/sci/ - Science & Math

woah woah woah.
stand the fuck back.
this motherfucker is doing MATH

i dont even need to read your proof to know its wrong, since everyone knows that .9 repeating is 1.

You may as well have said 1 + 1 =/= 2

Easier way to prove this is with this:
If 0.999... does not equal 1, then what number is in between them?

just fuck off and die

1 = 0.999...
10 = 9.999...
9 = 8.999..
9.999 - 0.999 = 9 != 8.999...
therefore 9 != 8.999...
QED
checkmate, atheists

>>3572988
Ahh!

But yet.
1/3 = 0.333...
1/3 = 0.333...
+1/3 = 0.333...
-----------------------
3/3 = 0.999...
1 = 0.999...

>>3572988
Firstly:
>checkmate atheists
Edwardcurrent reference I get, but what's it doing here?

Secondly:
9.999... - 0.999... = 9 = 8.999...

>>3572979
>>3572967


what number is inbetween?

0.99999 = 1?

0.99999/1 = 1/1
1/1 = 1/0.9999
1/1 = 1.001001001001001repeat(*10)
10 = 10.01001001(*10)
100 = 100.1001(*10)
1000 = 1001.001

nope, fuck off and die.

1 + 1
= 0.999... + 0.999...
= 1.999...8
muahahahaha
it ends in an eight so it can't be = 1.999... = 2

>>3573019

> 1/1 = 1.001001001001001repeat(*10)
What the fuck kind of reasoning is that.

>>3573009
1/3 != 0.333 (repeating)
1/3 is the limit of 0.333... (repeating)
The funny thing is you can prove it because 3 * 0.333... = 0.999... != 1

You all have it backwards

>>3573009

I'm not arguing with your logic, but why do math theorists accept this? What if there's a problem with division or fractions that create this problem and not the value of 1? Put another way, what if the value of 1 is correct and it's the way we manipulate it that creates an anomaly?

What if we got it wrong and there's some undiscovered operation that outputs the correct value?

>>3573026

Uh.

0.999repeat/1 = 1 as you say

y/x = x/x
1/x = x/xy
1/1 = 1/0.999999

therefore

1/1 = 1.001 faggot

1/11 = 0.0909...
10/11 = 0.9090...
11/11 = 0.999...
1 = 0.999...

>>3573050
1/0.999... does not yield 0.001
It yields 1

6x6 square
move one unit from the height and apply it to the width
5x7 rectangle

6x6 = 36
5x7 = 35

Despite the same exact units being present, the area decreases. Y u no intuitive geometry?

>>3573041

So you're saying that instead of using a simplistic division operator, something else.. hmm

a conforming operator, something that calculates the remaining relative space?

for example, 1 = 0.999 relatively if you wanted 0.999999 to be 1, you'd have to be standing relatively closer to the 1 value. and vice versa

and that way we can get rid of zero as well. there would be no more "limits", there would just be relative answers taking in consideration the observers reference frame.

Correct,
*1.001

LET ME SETTLE THIS SHIT ONCE AN FOR ALL

THE REASON WHY WE HAVE ANOMALIES IN THIS IS BECAUSE OF THOSE FUCKING ARABS WHO DECIDED TO USE A NUMBERING SYSTEM FROM 1 - 9

IF THEY HAD USED A BINARY SYSTEM TO COUNT SHIT, LOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES LIKE THIS WOULD NEVER HAPPEN

THE WHOLE SHIT PROBLEM WITH THIS STARTS FROM THE NUMBER 3 ONWARD

DO YOUR MATH IN BINARY, IT WILL MAKE FUCK MORE SENSE

>>3573071
You're an idiot. Repeating decimals exist in every base. Try expressing 1/3 in binary.

The geometric sum of 9/10^n converges to 1 and its representaiton is 0.9+0.09+...

>>3573071
I literally agree with you. But you can't represent repeating numbers in binary. Not that I know of anyway.

>>3573082

OMFG

DO IT YOU FAGGOT

YOU CANT EXPRESS IT THAT WAY

DO YOU EVEN KNOW BINARY

>>3573041
The problem is that mathematicians think that the asymptote is the value of the function when x = infinity (so for the limit)
Which is wrong, because the function never reaches its asymptote, even after an infinite of time.
But when they calculate the limits, they assume it does because it's practical in calculations.
So they say 1/3 = 0.333..., but 0. with an infinity of 3 never actually reaches 1/3, in the same way than 1/x never reaches 0 when x -> inf. But they assume it does. So there is the mistake that allows for 1/3 = 0.333... and then 1 = 0.999...
But 1/3 can't be represented with decimal numbers, even an infinity, that's why we say 1/3.
Dogmatically, the maths rules say that 1 = 0.999.. because it's practical but it's arbitrary and wrong.

>>3573089
1 = 1
10 = 2
11 = 3
100 = 4
101 = 5
110 = 6
111 = 7
1000 = 8
etc

>>3573082
1/3 is a float. binary can only truly represent positive integers. In computers, special bits are used to mark the sign and exponent of it. Which creates a floating point number.

learn to series faggot

>>3573097

They are not wrong, you just havent progressed beyond zenos paradox. 0.9999... is 1 as stated in >>3573091

>>3573090

EXACTLY

YOU CANT

THATS WHY ITS PERFECT

NOT SOME BULLSHIT ARABIC SYSTEM

YOU CAN ONLY COMPUTE THINGS IN BINARY THAT ARE ACTUALLY COMPUTABLE

NOT SOME HYPERCOMPUTABLE PSEUDOINTELLECTUAL MUMBO JUMBO

YOURE SO FAR DEEP IN THE SHIT YOU DONT EVEN REALISE YOURE WADING THROUGH IT, THATS WHAT WE'RE LIKE TRYING TO SOLVE INCONSISTENCIES LIKE THIS

>>3573117

Its also why pi is a fucked up number isnt it?

We should all just spend some time developing a system where pi is a bloody whole number. (is that even possible)

>>3573117
I guess you could just have this
0.11101110... This is the binary equivalent of 0.99...

>>3573115
The sum converges but it is never equal.
Now you're going to tell me that after an infinity of repetitions it becomes equal?
That's what the math rule says but it's wrong.

And the Zeno's paradox wouldn't be called paradox if it wasn't one.
When you decide that it reaches what it converges to, then you go through the paradox and get a wrong result, 1 = 0.999...

>>3573133
>is that even possible

Sure. However the result will not be as elegant as you are hoping for.

>>3573135

YOU CANNOT HYPERCOMPUTE IN BINARY

THIS IS FINAL

>>3573133

Pi is the circumference of a circle with a diameter of 1. That ratio is there no matter what base system you use.

My thoughts.

> Pi
I believe this represents that nothing can be perfect. No matter how many digits of pi you have, it still won't be a perfect circle. But it also ties in, maybe we look for perfection so we perceive another digit of pi to near perfection. But in all reality, perfection is impossible.

And this all ties into relativity.

> Relativity
You may thing something is perfect until you see something better.

>>3573152
Diameter of 2

>>3573136

You lack understanding in limits. ''Being in point A'' and ''being as close as I want to point A'' are equivalent states. Just because it is not intuitive it doesnt mean its wrong.

>>3573155
Just went full retard
A circle of diameter 2 has area of pi, not circumference

>>3573155
Bravo! I didn't even catch that.

>>3573152

OH MY FUCK GOD

OH MY FUCK GOD

YOU ARE SO FUCKING STUPID

THINK THINGS THROUGH YOU DUMB FUCK

THE LENGTH OF 1 IS AN ARBITRARY MEASUREMENT BY SOME FUCKING SANDNIGGERING ARABS WHO DECIDED WITHOUT THINKING IT THROUGH THAT: HMM OKAY THIS LOOKS LONG ENOUGH, LETS CALL THIS 1 METRE

PI IS ONLY SO FUCKED UP NOT BECAUSE OF THE NUMBERS 1 - 9, BUT BECAUSE OF THE PHYSICAL LENGTH THAT 1 METRE REPRESENTS

YOU NEED A WHOLE NEW METRIC SYSTEM TO MAKE PI A WHOLE NUMBER

>>3573139

IT WILL BE AN ELEGANT SYSTEM

BUT IF WE CANT EVEN CONVINCE THE FUCKING AMERICANS THAT THEIR INCHES AND YARDS ARE FUCKED UP, HOW ARE WE GOING TO CONVINCE THE REST OF THE WORLD THAT A METRE IS FUCKED UP

FUCKING INFERIOR MINDS

>>3573155
>>3573155

Circumference = 2*pi*Radius = pi*Diameter

>>3573166
It's not intuitive because it's wrong.

>>3573171

I concede.

You might be an actual genius.

>or just some autistic retard

>>3573171
You mad bro?

>>3573155

c = pi * d
c= pi * 2

What's your point? It's still there.

>>3573171

hmmmmmmmmmm

>>3573171

LOL WHAT THE FUCK IS THE INTERNET

>>3573089
1/3 in base 10: 0.333…
in base 8: 0.111…
in base 2: 0.010101…
in base 16: 0.555…

>>3573171

>arab
>meter
>pi

>>3573171

the metric system is actually french but i see your point and raise you another:

pi has over 270 trillion digits,

you will never find a length on earth to which you can compare that as a stanadard to

oldest troll on /sci/

For the paradox of Zeno, an arrow will reach its target because there is a minimum amount of distance which a particle can travel (they will discover it in 500 years but I share with you some of my genius), so when you divide the next distance by 2 it's below the minimum and it doesn't work with reality so the arrow reaches its target. But mathematics are abstract and I can keep dividing by 2 and it will never reach its target, and 0.999.. never reaches 1. Sorry guise. It's not my fault if whoever makes the rules went full retard.

>>3573171
meter is more convenient for engineering purposes and why would you need a system that sets as the fundamental unit the circumference of a circle?

meter is also a very reliable thing since it's based off how much space a photon travels in 1/299 792 458 seconds and since photons travel in a straight fashion when not disrupted by gravity it's the most obvious choice

don't you think?

>>3573166
>>3573166
>>3573166

>mfw you consider functions at infinity
>mfw you consider holes
>mfw you consider discontinuities
>mfw this is all calc 101

>>3573196
>1/3 in base 10: 0.333…
Wrong.
The rest is also wrong.

>>3573225
meh
1/3

SSBXHLCLKUYRZHYHPCSHJTBTWVFQEXI
Decipher this bitches.

I will even give you the key.
UEHFNJSJKHADFEUFHNLDSAULEUFNDJKAS

>>3573171

It doesn't matter what unit the diameter is, or what base you use. It's a constant of the nature of circles. You can play with shit to make the number whole but the ratio will remain the same.

Plus...you know...1 is still 1 in binary. So fuck you.

>>3573213

>1/299 792 458 seconds

>seconds

I JUST FUCKING TOLD YOU THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR THAT YOU ARE MAKING

ITS ALL ARBITRARY

HOW MUCH TIME SHOULD SEEM TO PASS FOR ONE SECOND TO BE COUNTED?????? WHO DETERMINED THIS

WHY COUNT TO 60 FOR AN HOUR

WHY COUNT TO 24 FOR A DAY

WHY COUNT PAST 9

WHY SHOULD 1 SECOND BE COUNTED AS 1 SECOND AND NOT 5

THIS SHIT COMPOUNDS ITSELF

WHY SHOULD 1 MOL BE 6.03x10 POWER 23

BECAUSE SHIT COMPOUNDS ITSELF WHEN WE BASE OUR SHIT OFF SOME ORIGINAL SHIT THAT WAS ULTIMATELY BASED OFF SOME ARBITRARY SHIT IN THE SAND

>>3573071
>>3573089
>>3573117
>>3573145


>what an idiot, in a binary system you also have the same problem, 0.111... = 1

>>3573171
>what a fag­got, are you trolling or just that stupid?
>pi has nothing to do with metric systems, it's value is independent of it.
>learn2scaling fag­got

>>3573241

Boy have I got a site for you.

http://www.timecube.com

>>3573242

> 0.111... = 1

THATS A REAL SERIOUS MENTAL DEFICIENCY YOU HAVE THERE PAL

>>3573253
>oh boy this fag­got doesn't understand binary numeral system
>you must be an amerifag

ROUNDING ERRORS.

YOU GUYS ARE THE REASON NASA WAS CLOSED.

>>3573250

>>3573241
well a second is defined off frequencies of radiation of atoms

we decided that x repetitions of a signal emitted by an atomic nucleus occur within a second of time (or some shit like that)

for the use that we have to make of the actual numbers in physics it's more precise than you actually need since most of the time you just round numbers

>>3573258

NO IT WAS THE BLACK MAN IN CHARGE

FUCKING ARABS ALWAYS SCREWING US OVER SINCE THE DAWN OF MATH

I really wonder if social disorders are part and parcel of overcoming that intelligence barrier to attain genius.

Is social disorder the reason for being a genius or does being a genius cause one to be socially dysfunctional?

>>3573272

>or does being a genius cause one to be socially dysfunctional?

I guess this. Im no genius myslef, but I get really frustrated trying to explain simple concepts to stupid people. I guess in a relative sense, we are all stupid people to at least somebody above us. (Unless you're at the very top)

>>3573272
I also wonder if this building design was on purpose

⅓=0.333...
3*⅓=1=3*0.333...=0.999...
1=0.999...

>>3573282

God is a troll.

Floods are him just having a laugh.

>>3573241
actually...
IT'S ALL IN THE STARS

Better question what extrasolar and intersolar spaces have to do with it.

>>3573293
Thanks for stating what we have already went over.

>>3573294
How can something non-existent be a troll?

Has the raging basement dweller left?

Can we resume our discussion?

1/3 = 0.33333....
3 x 1/3 =! 0.99999...
3 x 1/3 = 1

simple as that, suck it

>>3573294

x -> inf, 1/x =/= 0
1/3 =/= 0.333...
1 =/= 0.999...

End of the story, everyone goes home.

1 = 9/10 + 1/10
So
1/3 = 0.3 + (1/3) * 0.1

You can turn the 0.3 part of 1/3 into decimal, then by developing the second (1/3) you get 0.3 + 0.03 + (1/3) * 0.01, ect...
You get a lot of 3 but you always have a remaining (1/3) * small_number
So when you say 1/3 = 0.333repeating, you're discarding the (1/3) * infinitesimal
And that infinitesimal that you lose is what is between 1 and 0.999... or between 1/x and its asymptote
Stay mad everybody, enjoy your flawed maths

>>3573171

pi existed also in Japanese mathematics and it was a irrational number as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seki_Takakazu#Calculation_of_Pi

> .9 repeating=1
> .1 repeating (9)=.9999...repeating

You also forgot that 1/9 = 0.11111 repeating

so if 9 * 0.11111 repeating = 0.9999999
and 1 / 9 = 0.11111 repeating

then 1 = 0.9999999 repeating

Dumb fucker OP. Go choke on some dicks.

>>3572953
Anyone who posted seriously in this thread should get off the internet and stay off.

>>3573253

Wow, either you're a successful troll or your mom sniffed too much glue when she was pregnant with you. I mean damn, I see a shitload of retardation on this board, but the sheer confidence with which you present your fallacies is just staggering. Don't even bother replying, I'm working towards a PhD in arithmetic geometry, so you can bet your ass I know my maths better than you. Have fun being an uneducated failure.

>>3573543
>Doesn't realise that this was a joke thread
full retard

Ho god, /sci/ has never been this bad.

I think I'll leave this board and never come back.