/sci/ - Science & Math

>Making up rules
No
/Thread

>argument 1
Argument by authority. A fallacy.
>argument 2
Drawing a picture and saying that numbers can have more than one representation. Not a proof.
>argumant 3
Writing down 0.999... does not prove anything.
>argument 4
Lacking the rigor. She did not prove that the performed operations are well-defined.
>argument 5
Is not an argument for 0.999... = 1, but only an appeal to intuition for why multiplication by 10 should be allowed in argument 3.
>argument 6
Another appeal to intuition, not a proof.
>argument 7
Begging the question. She assumed without proof that there is no number between 0.999.. and 1.
>argument 8
Without rigorous definition of what a decimal representation is or how to receive it from a fraction.
>argument 9
She fails to define or to explain convergence of sequence and does not mention that her definition numbers being equal relies on such convergence.
>argument 10
"Because it works" is not a mathematical proof.

The overuse of silly drawings makes the video even more non-rigorous and non-mathematical.
Whatever is going on there, it's not mathematics.

>>4502812
What? That's exactly what mathematics is about.

>>4502812
Well, where do you think those axioms come from? God?

>>4502812
didn't look at youtube, but the pic is pretty much true. rules need to be internally consistent of course, if you can even show that.

>>Making up rules
>No
ITT faggots who's most advance math they have taken is calculus.
Graph theory, Group theory, Ring theory, Field Theory, Galois Theory, Lie algebra, hell any nth order logic structure all follow this pattern.

One of the construction of the Reals Numbers (yes there are others than the hideous Dedekind cuts or Cauchy sequences construction) is to define the reals as an infinite decimal expansion of any combination of numbers and impose the equivalent relation that any number ending in 999... is the same as +1 to the digit before and 000... after.

It's just a rule.

Heh. I watched this a few hours ago.

>>4503393
i've a maths degree, mostly pure, and yes, we make up rules. they're called axioms, and if they're interesting, we pursue them.

>not comprehending math is conceptual

>>4502800
she is a moron.

I lol'd.

>>4503536
She's significantly better at math than you

>>4503549
How do you know anon's math skills?

>>4503556
I see that you are samefagging.
Such is to be expected of tripfags I suppose

>>4503556
Because he thinks 1 != 0.999...

>>4503563
Posting several posts using the same tripcode can barely be referred to as "samefaggin".

>>4503567
He only called her a moron. He didn't say 0.999... != 1. That would make him a good mathematician btw.

>>4503568
I misread your post

>>4503571
So you're saying 0.999... != 1?

>>4503579
We had this discussion more than once ...

>>4503584
Some mathgenius you are

>>4503588
Well yes, that should be obvious from reading my name.

>>4503571
If he called her a moron then it automatically follows that he thinks 0.999... != 1. The proof of this is trivial and if you can't see it then you're not a mathgenius.

>>4503642
Incorrect application of logic. It does not follow.

>>4503642
The proof of 0.999... != 1 is trivial, inded. What's all the fuss about?

>>4503650
It does follow but I'm not going to write out the (trivial) proof for you.

>>4503655
yes, the proof is so trivial that is seems no one even bothers even posting it.

>>4503670
It does not follow. She can be right, but still be called a moron for presenting the stuff in an inappropriate or incorrect manner. A poster's value judgement is unrelated to his knowledge of mathematics.

>>4503680
It has been posted several times. Look in the archive and stop trolling.

>>4503683
no, there has never been a proof of 0.999... !=0 posted on 4chan.

>>4503681
>trying to bait me into writing out a trivial proof
Not gonna work.

>>4503690
There have been quite a few. Trolls like you tend to dismiss them as "trolling", because you fail to understand them.

>>4503694
I dare you to prove it. Prove to me that the value statement "She's a moron" automatically implies that the poster does believe 0.999.. does not equal 1. This conclusion is not logical.

>>4503697
quite a few, yet you cant seem to post one of them. sure.

>>4503690

what does 0.999... even mean?

the dots are ambiguous.

>>4503704
You fail to look them up in the archive. Not my problem. I'm not here to educate you in basic mathematics.

>>4503706
I see what you did there and I do not approve of it.

I was expecting this to be about axioms. I am disapointed

>>4503711
>>4503711
thanks for proving my point (that the proof doesn't exist)

>>4503731
More than one proof exists. Your attitude makes me enjoy even more that you will stay forever uneducated.

>>4503731
You will not give me the proof, therefore, the proof does not exist.

gtfo

>>4503742
You will never get laid. Therefore getting laid is generally impossible.

See, I can make up obvious logical fallacies as well.

>>4503742
there are proofs, but they involve redefining decimals in different number systems like the hyperreals

>>4503703
Still not falling for it.

uhhh this bitch annoys the shit outta me,
is she like really autistic?
if not there's no way she's not faking that fucking retarded gay lisp, like what the fuck
l can't sit through her videos

>>4504042
Her voice is like marmalade

>>4504042
>implying she has a lisp

If you think that's a lisp, you've never heard a real lisp.

>a women

lolz @ da video

How does she look like?

>>4504108
You don't want to know. Leave this thread now so you still can enjoy her videos before someone posts her face.

>>4504112
She's not that bad. Buckteeth and hipster clothing but she looks ok.

>>4504042

Fuck yeah, I'm not alone. That bitch's voice is awful.

>>4504123
She looks like a fucking muslim-person.

>>4504133
wat
She's pale as fuck

>>4504112
Your right. I regret looking up her pics. Goddamn disgusting hipster bitch.

I just looked up some of her other stuff.

She's pretty flippin' cool.

I don't get it, why is she a troll? The only thing I can tell is that it sounds like she's making up stuff on the spot.

Seriously, this is the worst possible method of presenting the subject.
Although I previously was the guy who proved 0.999.. equals 1 to others, I now feel like I want to believe in the opposite because the video fucking pissed me off.
How can someone defile mathematics so badly?
She literally took a shit on math in general.

Yes, I mad.

Someone post her pic? Not coming up on google

>>4504236
How? How did she rape math?

>>4504268
Pure mathematicians think that not doing everything perfectly rigorously is raping math. She didn't do anything rigorously so according to them she's "raping math". End of story.

>>4504268
See >>4503291
He pretty much summarized it.

What she does in this video is violating the essential method of math, i.e. rigorously proving your statements. She is all like "hurr durr I draw some pictures and people beleive my shit". That's not math, that's just silly crap.

Aspie rage mode engaged.

Her shit is at best a bad propaganda video. Calling it math is a crime. She deserves to be beaten up my angry mathematicians.

>>4504253
Google "Vi Hart".

>>4504297
Don't do it, unless you want to throw up.

>ITT: Misogynist virgin faggots who can't stand getting told by a woman who knows more math than them

>>4504306
The only thing she proves in the video is that she has no idea what a proof is. She's a complete failure and shouldn't be allowed to talk about math.

>>4504274
I've never understood what proving something "rigorously" is, and why proof reliant on intuition is so bad. If it makes sense, then why is it bad? Any one care to explain what it is to prove some through rigor and why intuition proof even when it makes sense is bad?

Damn, it makes me so fucking agnry, I have to post again.

Goddamnit, math is not some stupid hipster bullshit with colorful pictures, it's fucking rigorous proving of theorems. If I was her professor, I'd make her instantly fail all her courses just for this disgusting video.

--------------------------
1/3 x 3 = 1
--------------------------
1/3 = 0.333...

0.333.. x 3 = 0.9999999
--------------------------
0.333... x 3 = 1/3 x 3

0.99999... = 1
--------------------------

>>4504325
Thankfully you're not a professor :)

>>4504306
>Misogynist virgin faggots
Not limited to this thread.

>>4504322
Take a look at the poincare conjecture. Intuitionally it seems to be obvious, but the intuition could fail you. That's why it was a millennium problem. And it took perelman some years to come up with a proof.

>that feel when no gf

>>4504297
She's a 7-8, based off of the pictures shown, which is actually pretty exceptional considering she actually likes math. Quit your bitching.

She probably doesn't even study math. She sounds like some stupid hipster bitch who read a pop sci book and thnks she knows shit. Any serious math student would never create such an insult to his subject.

>>4504343
man it's been quite a long time you didn't go out of your math building...

>>4504343
The fuck are you talking about?
She's a 1/10 at best. I'd seriously rather fuck an animal than that whore.

>>4504355
Sure. Have fun being alone for the rest of your life. Trust me, you're never gonna find that hypothetical 10/10 supermodel in real life (they're all airbrushed photos anyways), never mind actually get into a relationship with her...

>>4504367
The fuck are you talking about? As if you know what a 10/10 is.

>>4504367
Please realize that there is nothing to be gained by continuing.

>>4504377
>implying the lulz are not worth it

>>4504355
I'm here guaranteeing I've been with more women than you. As objectively as possible, based on her looks, she's slightly above average. Of course, that can easily deviate if you hate her personality (which I'm assuming you do).

>>4504387
Don't you have any standards, Mr "my views are objective"?

>>4504394
Oh, I have standards. I wouldn't go for her unless she had an amazing personality. That doesn't change how I objectively rate dem bitches.

pic related how i feel about vi

I don't know what you people are on about, she's pretty cute. For a girl, that is.

The amount of butthurt and faggotry in this thread is astonishing. No wonder why you don't have a girlfriend... or a friend at all.
>mfw people get mad when a woman knows more about math than them
>mfw no one hasn't contradicted any of her points yet

someone post a picture dammit.

>>4504396
Please list the criteria that allow you to objectively rate bitches.

>>4504409
Read the second reply. Pretty much all of her bullshit debunked.

>>4504412
by popular vote

>>4504409
May I redirect you to
>>4503291

The thread ended there anyways, which is why I don't mind derailing it talking about her looks.

>>4504415
That's retarded. You like what all others like? So you don't have any opinion on your own.

>>4504411
Here's Évariste Galois.

>>4504420
here's carl friedrich gaus

>>4504419
>An opinion is only valid if no one shares it.
hipster detected

>>4504419
That wasn't me. Also I said objective for a reason. It's based off of whether or not the majority of men would have sex with her, given the chance.

>>4504425
YOU don't even have an opinion. You're a mindless slave to everything others tell you.

>>4504420
They did not have pictures like that in 1832

>>4504427
Why the fuck do you want to have sex with whores that had as many men as possible?

>>4504424
here's leonhard euler

>>4504428
You mean a mindless slave to the Truth

>>4504433
they are probably good at it by now

>>4504436
>proof by induction
>contains no induction

That picture is so wrong.

>>4504433
Holy shit ahahaha I don't. You're reading way too far into an objective rating of a girl's looks.

>>4504437
Well yes, the truth is the only thing we can believe in.

>>4503291
1 was a joke
2 was a valid argument, just not a proof. She said that.
3 was also not a proof, it was a different argument with a different fallacy
4 what exactly do you want her to do? It's perfectly rigorous.
5 is an explanation of the nature of infinity, much like 3 was
6 Again, a valid argument
7 She also assumed without proof that any number is that number. Pray tell, what axioms are you willing to accept and which do you object?
furthermore proof by contradiction is effectively the most rigorous method that exists. she did not beg the question, she proved by contradiction.
8 Feel free to calculate the decimal value of 1/3 yourself. It's an axiom, deal with it.
9 It is not her job to explain to you how to do mathematics. If you are arguing at this stage and cannot understand the sum yourself, then you should gtfo /sci/
10 Again, nor did it claim to be. Please read the title of the video.

I'm going to dream about a threesome with Gauss and Galois tonight, aren't i?

This is Sir Isaac Newton

>>4504439
They are probably full of diseases by now and will soon like the foul and disgusting persons they are, not being able to cover up their crippled personality by make-up anymore.

>>4504442
Give a list of criteria that can be handled objectively.

>>4504435
Here's Paul Erdős.

He gives his number to pretty much anybody.

>>4504452
LOL

>>4504445
he's a weird aspie. don't talk to him.

i told you once before

>>4504420
>implying Galois isn't far hotter than that bitch

>>4504452
>He

Erdos is a trap? zomg

>>4504452
here's henri poincare

deal. with. it. aspie virgins

>>4504466
here's emmy noether

>>4504459
Actually, I was implying they looked kind of similar.

>>4504424
wait

hedy lamarr actually did real science

>>4504445
>4 what exactly do you want her to do? It's perfectly rigorous.
No, it's not. Without proof she said all performed operations were allowed. That's an assumption and its correctness remains to be shown.
>6 Again, a valid argument
Is not a proof. She says that 0.000...0001 is equal to 0. That has to be proven. Appealing to intuition ("you'll never get there") is not a rigorous proof.
>7
It is begging the question. She says they cannot be different because there's no number between them. Then she has to show that in fact there IS no number inbetween. Otherwise she does nothing other than rephrasing the initial question.
>8 It's an axiom, deal with it.
It's not an axiom. The fact that every real number can be represented in decimals is a theorem that has been proven. It requires specificaton of an algorithm that tells you how to receive the decimal representation.
>9 It is not her job to explain
The intention of her video is to explain something. Without stating based on what criteria she considers numbers to be equal her scribbling under point 9 is meaningless.
>10 Please read the title of the video.
She wants to tell me mathematical reasons. The only "reasons'" for a statement to hold true in mathematics are proofs. If she fails to provide them, here video is worthless and incorrect.

>>4504451
I said as objectively as possible. I'll give a few, but mainly it's just experience and experimentation, seeing which girls were wanted more than others.

-Weight (not overly skinny or fat)
-Skin tone (not overly pale or tanned)
-Race (generally caucasian is rated as best, obv not always, followed by hispanics, asians and black)
-hair (no off-putting styles or shit)
-Facial proportions (see http://www.thestar.com/news/article/740685--what-makes-the-perfect-female-face )

Anyways, I'd love to prove that I'm right some more, but I've gotta go.

If science isnt just made up by humans then where did the rules come from?

Check mate.

>>4504480
I bet you're a fun guest at dinner parties.

>>4504480
>That's an assumption and its correctness remains to be shown.
What part do you have a problem with? Every line she wrote was mathematically consistent, as far as I can see.
>Is not a proof.
read the title
>7
right, I see. It's an inherent property of the number and fully self evident, however: 0.9 recurring is for all intensive purposes defined as the decimal representation of the largest number with no non-zero natural part.
>The fact that every real number can be represented in decimals is a theorem that has been proven.
...then what exactly is your problem? again, do you want proof that 1 has a consistent value of 1?
>The only "reasons'" for a statement to hold true in mathematics are proofs
Wrong. If the audience already know the answer implicitly, but not explicitly, then an explanation of the intuitive proof is valid and useful.

>>4504483

>>4504480
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children#Wittgenstein.27s_ladder

>>4504508
>Every line she wrote was mathematically consistent
That's what she has to show. One can write a lot of wrong math that seems consistent, but comes out to be garbage. She has to explain for every step why she is allowed to do it.
>read the title
I did.
>It's an inherent property of the number and fully self evident
No, it's not self-evident. Nothing is self-evident in mathematics. Either you rigorously prove it or no one is gonna take you serious.
>...then what exactly is your problem?
We have a fraction and we want a decimal representation. That requires to specify how we convert one into the other.
>If the audience already know the answer implicitly
Wrong assumption. The audience cannot be expected to know or to accept the statement beforehand.
>an explanation of the intuitive proof is valid
No. Intuition does not constitue a proof. Only a fool would be deceived that easily.

>>4504523
Doesn't change the fact, that math requires rigor. Her video lacks rigor and horribly mixes up intuition and pseudo-proofs. It is garbage from a mathematical point of view.

>>4504541
>Doesn't change the fact, that math requires rigor. Her video lacks rigor and horribly mixes up intuition and pseudo-proofs. It is garbage from a mathematical point of view.

Yes, but, as Wittgenstein believes, garbage is useful to get us to non-garbage.

>>4504545
Then she has to rename her video from "reasons" to "intuitive arguments".

>>4504541
>That's what she has to show
She did, actually. It's your job to disprove what she wrote if you think it's wrong.
>I did.
Jolly god
>No, it's not self-evident
Fine; if that's your opinion drop the self evident and maintain the inherent. 0.9 recurring is inherently the largest number beginning 0.
>We have a fraction and we want a decimal representation. That requires to specify how we convert one into the other.
Divide one by three. Seriously?
>Wrong assumption. The audience cannot be expected to know or to accept the statement beforehand.
Well then, it's a good job there are 9 other arguments isn't it. Some of them do, some of them don't. Obviously a youtube video is not a formal proof, nor should you expect it to be.
>No. Intuition does not constitue a proof
lol

>>4504551
>has to

Well, she doesn't have to do anything.

But anyway, it still serves as a ladder, even if she's wrong in what she calls it, and wrong in its content.

That's the whole point of Wittgenstein's ladder.

>>4502800
The notation
a.bcdefg...
is by convention defined to be the limit. It's question of definitions of language. Accept the usual convention, or fuck off.

>>4504566
>She did, actually. It's your job to disprove what she wrote if you think it's wrong.
She did not. And shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy. You can try this in religion troll threads, but not in mathematics. If someone comes up with a claim n mathematics, it's his responsibility to prove it.
>0.9 recurring is inherently the largest number beginning 0
This is a statement. It remains to be proven.
>Divide one by three. Seriously?
Yes, seriously.
>it's a good job there are 9 other arguments isn't it
It's not a good job. Not at all, because most of them are not mathematical arguments.
>Obviously a youtube video is not a formal proof, nor should you expect it to be.
As I said above, the title of the video implies that it presents a formal proof. She fails to do so. Thus she has named her video incorrectly.

>>4504567
It serving as a latter is irrelevant. My point is that whatever she is doing there, it's not mathematics.

>>4504577
The notation a.bcdefg... doesn't make sense without specifying what the letters mean.

Hey guys,
how about we send her a screenshot of the thread?
I want to see her reaction.

>>4504582
Irrelevant to you. As a mathematical educationalist, her work is very relevant to me.

I assume you would consider almost all high school teaching of mathematics to fall short of the level of rigor you consider "mathematics".

>>4504587
I don't know what this means.
A decimal expansion with the bar over the last n digits, or with a single repeating digit after the decimal with an ellipsis ("..."), is defined ala the usual limit definition.

Could you explain further, or are you just trolling?

>>4504582
>She did not.
hurr durr back and forth
Watch the video again. She wrote out every step, if you cannot follow then the problem is not with her.
>This is a statement. It remains to be proven.
Prove that 1+1=2 and I will prove to you that infinitesimals are infinitesimal.
>Yes, seriously.
I am disappoint.
>the title of the video implies that it presents a formal proof
>a jokey video title not mentioning formal proofs says it's a formal proof

Implications are made by you, not her. You're clearly being contrary for the sake of it.

>>4504582
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

>>4504594
Highschool "mathematics" is not mathematics, it's calculating with numbers and application of rules that the teacher gives out without proof.

>>4504595
It is not defined via limits. It is only defined as a syntactical construct, i.e. using the ellipsis to abbreviate repetition.

>>4504602
>She wrote out every step
Writing the steps is not enough. She has to justify them. I can write up some steps too, but without explaining and justifying them I cannot expect anyone to understand, let alone accept them.
>Prove that 1+1=2 and I will prove to you that infinitesimals are infinitesimal.
Sounds like a troll to me. Or you seriously don't know that 1+1=2 IS in fact a statement that had to be proven by deriving it from axioms.
>I am disappoint.
Your opinion does not matter to mathematical rigor.
>a jokey video title
Jokes have no place in mathematics. The title says "reasons". In mathematics this means formal proof. If she meant intuitive reasons, she has to say so.


>>4504610
Feynman talking about magnets is unrelated to a discussion about mathematical rigor.

>>4504621
>Feynman talking about magnets
You obviously haven't viewed the video. Also, it's partially related to your discussion you're having

>>4504621
k, fuck off.

>>4504621
>Highschool "mathematics" is not mathematics, it's calculating with numbers and application of rules that the teacher gives out without proof.

what should we rename it?

>>4504621
>Sounds like a troll to me. Or you seriously don't know that 1+1=2 IS in fact a statement that had to be proven by deriving it from axioms.
I don't see you proving it, a bit too tough for your little head of yours?

>>4504628
I have watched the video some years ago and as far as I remember it contains nothing related to our discussion. Explain your reasoning.

>>4504633
Maybe "mindless symbolic manipulation'?

>>4504636
It's not my job to prove it. It has already been done by others. By insulting me in >>4504631 the poster I was referencing has already confirmed that he didn't intend to have an actual debate. I am not here to accept any "challenges", my intention ITT is to point out the incorrectess of the video.

>>4504621
>It is not defined via limits. It is only defined as a syntactical construct, i.e. using the ellipsis to abbreviate repetition.

I googled for real analysis textbook decimal expansion. First two hits of textbooks are as follows:

http://www.math.brown.edu/~res/DUS/Summary/M101Summary.pdf
>The two expressions .99999... and 1 both describe the same number.

http://users.aims.ac.za/~joseph/Real%20Analysis/RA_Chap0.pdf
>Of course some real numbers have two distinct decimal expansions, a terminating one and a non-terminating one. For example, 1:0000 = 0:9999... .

>>4504643
>didn't intend to have an actual debate
>has already replied to every point you have made, which is more than you have done
>has discussed over several posts with you, trying repeatedly to explain the fallacies you are making
>yesterday defended you for upwards of an hour for making an arbitrary point because you had no argument
Fuck you so hard. Yes I mad.

I've got 99.999 problems and a BITCH AINT ONE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwoM5fLITfk&feature=player_embedded

>>4504643
>Maybe "mindless symbolic manipulation'?

Yet almost all great mathematicians went through "mindless symbolic manipulation" and gained enormously from it.

The pre-rigor phase of "mathematics" has been historically/empirically shown to be invaluable.

You probably don't even believe there's a post-rigor phase. (and no it doesn't mean getting rid of rigor).

Also, why must everything be renamed to fit your favorite definition?

>>4504643
Maybe "mindless symbolic manipulation'?

so I guess newton did this too. you're as bad as george berkeley

>By insulting me in >>4504631 the poster I was referencing has already confirmed that he didn't intend to have an actual debate.
No it doesn't, it just means that the poster lost their cool.

>I have watched the video some years ago and as far as I remember it contains nothing related to our discussion. Explain your reasoning.
One of your main reasons why this video is trash-worthy to you is because she doesn't explain it on kindergarten level, if you actually watched the video, you'd know that feynman explains that when answering a question, one has to work within certain framework, or you'll end up answering how universe works.

>>4504643
Define "Maybe", your post makes no sense

>>4503291

>Argument by authority. A fallacy.

Argument by authority isn't a fallacy bro. Learn debate.

>>4504643
>Maybe "mindless symbolic manipulation'?
Hopefully you feel better about yourself now?

>>4504651
i've told you so many times not to talk to him. he's actually mad.

I didn't even the face of the girl that did that video, and I am in love with her.

Seriously, mind-boner.

>>4504647
How does that relate to my sentence you are quoting?
I am aware that numbers can have different representations and that 0.999... does equal 1. If those statements are presented in analysis text books, then they are proven there or left as an exercise to the reader.

>>4504651
I have strong arguments and I know I am right. If you (for whatever reason) don't understand my arguments, then it's your fault. I refuted and corrected all your fallacies. Being mad is your right, but posting your madness here is inappropriate.

>>4504661
>>4504666
Mathematics is about proofs. Applying the simplest mathematical operations without being aware of why they are correct is something that can be done by computers as well. Making a distinction in naming has always been one of the most importnant aspects of language as it is necessary in order to keep up informative conversations. Without definitions and without naming things we cannot talk about anything.

People that can't into the contuinity wich is the Real numbers after all this explanations(meaning that 0.99... = 1) will never can into math, please abandond all hope and abandond this field. Also abandon this thread.

>>4504674
my doctor used argument from authority to suggest he remove my cancer. i didn't believe him so went to medical school to get a proper argument.

>>4504683
Have fun with her face anon.

>>4504671
>she doesn't explain it on kindergarten level
My problem is exactly that she explains it on kindergarten level, i.e. by intuition instead of mathematical rigor.

>>4504673
The use of "maybe" was within an expression of personal views, not within a mathematical statement. Therefore it requires no definition, as I can expect the reader to have "maybe" in his natural language vocabulary.

>>4504674
Argument by authority is among the most obvious fallacies.

>>4504675
My feelings do not belong here.

>>4504699

>Argument by authority is among the most obvious fallacies.

But it's not a fallacy.

>>4504699
Define expression, mathematical, definition, and I. Your posting makes no sense and just writing the words doesn't explain anything.

>>4504700
Yes, it is. It is not a proper argument, especially not in mathematics.

>>4504709
I assume that you understood what I posted.

>>4504684
http://www.math.brown.edu/~res/DUS/Summary/M101Summary.pdf

>What is a Real Number? Most people have known about real numbers since grade school. A rough and ready way to describe a real number is that anything with a decimal expansion is a real number. Numbers like 17 and PI = 3.1415926... are examples of real numbers. With this definition, you have to be a bit careful. The two expressions .99999... and 1 both describe the same number. So, you would really have to say that a real number is a decimal expansion, but with the proviso that certain decimal expansions name the same number. To be formal about it, you could say that the decimal expansion 3.14159... is the limit of the series
> 3 + (1/10) + (4/100) + (1/1000) + (5/10000) + (9/100000) + ... .
>So, first of all, you would have to know about about series and limits. Then, you would have to say that a real number is really anequivalence class of such expansions. Making the decimal expansion definition work is actually a bit clumsy, and so a real analysis class usually takes different (but closely related) approaches.

So, as I said, by convention, a decimal expansion is a real number identified by the usual limit definition.

>>4504684
>Mathematics is about proofs. Applying the simplest mathematical operations without being aware of why they are correct is something that can be done by computers as well. Making a distinction in naming has always been one of the most importnant aspects of language as it is necessary in order to keep up informative conversations. Without definitions and without naming things we cannot talk about anything.

This is begging the question in your first three words.

But the extant definition of mathematics is not the one you use. From Newton to high school, and even universities where "math methods" are taught.

I suggest placing "rigorous" in front of mathematics for what you call mathematics, though you of course will consider this redundant.

>>4504711
No, and you're foolish for assuming so. You have a responsibility to retitle yourself as "hypocritical idiot"

>>4504700
It is a fallacy in mathematics, but not in, say, law.

>>4504711

>Yes, it is.

No, it is not. Keep denying it. It only makes you look dumber.

>>4504721

That's because math is deductive. Doesn't mean it's false.

>>4504711
All right, it seems that proving 1+1 = 2 is too difficult for you, let's try something easier, eh?
How would YOU prove 1=0.999...?

Only autism can turn a fun vid on popular mathematics into something to be very, very upset about.

>>4504737
Hitler probably could as well.

>>4504714
What is your point? In the video she neither quotes the book you are quoting, nor does she introduce that definition.

>>4504716
You are now arguing semantics that are outside of mathematics.

>>4504719
Your anger does not belong here. Come back when you calmed down.

>>4504721
We are not talking about law here.

>>4504722
I am right and there is nothing you can do about it.

>>4504729
I am not here to accept any "challenges". The thread is about a video and right now we are discussing the fallacies presented in said video.

>>4504719
I think just solipsistic tautology would do

He's right about everything, because he decides what everything means, what every definition is, what every standard of rigor is, etc.

But he's never actually justified why this is the case. And of course it cannot be done.

>>4504737
I agree.

Knock it off slack jobs!

Mathematicians have been putting out philosophical fires for the last 100 years. It's one of the reasons why I decided to go into mathematics in the first place - the former was not rigorous enough for my taste. I grew weary of metaphysical displacements and said "fuck it I need a proof".

>>4504737
There is no fun in corrupting the mathematical understanding of innocent youtube users.

>>4504742
define angry.

You know what doesn't belong here? hypocritical baseless posting and absurdly high standards of evidence.

>>4504742
You think highly of yourself kid, but let me tell you a secret, you're no better than anyone here, so get of your high horse.

>>4504742
>You are now arguing semantics that are outside of mathematics.

Yes. Because you made some semantic claims. If you want to withdraw those claims, do so, else argue them.

>>4504742

>I am right and there is nothing you can do about it.

Yea, when you start with a false premise everything that follows is true.

"Hey look George, there's a tripfag who thinks he's the best thing since sliced bread."

>>4504748
It doesn't corrupt. Again, Wittgenstein's ladder.

>>4504742
> am not here to accept any "challenges"
It's not a "challenge", and why the hell did you use quotation marks? I haven't even once used that word.

>0 = -0
>=-0
>-0
>amurrika

>>4504755
this is the nub of the guy

it's a house of cards, but when you get to the heart of it, he just cries "semantics", as if semantics aren't at the heart of so things.

>>4504761
x^2 + 1 = 1
x^2 = 0
x = +- 0

Just because we never say "negative zero" doesn't mean that it never comes up as an answer. We've simply been taught to treat it as the same thing as +0.

>>4504749
I do not see your intention. Please rephrase your post.

>>4504750
I never claimed to be better than others. I usually refrain from personal value statements, as they don't belong in an academical debate.

>>4504752
Whatever you want to discuss now is too far away from the point of this thread, i.e. the video posted by OP.

>>4504755
Nowhere did I use a false premise.

>>4504756
It would be harmless, if titled correctly. By incorrect labeling it is deceptive and potentially dangerous.

>>4504760
You are challenging me and I don't accept your challenge. It is pointless, because the proof you want from me can be found via a quick google search.

>>4504714
So, as I said, the "..." notation is a notation, and notation's derive meaning by consensus and authority, like all language. The consensus and authority says that the "..." notation in question defines a real number according to the usual limit definition.

Any other argument is mere persuasion and not a correct "proof".

>>4504748
>corrupting the mathematical understanding
The fuck am I reading?
It's funny how you blame others of stupidity and you dare to do so by using stupidity itself as your sword and shield.

>>4504764
The semantics in mathematics are well-defined. In philosophy and natural language this is not necessarily the case anymore.

>>4504781
Your post contains a remark directed at my person, but no argument that contributes to the discussion.

>>4504777
>I never claimed to be better than others. I usually refrain from personal value statements, as they don't belong in an academical debate.
Your words say one thing, but your posts speak for themselves.

>>4504777
You keep making claims that nobody else agrees with (argument = formal proof, jokes do not belong in math)
You keep failing to provide citation for those claims when asked for it.
You still haven't defined your terms or explained your definitions for them. Give us a mathematical definition of angry, or leave.

>>4504776
no

>>4504777
>Whatever you want to discuss now is too far away from the point of this thread, i.e. the video posted by OP.

A long line of reasoning is not an invalid one, as mathematics often demonstrates. Though I'll credit you with being smart enough to see I've trapped you and are so bailing out. Goodnight.

>>4504789
-0 = 0
Thus -0 can come up as an answer, because -0 equals 0.

>>4502800

>negative 0

What in the unholy fuck is she high on?

>>4504785
>mathematics is defined as rigorous mathematics
>the semantics in mathematics are well-defined

you can't see the circular reasoning here?

>>4504700

Ph.D in Logic and professional rhetorician here.

Arguments from authority are not logical fallacies, but it is a non-sequitur to assume they are true only on the basis that someone distinguished says it is. For example, I am telling you all this, but just because I say it doesn't make it inherently true. What makes it true is that it's true.

>>4504776
you are wrong, -0 = (-1)0 = 0. They are literally the same

>>4504800

You can not say a neutral thing is negative or positive.

>>4504804
-0 isn't negative, 0 isn't positive.

>>4504798
All IQ Fundie needs to do is use some tentative language to signpost that there are contexts where his arguments don't apply, and no one would rage. It's his absolutism that drives people mad.

>>4504786
My post contain defintions and applied logic. I don't see how this allows to draw conclusions about my person (unless you are a so called "troll" of course).

>>4504787
Every mathematician will agree that the lack of formal proof in unaccaptable. Before you call me out for argument by authority, I'd like to remind you that this is the refutation of your fallacious claim that nobody would agree with my post.
Anger is not a subject of mathematics. It lies outside of this thread's topic and has no formal definition.

>>4504798
There is no circular reasoning. The definition of "mathematics" is not a mathematical one.

>>4504799
Exactly.

>>4504808

The minus symbol is just a way to write negative numbers, because it's easier than just flipping them horizontally or any other notation. Writing -0 makes no sense because 0 has no symmetric, it's fucking ZERO.

>>4504809
In mathematics absolutism is required. Something is only true, if it can be proven or is an axiom, and definitions and proofs have to be rigorous.

>>4504812
-0
is perfectly sensible. The additive inverse of zero is zero.

>>4504810
>Every mathematician will agree that the lack of formal proof in unaccaptable.
Formally prove that from axioms or shut up.
>Before you call me out for argument by authority, I'd like to remind you that this is the refutation of your fallacious claim that nobody would agree with my post.
No it isn't.
>Anger is not a subject of mathematics.
Well then, as you keep saying, it's not relevant to the discussion and you shouldn't have brought it up. You should be ashamed of yourself, frankly, for dragging the conversation down to that level.

>>4504812
Au contraire. Writing 0 makes no sense because -0 has no symmetric, it's fucking ZERO.

>>4504819
>Formally prove that from axioms
It is not a mathematical statement.
>you shouldn't have brought it up
You were the one expressing your anger.

>>4504804
-0 is the notation of (-1)0 by definition you know that 1 is by definition the neutral product, then you have that 0 is the unique number(proovable) that x+0=x (neutral for the sum) and another theorem that states that if u*v =0 then u or v=0, it's easy to prove that (-1) is not 0 beacause by definition of the inverse 1 + (-1) =0 if (-1) was equal to 0 then 1=0 which is false, therefore (-1)*0=0 . Q.E.D

>>4504824

Flip 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. You will get a symmetrical symbol. Flip 0. You will get the same.

Nigger.

>>4504830
>It is not a mathematical statement
Formally prove that from axioms
>You were the one expressing your anger.
Formally prove that from axioms. In addition, define anger

At this stage, anyone who wasn't cripplingly autistic would have got the point. I'm disappointed.

>>4504810
>My post contain defintions and applied logic. I don't see how this allows to draw conclusions about my person (unless you are a so called "troll" of course).
I am still amazed how you cannot see how egoistical this statement is.

>There is no circular reasoning. The definition of "mathematics" is not a mathematical one.
I cannot even begin to describe the frustration and hilarity of your post, I begin to believe you're just some high school student that excels in his classes and thinks it makes him some kind of genius. You have clearly no idea what you're talking about and the only reason why anyone is here is because it's fun kicking you while you lay on the ground.

>>4504837
>2012
>treating zero like a real
ISHYGDDT

>>4504854

Typical Tripfaggotry.

>>>/b/

>>4504841
>Formally prove that from axioms
No, we are arguing outside of mathematics now.
>anyone who wasn't cripplingly autistic would have got the point
Is this the reason, why you still don't get it?

>>4504842
>I am still amazed how you cannot see how egoistical this statement is.
How can the truth be egoistical?
>no idea what you're talking about
I know exactly what I'm talking about. Show me what you think is wrong in my posts and I'll show you why I'm right.

>>4504810
everything i've seen you say is mathematically correct, my argument isn't an argument about that. it's an argument about the whether mathematical correctness is a valid criticism of the video.

your usual answer is "corruption of youtube viewers, poor education, promoting misunderstandings".

people respond with lying to children/Wittgenstein ladder.

at that point you say something like "mathematics is about proofs/rigor" and it becomes a semantic argument about what mathematics means.

you haven't responded properly to the Wittgenstein's ladder argument.

>>4504854
0... not a real...
Oh this tripfags, can intelligently debate something with them, can't have them get the fuck out.

>>4504866
Excellent refutation, I see my error now.

Give a proper argument and I will give you a proper counter-argument.
>>4504867
>No, we are arguing outside of mathematics now.
Formally prove that from axioms
>Is this the reason, why you still don't get it?
I don't know, if you weren't begging the question I might be able to tell you. Define still.

>>4504869
I have responded to the Wittgenstein argument. The video would be harmless and could serve its function as proposed by Wittgenstein, if it was labeled correctly. But by incorrectly claiming to mathematically explain something and then failing to come up with an actual proof, it is deceptive and corruptive.

>>4504877
Once again: Formal proof only work in mathematics. You are asking me to formally prove a non-mathematical statement. That won't work.

>>4504884
>You are asking me to formally prove a non-mathematical statement
Formally prove that from axioms. I have no reason to believe it.

>>4504884
so your objections would be obviated if it were renamed?

>>4504888
Ok. We get it. Knock it off. Stop being an asshat.

>>4504899
define what.

And lolno. This is entertaining now.

>>4504888
You know what? I think you're butthurt because I disproved your nonsense.

>>4504893
Of course. That was my point all the time.

>>4504867
>How can the truth be egoistical?
Just like that.
>I know exactly what I'm talking about. Show me what you think is wrong in my posts and I'll show you why I'm right.
You seriously think I can be bothered with this shit? I have lost all hope and/or respect to you long ago. And I think I did that before, I'm not sure, one way or another, can't be arsed.

>>4504884
how many of those that you think it might corrupt would be able to differentiate between a correct and incorrect name?

>>4504905
Your "hope" or "respect" is irrelevant. This is an academic debate. Either you post arguments or you don't.

>>4504903
Ooh, hypocrisy. That's new.

>>4504903
>Of course. That was my point all the time.

so your whole point, all this time, was a semantic one.

>>4504913
Semantic and non-mathematical*

>>4504906
i didn't think of that. that's clever, and the sort of thing people with asperger's forget.

>>4504906
You're asking for my personal opinion. I don't think this is relevant to the thread.

>>4504911
Stay mad.

>>4504913
Yes. But we have to distinguish betwen mathematical and philosophical semantics. The semantics of mathematics are well-defined.

>>4504913
TRAPPED

hi-five bro

>>4504910
> This is an academic debate.
Don't make me laugh, I had more "academic debates" in kindergarten.
>Your "hope" or "respect" is irrelevant.
Actually, it is dipshit, at least as an answer to the post it was referring to.
>Either you post arguments or you don't.
I don't. It's more fun this way, plus it's not at least pointless now.

>>4504923
I'm not mad any more, I'm making a point. You cannot meet your own standards

>>4504925
>opinions and personal views
Nothing to comment here.

>>4504926
That would be a tu quoque fallacy.

For once, /sci/ has a thread where everyone agrees that 0.9r =1, and still it is overwhelmed by bickering. If only the bickering were remotely interesting.

Post more hot mathematicians.

>>4504923
>The semantics of mathematics are well-defined.

and you also claim the word mathematics is well defined, and according to you, falls outside of mathematics itself.

>>4504923
>You're asking for my personal opinion. I don't think this is relevant to the thread.

if you are suggesting the video to be renamed so as not to corrupt people, you must have a belief that such a renaming would be understood.

i'm wondering how well you think it would be understood.

>>4504934
I do not say the word "mathematics" is well-defined, but there exists consensus that the lack of formal proofs in unaccaptable when we call something "mathematical".

>>4504941
A renaming would at least prevent pointless discussions like the one ITT.

>>4504942
that consensus only exists when we call something mathematical in the higher education academic context.

>>4504933
Actually, they're not bickering over 1=0.999... but whether high school mathematics should be renamed to "mindless symbolic manipulation".

>>4504932
I wonder how frustrated you're right now fucking aspie? From the context of your post you seem to be madly masturbating to the idea of how superior you are to everyone else in order to refill your perception of your own superiority.

>>4504952
true. i'm going to bed now, you are finally being reasonable.

>>4504957
the aspie is probably now quite sad, as he's been successfully speared by better reasoning

>>4504953
This context can be assumed on a board that is dedicated to science and math.

>>4504957
I'm not frustrated at all. I keep refuting and correcting nonsensical and fallacious claims.

>>4504962
Nope. So far no one was able to point out anything wrong in my posts.

>>4504965
>Nope. So far no one was able to point out anything wrong in my posts.
See posts:
>>4504577
>>4504714
>>4504780

>>4504325

Too late bro she already has a PhD and is more respected than any prof at your school

>>4504967
None of these addressed any alleged error in my reasoning. On the contrary they support some of my statements and I already stated that I agree with them.

>>4504965
Yah. This thread reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUFyVzaWT2o
Your posts make a TOTAL sense and are TOTALLY correct!

>>4504973
See post:
>>4504621
>It is not defined via limits. It is only defined as a syntactical construct, i.e. using the ellipsis to abbreviate repetition.

The online math textbook pdf says you're wrong.

>>4504975
>Your posts make a TOTAL sense and are TOTALLY correct!
That's right. I'll take it as a compliment.

>>4504979
I accepted his book's definition to be equivalent and came back to the original topic, i.e. the video not giving any definition at all.

>>4504981
Oh god, I've been laughing now for good two minutes now. Your stupidity astounds me, haha, it's like watching a chimp to learn to draw... except without the learning part.

>>4504987
IQ Fundie >It's not defined by the limit.
Textbook >It's defined by the limit.
There's only so many ways you can cut that. You were wrong. I demonstrated that you were wrong with 3 minutes of my time on google.

>>4504965
>Nope. So far no one was able to point out anything wrong in my posts.

it has been pointed out that criticising this video on mathematical rigor grounds was not valid criticism, because of wittgenstein's ladder. and there was only a semantic problem with the video's title, and even if renamed the only purpose that would serve is to prevent a thread like this.

all of this you (eventually) conceded.

further they moved you from a position of thinking everything but rigorous mathematics shouldn't be called mathematics, even high school courses should be renamed, to one where on /sci/ it can be assumed that the word "mathematics" implies rigor.

>>4504998
Not only do we have to show he's a derp, We have to show him that we've shown him. True aspie hand holding required.

>>4504994
Your post contains no arguments.

>>4504995
I used to rely on a definition without limits. He showed me an equivalent definition using limits, which I accepted to exist as well. Nothing more to argue.

>>4504998
You summarize the thread, but you fail to point out any errors of mine.

>>4505005
Please show me, why I'm a "derp". What is a "derp" anyway?

>>4505011
>I used to rely on a definition without limits. He showed me an equivalent definition using limits, which I accepted to exist as well. Nothing more to argue.

There is no equivalent definition that doesn't use limits. "..." without limits is unformalized meaningless shit.

Unless you're going to say that you have a math equivalent to calculus that you pulled out of your ass.

You. Were. Wrong.

>>4502800

Does anyone else feel like masturbating while listening to her voice?

I don't want to find out what she looks like incase she isn't pretty, but for some reason I developed a semi within 30 seconds of watching this video.

>>4505011
>Your post contains no arguments.
No shit sherlock! Does it give you a boner when you point out the obvious?

>>4505029
too late.

>>4505024
you can define it using an algorithm that turns every repeating decimal into a fraction. it's taught in high schools and it's mathematically unambiguous.

>>4505038
too tall and skinny for me. i like dem curves

>>4505041
True, but he already disavowed that as well else-thread.

>>4505046
threads silly then

limits only necessary when you move beyond the rationals, but then ... becomes harder, though not always impossible, to determine.

>>4505041
>>4505046
The discussion originally was what a decimal expansion is defined to mean, and it wasn't restricted to only repeating fractions. And in that case, you do need to use some calculus. Cauchy sequences, Dedekind cuts - whatever.

>>4505024
See >>4505041
You are distracting from the actual topic, i.e. the video. Don't be so mad at my person, just because I refuted so many of your fallacies.

>>4505038
If a poster replies to me, I reply back. I can never be sure whether he possibly mistook his expression of opinions for an argument, so I point out the obvious.

>>4505046
I did not disavow that. In fact I brought it up by myself in my frst post ITT.

>>4505055
> >>4505024
> See >>4505041
You very subtly changed the discussion earlier from decimal expansions to repeating decimal expansions. You did say that I was wrong that decimal expansions in general are defined using the usual limit definition in post
>>4504587
You were wrong, or so asshole-ish as to be unable to reason with. And I think I just reached my trolling quotient for the day.

>>4505067
In the post you're referencing (>>4504587) I was definitely not wrong. Specifying what the letters mean remains fundamental.

>>4505038
>implying I'm going to look at that image in full reoslution

Stupid. As if I'm going to ruin things for myself.

>>4505071
Thank you for confirming my expectation of either
1- troll
2- pedantic asshole who is unwilling to have a reasonable conversation. Really, arguing that it's not clear what
>a.bcdef...
means in context. Asshole.

>>4504436
>>4504436
>>4504436
>fail

>Induction implying 0=0.000000...1
I know this is not true because you can divide by 0.000............................1 yet not getting the universe destroyed unlike division by 0.

>Appeal to intuition
Ever heard of Butterfly effect?

>>4505080
The context needs to specified explicitly in mathematics. You cannot come up with arbitrary notations and expect everyone to know what you mean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx5D09s5X6U
>snake snake snake snake

fapfapfapfap

>>4505080
he's 2, but he doesn't realise it's a problem.

he has ASD and not much insight into the communication problems this is responsible for. he prefers to think the world is responsible by not being as pedantic as he is.

>>4505090
Asshole.

>>4505090
actually you can. unless aspie. surely you've read something about your condition, and how normals function differently?

>>4505093
>>4505094
>>4505100
Personal attacks don't belong here. Post arguments on topic or refrain from posting.

>>4505103
Asshole.

>>4505103
only 1 of those three was a personal attack. the others were level headed discussion about your ASD. though i suppose the word aspie may be considered purjoritave.

>>4505103
if you have a problem with posts use the report button.

>>4505122
I'm neither austitic nor is this important to the thread. My person is irrelevant to the correctness of my arguments.

>>4505126
I am aware of rule #7.

>>4505140
*autistic

>>4505140
your autism has a direct bearing on how you argue. mostly through your unwieldy pedantry. i am suggesting to other anons that if they understand your style of argument, argument may be better facilitated.

>>4505147
My arguments are objective and should be seen only as arguments without relating them to my person.

>making up rules

Someone cannot into logic and lowercase letters.

>>4505151
they may or may not be objective, that's moot.

but the problem isn';t their content but their communication, or more importantly, anon's communicating of argument to you.

normals can flit deftly from context to context without the need for cumbersomely stating rigid definitions. they ascertain such definitions implicitly with astonishing accuracy. autistic people have trouble with this.

>>4505151
>objective argument
>lying about his autism

She's a bit smug.
>oh your math teachers are all soooo stupid. Look at me I can draw really well.

I mean great, she can give a superficial illustration of some of the cursory properties in fields of pure maths, but in the end you're going to have to put down some actual notation if you want to get very far into a subject.

>>4505166
Ambiguity and lack of context are popular tools of trolls on /sci/ Rigorous handling of all statements make trolling impossible. As you can see from the thread, the trolls had nothing left but resorting to mindless repetitions, insults and obvious straw men.

>>4505168
>obvious troll
>calling others autistic

>>4505171
agreed. i'd have loved this when i was a mathematically precocious teenager, now i'm a bit embarrassed by it. though she's got that hot/annoying thing going on

>>4505174
Well I doubt anyone is going to modify their behaviour just so you can tell the difference between troll threads and real ones. I believe most non-autistic people here already can.

>>4505183
That's not what I said.

Does anyone know her email?

I'd love to send her a screenshot of this thread.

>>4505189
Who cares?

>>4505192
she has her site, fb etc contact details here http://www.youtube.com/user/Vihart

>>4505193
That's right. Who cares?

>>4505199
>implying I have fb
>implying her site has her email

>>4505204
>implying shucks

All I see in this thread is autists getting angry at how she presents her "proof" and saying the process is wrong and not the result.