/sci/ - Science & Math

OP is angry because he doesnt understand limits

Yes, yes. You actually have a conception of reality. In a utopia it would be a given so just pretend you're there (in my imagination it looks like Princeton)

>OP
>Aware of the many slight divergences from reality that mathematicians must make for the sake of practicality.
Pick one.

>There is no such thing as an infinitely small number.
Then what is 1 - 0.999,,, ?

>>4279809
>implying 0.999... is a limit and not a number
It has an infinity of 9, so what.
Pi has an infinity of crazy digits and they're not limits.
You say the series/function building 0.999.. has 1 as a limit. It's obviously true.
But don't come and say the number 0.999... = 1 conceptually just because it looks like a series
The number 0.999... exists, and it's conceptually distinct from 1

OP cannot into proofs
Hey OP, if 0.999... !=1 why does the sum to infinity of the series 9*(1/10^{n})=1?

>>4279825
Because it's circular thinking, they use 1/inf = 0 to calculate the sum of infinite series.

>>4279824
>treating the real numbers "conceptually"

Can the teacher say that I have had perfect attendance if I missed one class and the number of courses are infinite?

>>4279828
Wat

Besides, 1/inf IS 0

>>4279837
you would never be done with the class so the teacher can never make an absolute statement about your attendance

>>4279837
If you miss the first class, no. If you miss the last class, yes.

>>4279832
New version

>>4279837
Yes, without application of IST

>>4279839
Look my pic
They use it for the demonstration of calculation of infinite series
It's basically 1/inf = 0, so if you use the formula to prove 0.999... = 1, it's circular thinking. 0.999... != 1 for the same reason 1/inf != 0, because an infinitely small number exists. If such a number didn't exist, then it would be impossible to throw a coin on an infinite plane, because the probability would be 0 everywhere instead of infinitely small. Checkmate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_progression#Geometric_series

>>4279853
>>4279832
>retard proofs
>not "if two numbers are different, there is a number between them"

>>4279869
You can't prove something that isn't true.

>>4279858
You don't know what you're talking about.

>>4279870
you're dumb

>>4279875
OK, let's start with the idea that 0.999... and 1 are different numbers and use that to prove that they're different numbers. Yeah, great plan bro!

>>4279858
Here's a probability distribution for you.
P(x = 0,0) = 1
P(x != 0, 0) = 0

There, that sums to 1, doesn't it?

>>4279869
There is no integer between 2 and 3, yet they are not the same
There is no real between 0.999... and 1, yet they are not the same
It's because 0.999... isn't a real number, it's a weird number

>>4279875
*your

>>4279877
>DERP WHATS A CONTRAPOSITIVE

>>4279858
Approximations, you fool, approximations! Sometimes math just doesn't work if you don't deviate slightly from reality to achieve an ideal situation.

>>4279886
>derp what's begging the question

>>4279880
Although you're obviously trolling and probably know this:
there is no integer between 2 and 3, and they are not the same *integer*

Anyway, for real numbers, they are the same if and only if there is no RATIONAL between them.

>>4279879
It's not uniform

>>4279895
But you can prove that if there is no real number between two numbers, there's definitely no rational number. The two notions are equivalent.

>>4279892
>I can't understand what hes saying, so I guess I'll just argue against something random instead!

according to Jesus 0.999....=1, hold on a minute, hold that thought, if we rotate .999, 180 degrees it turns out to be 666 and if we take the = 1 and rotate it 90 we will get a smiley, thus showing that apple and bananas are not the same and that 0.999=1 is realy the devil at work

>>4279901
see
>>4279901

>>4279900
There is no uniform distribution over the real numbers or the real plane.

If
1/inf = 0
then
1 = 0
hence
0.999... != 1

>>4279904
Of course. The statement with rationals is merely closer to the definitions.

>>4279910
If 0 = 1, then 0 != 1.

>>4279910
>1/inf = 0
>then
>1 = 0

Explain

>>4279920
1/inf = 0
(1/inf)*inf = 0*inf
1 = 0

>>4279928
>(1/inf)*inf = 0*inf

>2012
>treating infinity like a rational number

Shit ain't gonna fly.

>>4279931
I have a cotton thread.
It is made of an infinity of points
I take them apart. Each piece has 1/inf length. Then I reassemble them.
I get the original thread back.
(1/inf)*inf = 1
Now
I have nothing. For each nothing, I assemble it into a cotton thread. I get nothing.
0*inf = 0

So (1/inf)*inf = 1 != 0 = 0*inf
checkmate

>>4279945
Have you ever taken calculus, or perhaps statistics? With a normal distribution, what is the probability of any one event? 0. What is the probability of all the events possible? 1. Infinity *does not work like other numbers* as is widely recognised in fields beyond arithmetic.

>>4279951
>Infinity *does not work like other numbers*
So 0 with an infinity of 9 does not work like 1?

>>4279806
>There is no such thing as an infinitely small number.
>0.999... != 1

wait, now I'm confused. I thought the non existence of infinitesimals was used to support the notion that .999... = 1

>>4279955
0 with an infinity of 9 does not work like 0 with a finite recursion of 9. 0.999... does work like 1, differentiating it from all other decimals beginning 0.

>>4279957
Yes, OP doesn't get that if infinitesimals don't exist it isn't even possible for 0.999... and 1 to have a number in between them

>>4279951
>troll for half the thread then say reasonable things
I'm confuz

>>4279957
>>4279816
>>4279962
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

>>4279963
>implying I have trolled at any point while using this trip

1/3 = 0,333..
1/3 + 1/3 +1/3 =0,999..
3/3 = 1
0,999.. = 1

>>4279951
I have taken all these courses
But this seems like appeal to authority fallacy
That the probability of any one event is 0 is precisely the nonsense I'm talking about.

>>4279971
1/3 != 0.333...

>>4279920
I think he multiplied the 0 by infinity and he thought it would cancel the infinity in thr 1/inf. Don't worry, he's just a retard who can't into Math.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999......

0/10

Nothing more needs to be said.

>>4279978
I can into math, but not into nonsense.
See my other post:
>>4279945
This makes sense.
I have an infinite thread. It is a concept.
Every 1 meter, it is cut. An infinite series of 1 meter bits of thread. It is a concept.
We put these bits together. I have the original thread.
What about this doesn't work?
It's 1/inf*inf = 1.
If I pick a bit of thread at random, each bit has 1/inf probability that I pick it, and it sums up to 1. It doesn't work if 1/inf = 0. So 1/inf = infinitesimal. That 1/x converges to 0 is another matter.

>>4279974
>all fields utilizing calculus or geometry are precisely the nonsense I'm talking about

>>4279976
Yes it does.

>>4280011
>I can into math

-maths*
-You can into arithmetic. You cannot into anything beyond that level.

>>4280013
Isn't calculus supposed to be intuitive?
If I divide a pizza into an infinity of parts, and if 1/inf=0, then my pizza disappears, and I can not get it back.

>>4280026
If you split it into an infinite number of parts, then you can't take any slices. You can split it into an infinite number of parts and then take half of it and have half of a pizza though. It's weird like that.

>mfw people actually posted in this thread

Let x be infinitesimal
Then 1 = 0.999... + x
1/3 = 0.333... + x/3

Here are 2 truths:
1) The concept of "real" numbers is flawed
2) Because infinity doesn't exist

>>4280037
>>4280026
For example