/sci/ - Science & Math

high school faggot detected.

Triangle -> Three angles

Do you have 3 angles? No, so it is not a triangle

>>3491895

k

>>3491906

No, that last angle is "imaginary". I'm sure it's possible to bullshit an entire branch of mathematics using that word, amirite? Well yes, yes I am.

>>3491922
That is correct, in some models of geometry parallel lines converge at infinity.

>>3491922
No it is not, they dont cross, so you cant define an angles

>>3491926

Really? That is interesting. What models are these?

>looks like we all like to mathdebate
>we are habit mathdebators
>we mathdebate together

>>3491932
>>3491906


In all seriousness, I mostly called it a triangle using quotations marks. My point isn't that this is a triangle. My point is that the math somehow came out right, and that zero shouldn't be considered a number that can have operations performed on it

Captcha related- natin horrida.

>>3491954

>Natin horrida

>>3491954
>>3491958
forgot to delete the namefield, faggot?

Congratulations. You've succeeded in applying trig functions to an infinite rectangle and gotten predictably shit results.

>>3491937
Basically non-Euclidian Geometry in general, namely in hyperbolic geometry.
And when you think about it, if you have an equilateral triangle and stretch one point out to infinity, you will have the triangle in your image.

>>3491962

I accidentally posted the topic like this, and I was too lazy to delete it.

>>3491878
Wait wait wait, wtf is this bullshit

You can't devide a real number by an imaginary number, or vice versa

Goddammit, I hate when people with no understanding of mathematics think they've done something fucking amazing when in reality they just prove how stupid they are

>>3491972
*one vertex
derp.

>>3491975

Imaginary number? Where? I didn't know that infinity, 0 or the root of positive one were considered imaginary.

>when I realized that I had divided by zero, I almost did a little dance.

Did your teachers told you that you can't divide by zero?

>>3491982
The square root of 1 is 1, one divided by infinity is a nonexistant number, not zero, therein lies the fallacy

/thread

>>3491986

That's the thing. They couldn't point out much in the way of serious flaws. One suggested that this had a connection to limits.

>>3491878
The cosine is where the fallcy lies, 1/infinity =/= 0

Division by zero, or infinity using the 'properties' we usually associate with infinity (1/inf = 0; inf*a=inf, a !=0, inf*0=1) are not consistent with field axioms.

>>3491996
THE SERIOUS FLAW IS THAT 1/INFINITY IS NOT ZERO HOW HARD IS THIS?

You can use limits. You can't divide by zero.

>>3491991

So having criticized my understanding of mathematics, you used the word "imaginary" to refer to numbers that weren't actually imaginary? I'm already losing interest in your statements. Tell me why a number divided by infinity isn't 0.

>>3492003
this, and the 1/infinity thing

well, your point is a "limit"
guess what? the limit of 1/x when x->0+ is [maths]\infty[/maths]
You haven't discovered anything.

>>3491991
Actually it's infinitesimal.

>>3492012

No, I knew that. I mean, when I first found it back in grade 11 I was pretty excited, but not now. Really, I just thought it was kind of neat.

>>3492010
>ad homenium
"Tell me why 1 divided by infinity isn't zero"

That's not how math works champ

>>3491878
10/10

>triangle
>two right angles

I lol'd

inb4 lolitrolu.jpg

>>3491878
>>3492019

>Discover previously known maths
>Claim genious

laughingwhores.jpg

>>3492016

That wasn't an ad hominem, as I wasn't using it to improve an argument. I was just amazed that you could act that arrogantly and not know what an imaginary number was.

I followed it through with a request for proof. My proof, as terrible as it is, exists. You have yet to explain why 1/ infinity isn't 0.

farewell /sci/ i guess you will never learn to sage threads like these

>>3492015
Wait... that means it works out to 1/infinitesimal = infinity.
Mind = blown.

Pretty sure everyone's gone through this already.

>>3492027
>explain why x isn't y

explain why 2 + 2 = 4

Your shitty proof lies on the incorrect premise that 1/infinity = 0

It's like I'm debating a christfag
>hurr durr can't prove the opposite of my claim

>>3492043

Well actually, my statement is falsifiable. If you weren't acting like a pompous retard, you'd notice.

I'm asking for you to proof that 1/infinity isn't 0. to prove this, you just have tp provide one example of 1/infinity equaling a number that isn't 0, or explain why the operation itself is fallacious. Instead you've been making appeals to authority over and over again.

>>3492021

Meh, I was mostly posting for the discussion. If I thought that I had discovered something amazing, would I really post it on an Anonymous imageboard for someone to take?

>>3492055
1/1 = 1
1/2 = .5
1/1+2+3... ect. = lim x->inf = 0

1/1000000000000000000000000000 = .00000000000000000000000000001

1/x=y

As you increase x, y decreases and asymptotes at zero

Seriously what part of this don't you understand?

>>3492084
lolwat

>>3492084

Are you implying that infinity is a quantifiable number?

Also, you'll make this a lot easier on yourself by not being so hostile. Honestly, it's no wonder hardly anyone talks about math on this board.

>>3492055
1/infinity is not a proper operation, because infinity isn't a number. 1/n tends toward zero for arbitrarily large values of n is the preferred method. But it's all just semantics for the most part.
It only really becomes important when dealing with indeterminate forms like 0/0 or infinity*0 or 1^infinity where the numerical value varies depending on the situation.

>>3492094

So can zero be properly called a number?

>>3492100
Yes

>>3492100
what did you just...

...

>>3492112

It just seemed odd to me. Some of what disqualifies infinity as a number can also be applied to 0. you can use it to imply that 1 = 2, just like infinity, and apparently you can't divide by either.

>>3492131
Zero is necessary since it's the additive identity, how is infinity necessary?

You should read about how numbers are obtained and why division by zero isnt allowed.

Then, why ininity (in real numbers at least) is just notation, not a quantity.

>>3492100
It's generally accepted that, yes, it can, even though it has that little blip of not functioning as a divisor.
Infinity is different because there are different degrees of infinity. Consider the set of natural numbers. There are infinitely many. Now consider the reals. There are infinitely many *between* every natural number. In a real sense there is an even bigger infinity of reals than naturals.

>>3492138

Is it really strictly necessary for arithmetic? I mean, for practical purposes, it's pretty useful to have zero as a value. But in theory, couldn't one just "not write" values that end up being zero?

>>3492112
Actually, this is quite creative thinking. It's a legitimate question. Why should we not regard zero as an "arbitrarily small quantity?" I'm impressed actually.

>>3492154
Read up on groups. Then read up on fields.

>>3492156
that's what I meant

>>3492162
I think that's juste not answering the question.
He could read on analysis if he wanted to know more about infinity. About riemann's sphere is a good thing to think on.

>>3492162

I shall.