, people don't seem to understand that other people can be different.

>>2342174
I'm sorry... It must be difficult for you.

>Contrary to the common myth, the real number 0.999... equals 1, on the nose.

You mad?

>>2342178
This one also bothers me.

The idea that in "America" there can be dozens of different sub cultures but anywhere else in the world is one homogeneous stereotype. America is certainly not the only nation guilty of this though.

And don't even get me started on religious misconceptions. (Note that I mean misconceptions about religion and not by religions.)

>>2342186
lol just saw that, u guys.

>>2342186
I'm not sure how I feel about this one...
I would be inclined to disagree.

This seems to be more a matter of interpretation. Infinity is a weird concept and the laws of infinity are somewhat vague and abstract at places.

>>2342195

Oh please, no one believes that the US has unique subcultures.

>>2342243

All places have unique subcultures. Its just everyone knows ours because our culture is the one thats taking over the rest of the world. Although japan kinda took ours and turned it into their own think, fuck yeah! pokemon!

>>2342239
Not a matter of interpretation. You're just wrong.

>>2342239
It's not vague. Writing a number in decimal expansion is an infinite series. Infinite series are equal to their limits. The limit of (0.99999...) is 1. What's really abstract is the notion of writing numbers using symbols. If I gave you one rock, you would have no confusion about how many rocks you have. But if I want to write a number, I need to define a set of symbols. In the common system, (0.9999...) is defined to equal one.

>>2342239
Also, here's a common misconception that bugs me. People seem to think that infinity "can't exist" for some reason, and all infinities are the same. No and no.

why is there no literature category? >:(

>Disney pushed the lemmings off cliffs.

>>2342160
Hm... I don't really understand that... why wouldn't the common ancestor of chimpanzees, humans and gorillas belong in the category of apes or monkeys ?

>>2342186

I think it might be more accurate to say the it can be equal to one. It kind of depends on what it is being used to represent. As it is, in decimal, the only way to express 3/3, then yes, it is equal to one. This is absolutely true and is generally the context in which it is discussed. However, it is also capable of being used to express a number which approaches but never reaches 1. It's ambiguous because we use base 10, but such ambiguities are inevitable in any base.

This is why people should use fractions more.

>>2342280
Perhaps we should add one? Then again, what literature misconceptions are so widespread to be considered "common"?

Shakespeare being a front for another author (citation needed)?

451 degrees Fahrenheit being the temperature paper burns at? (It's not)

Carl Marx being a Communist?

>>2342312
Because it shared traits of all three and could not be reliably excluded from any one of them. Instead, it would be placed as a member of a different group which contained several common traits seen in all members within the group.

Taxonomy is by no means an absolute science. There's still debates about the best way to classify organisms.

>>2342321
Are Carl Marx and Karl Marx different individuals ?

>>2342269
Not all infinities are the same...

>>2342321

uh, off the top of my head:
"Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" being "Alice in Wonderland." The Red Queen and the Queen of Hearts being the same character. Lewis Carroll was a renowned mathematician (he was a mathematician, but he garnered very little respect in this regard).

This is the last book I read, so... I'm out. We'd have to research, but there's stuff.

>>2342347
That's what my comment implied

>>2342312

They do, they're primates. And further back than that they're mammals. And further back than that they're chordates, and further back than that they're animals, and further back than that they're eukaryotes.

Our common ancestors, however, were not both monkeys and apes. Monkeys and apes are separate lineages.

>>2342353
I thought apes were a sort of monkeys. That's how it is in my language.

>>2342320
NO, the notation 0.999... is well defined and is meant to represent the corresponding power series which is always equal to 1. there is no concept of a number "that approaches but never reaches 1" in mathematics. there are sequences, there are limits and there are decimal representations.

>>2342363
Apes usually implies the larger, non-tailed, gorillas and chimpanzees and the like while Monkeys are the smaller, prehensile-tailed Lemurs, Macaques and others.

>>2342375
>in mathematics. there are sequences, there are limits and there are decimal representations.

This is not an all inclusive list...
Though your initial point is correct.
And I assume you're referring to the Real number system.

x = 0.999...
10x = 9.999...
10x - x = 9.999.. - 0.999... = 9

Thus x = 1

Retarded fags
[] not told
[x] fucken told

in base (n+1), (0.nnnnnn....) = 1

>>2342406

The math checks out. This guy's legit.

Though the last line of your proof blends three different steps into one. Might want to expand it next time for clarity.

>>2342399
of course it's not all inclusive, and yes we're (I'm) talking about real sequences. my point is that those "numbers that approach another number" that get mentioned all the time are NOT a mathematical concept. but you're right to point out what I assumed to be implicit, there are enough people on here that don't know squat about it and it's definitely better if even details are mentioned.

>>2342406
That isn't a real mathematical proof though. There's an easy with writing 0.99.. as a series, and then calculating the limit, exactly 1.

>>2342375

I'm no math Ph.D, but I'm pretty sure that there can be instances where numbers which approach one but never reach it. Or were my Trig, Math Analysis, and Analytical Geometry teachers all lying to me?

>>2342447
1/10000 approaches one but doesn't reach it. We're not talking about numbers, though; we're talking about series. Series are defined to equal their limit.
The limit of (0.99999...) is one, so (0.99999...) = 1
A function can approach a number without reaching it. This is called an asymptote. This may be what you are recalling, but it's a different topic.

>>2342457
>1/10000 approaches one
You mean zero.

But then this case is not infinite either.
1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 +1/5 +1/6 +... does however, approach 1/infinity, and is understood to be equivalent to 1.

>>2342447
no, you just didn't pay enough attention to your teachers.
>>2342457
I appreciate the support but let's keep it correct, aight?
1/10000 doesn't approach one or anything, 1/10000 is just a rational number, and it's in fact quite far away from 1. what you probably meant to say is that <span class="math">\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}[/spoiler] is a real sequence with limit 0, one also says the SEQUENCE approaches 0. also we're talking about SEQUENCES and not series! series are sequences of partial sums and other technicalities are required. your statement about asymptotes is the only thing I'd agree with, though keep in mind that approaching is used the same way it is used above for sequences! I hope this makes it clearer to those who obviously never enjoyed a good lecture in analysis.

>>2342457

Oh. Well then disregard.

>>2342476
what the fuck is wrong with you? 2 retarded posts in a row?! I can't believe what I'm hearing....the harmonic series DIVERGES for fuck's sake. 1/infty is no mathematical concept (at least in real analysis it ain't) and has nothing to do with the harmonic series. if you want to know even more, the harmonic series diverges to +infty, and I hope you will look in wikipedia or a math book what I mean by that (i.e. explicitly in technical terms).

>>2342476
Wat. No.

1/2+1/3+1/4>1

God damnit... I apparently can't do math this morning.

Meant to put:
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... etc. which approaches 1, and certainly NOT 1/ inf.

Fuck me...

>>2342520
your status is restored!

>>2342312
because we did not all evolve from a common ancestor.

Occam's Razor

MFW I learned nothing new.

I guess I've always lived a jaded skeptical life that was less misinformed than others.

>>2342476
Wow this guy is a fucking dumbass.

Way to prove you failed advanced calculus.

>>2342537
Well, most of the twenty or so people that regularly browse this board are a little more in tune with the reality of these misconceptions than others are.

The main problem with the whole 0,999 = 1 thing is the fact that mathematicians use words which sound like something from everyday life. You say 0,999 "goes to" 1 as n "goes to" infinity. Such a statement is easily misinterpreted by people who have not been taught about series and sequences, and when you give them the formal definition they will not understand. Instead they will simply tell you that you didn't prove anything about the number 0,999, but instead proved something about "sequences" and "limits" which they weren't talking about in the first place! So I guess, the common misconception that bothers me the most is

>I was good at maths in elementary school, so don't think you know something I don't!

>>2342578
I must admit, that is the most brilliant misconception on the list. as a math major I can only agree to how limited people are in mathematical thinking, they think math can't go any further than high school level. but when I wrongly assume that architects have to draw a lot during their studies and are only trained to build house I'm immediately scoffed at. but they all walk around with iphones thinking that they're built and work using high school math...mfw, mfw....

>>2342195
>>2342178

It's interesting just how deep this runs as a bias. I mean, it's obvious that our own experience is the only thing we have to generalise from, but people do it without thinking far more often that you might otherwise assume.
I found http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/ to be quite a good look at the topic, actually.

the one that stunned me was the George Washington wooden teeth thing; that myth has been around for centuries, apparently, and is being taught to kids as we speak.

so maybe Martha didn't have to pick out as many splinters as we had previously thought

People still think Freud is reputable.

I recently went to a psychology science fair at a university, and some dumbass had actually done a research project on the oedipus complex, and cited ancient people like Jung.

I felt embarrassed for them. Silly undergrads.

>>2342647
>hurdurp i'm a close-minded fag and i dun care

>"Contrary to the common myth, the real number 0.999... equals 1, on the nose."

this ought to resolve about half the threads on this board...

>>2342406
x = 0.555...
10*x = 5.555...
10*x - x = 5.555... - 0.555 = 5

Thus, x = 5

This is how dumb you sound.
[x] Shut the fuck up.

>>2343416
lol no, 10x-x = 9x = 5. x = 5/9.

>>2343345

I've never understood the confusion on why that wouldn't be the case. It's obvious.

>>2343416
HURR DUUR 9x=x RIGHT