/sci/ - Science & Math

not well formed

>>5491639
no, thats 0.

I've never seen it written that way. But if it makes you happy, sure. I'll buy that.

OP I like the way you think

>>5491651
How is it zero?

infinity isnt a number, its a concept not defined by numbers

infinity does not equal 10000

>>5491674
S = ...x^3 + x^2 + x + 1 + 1/x + 1/x^2 + ...
xS = ...x^4 + x^3 + x^2 + 1 + 1/x + ...

S - xS = 0
S(1-x) = 0
let x = 10

-10S = 0
S = 0

but S = ...1111.1111....
times 9:
...9999.9999.... = 0

you drew that 8 sideways

>>5491687
You can't manipulate infinite series like that, you'll end up with rubbish!
By a similar argument;
S = 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 +...
1/2 S = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ...
1/2 S = 1 + S
-1/2 S = 1
S = -2 (Which is clearly nonsense)

>>5491677
>not defined by numbers
But Mathworld defines it in terms of real numbers: "Infinity is an unbounded quantity that is greater than every real number."

>>5491677
Oh look, it's this troll again. *yawn*

>>5491706
>Which is clearly nonsense
seems correct to me.

This post is so incredibly stupid that I will now leave /sci/ forever and probably kill myself
Enjoy the rest of your life

>>5491720
how do you explain
>unbounded
then?

>>5491639
>>5491687
Considering infiniti is actually all positive and negative number sets, not just one side as that would not satisfy the implied full state of all relative structures finding equal in it, that even though you are using incomplete method's are valid.

>>5491706
Check this
1
----
9
=.111111

0.99999..
------------
8.999999...9991 + 0.11111 = 9.0000...0000(-2)

So no, not entirely nonsense

>>5491639
$S = (\cdots + x^3 + x^2 + x + 1 + \frac{1}{x} + \frac{1}{x^2} + \cdots)$
$Sx = x\cdot (\cdots + x^3 + x^2 + x + 1 + \frac{1}{x} + \frac{1}{x^2} + \cdots) = (\cdots + x^4 + x^3 + x^2 + x + 1 + \frac{1}{x} + \cdots) = x$
$Sx=x$
$Sx-x=0$
$S(x-1) = 0$
$S=0~\mathrm{when}~x\neq 1$
$\mathrm{Let}~x=10~\mathrm{in}~9\cdot S$
$(\cdots + 9\cdot x^2 + 9\cdot x + 9\cdot 1 + 9\cdot 10^{-1} + 9\cdot 10^{-2} + 9\cdot 10^{-3} + \cdots)=\overline{999}.\overline{999}=9\cdot S = 9\cdot 0 = 0$

<span class="math">S = (\cdots + x^3 + x^2 + x + 1 + \frac{1}{x} + \frac{1}{x^2} + \cdots)[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Sx = x\cdot (\cdots + x^3 + x^2 + x + 1 + \frac{1}{x} + \frac{1}{x^2} + \cdots) = (\cdots + x^4 + x^3 + x^2 + x + 1 + \frac{1}{x} + \cdots) = x[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Sx=x[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Sx-x=0[/spoiler]
<span class="math">S(x-1) = 0[/spoiler]
<span class="math">S=0~\mathrm{when}~x\neq 1[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\mathrm{Let}~x=10~\mathrm{in}~9\cdot S[/spoiler]
<span class="math">(\cdots + 9\cdot x^2 + 9\cdot x + 9\cdot 1 + 9\cdot 10^{-1} + 9\cdot 10^{-2} + 9\cdot 10^{-3} + \cdots)=\overline{999}.\overline{999}=9\cdot S = 9\cdot 0 = 0[/spoiler]

>>5491639
<span class="math">S = (\cdots + x^3 + x^2 + x + 1 + \frac{1}{x} + \frac{1}{x^2} + \cdots)[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Sx = x\cdot (\cdots + x^3 + x^2 + x + 1 + \frac{1}{x} + \frac{1}{x^2} + \cdots) = (\cdots + x^4 + x^3 + x^2 + x + 1 + \frac{1}{x} + \cdots) = x[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Sx=x[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Sx-x=0[/spoiler]
<span class="math">S(x-1) = 0[/spoiler]
<span class="math">S=0~\mathrm{when}~x\neq 1[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\mathrm{Let}~x=10~\mathrm{in}~9\cdot S[/spoiler]
<span class="math">(\cdots + 9\cdot x^2 + 9\cdot x + 9\cdot 1 + 9\cdot 10^{-1} + 9\cdot 10^{-2} + 9\cdot 10^{-3} + \cdots)=\overline{999}.\overline{999}=9\cdot S = 9\cdot 0 = 0[/spoiler]

>>5491639
<span class="math">S = (\cdots + x^3 + x^2 + x + 1 + \frac{1}{x} + \frac{1}{x^2} + \cdots)[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Sx = x\cdot (\cdots + x^3 + x^2 + x + 1 + \frac{1}{x} + \frac{1}{x^2} + \cdots) = (\cdots + x^4 + x^3 + x^2 + x + 1 + \frac{1}{x} + \cdots) = x[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Sx=x[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Sx-x=0[/spoiler]
<span class="math">S(x-1) = 0[/spoiler]
<span class="math">S=0~\mathrm{when}~x\neq 1[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\mathrm{Let}~x=10~\mathrm{in}~9 \cdot S[/spoiler]
<span class="math">(\cdots + 9\cdot x^2 + 9\cdot x + 9\cdot 1 + 9\cdot 10^{-1} + 9\cdot 10^{-2} + 9\cdot 10^{-3} + \cdots)=\overline{999}.\overline{999}=9\cdot S = 9\cdot 0 = 0[/spoiler]

>>5491639
nth fucking correction
<span class="math">S = (\cdots + x^3 + x^2 + x + 1 + \frac{1}{x} + \frac{1}{x^2} + \cdots)[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Sx = x\cdot (\cdots + x^3 + x^2 + x + 1 + \frac{1}{x} + \frac{1}{x^2} + \cdots) = (\cdots + x^4 + x^3 + x^2 + x + 1 + \frac{1}{x} + \cdots) = x[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Sx=x[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Sx-x=0[/spoiler]
<span class="math">S(x-1) = 0[/spoiler]
<span class="math">S=0~\mathrm{when}~x\neq 1[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\mathrm{Let}~x=10~\mathrm{in}~9 \cdot S[/spoiler]
<span class="math">(\cdots + 9\cdot 10^2 + 9\cdot x + 9\cdot 1 + 9\cdot 10^{-1} + 9\cdot 10^{-2} + 9\cdot 10^{-3} + \cdots)=\overline{999}.\overline{999}=9\cdot S = 9\cdot 0 = 0[/spoiler]

that's actually true, and it's also equal to 1111 repeating, or any infinite sequence of number in our numeral system.

>>5491797
except those with repeating zero at the end (which is the left part of the "number")

infinite has no value, stupid. rying to attribute value to infinite is like trying to attribute a value to the entirety of our number system.

>>5491797

but any value can have repeating decimals, it all depends on the base system you use. 1/3 being repeating in base 10 but a real number in base 12 for example.

=?

>>5491809
It has value in that no matter how hard you try to dismiss it it can always be said to exist

Even numbers arn't that determinant man

>>5491779
>( ... + x^4 + x^3 + x^2 + x + 1 + 1/x + ...) = x
> are you retarded
also infinity is not an element of any number field. You can't write something like y = infinity. Mathematicians write things like x -> infinity do express something will happen when x gets exceedingly large.

>>5491823
It was a typo, was supposed to be =S not =x

>>5491823
>also infinity is not an element of any number field

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

>>5491779
n+1 correction
<span class="math">S = (\cdots + x^3 + x^2 + x + 1 + \frac{1}{x} + \frac{1}{x^2} + \cdots)[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Sx = x\cdot (\cdots + x^3 + x^2 + x + 1 + \frac{1}{x} + \frac{1}{x^2} + \cdots) = (\cdots + x^4 + x^3 + x^2 + x + 1 + \frac{1}{x} + \cdots) = S[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Sx=S[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Sx-S=0[/spoiler]
<span class="math">S(x-1) = 0[/spoiler]
<span class="math">S=0~\mathrm{when}~x\neq 1[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\mathrm{Let}~x=10~\mathrm{in}~9 \cdot S[/spoiler]
<span class="math">(\cdots + 9\cdot 10^2 + 9\cdot x + 9\cdot 1 + 9\cdot 10^{-1} + 9\cdot 10^{-2} + 9\cdot 10^{-3} + \cdots)=\overline{999}.\overline{99 9}=9\cdot S = 9\cdot 0 = 0[/spoiler]

>>5491823
>>5491845
there you go

>>5491742
I don't suppose you'd care to explain what you did in the second part of this reply?

>>5491832
> hyperreals
> a field

I'm pretty sure you can prove, with appropriate assumptions, that ...9999 = -1, and so ...999.999... would equal zero.

>>5491869
sure, yeah I really don't even understand what it's supposed to mean, other than essentially any numbers infinitive definition as depicted in the negative(under the premise of 0.999..=1) can be any number whatever equation you put beside it- basically how any number can by its only self definition be any number
>or how numbers in general are bullshit
But it essentially goes the way it does, that under the premise of numbers as infinitives can have multiple- but limited to 1- second premise

But otherwise the only way you can logically say it's nine without saying it's somehow over nine, and the lowest attributable being 9 on the tail end of the infinite is 2, but again in no way can it be higher that nine which is what is being said is by adding that lil negative sign, and at that just as well might be said as = to -2 and THAT goes as far to say that there's a -2 out there that isn't existing, not -0.0002 but as defined by some other completely arbitrary number that that considered whole number might as well be at the tail end of an infinite- which is true in it's own way at that number and adds to the argument that 0=infinity

Covered alot of stuff so spread your answer out if you think any of it is false

>>5491706

Think of it like p-adic numbers, or a computer register with 4 bits. Just before the clock rolls over to 0, it's at 9999, and if you at 1 to it, you get 0. So 9999 = -1 in that context. Well we're dealing with ∞-adic numbers, so ...999 = -1.

>>5491976
Really just another reason why .99999- doesnt equal 1 and 0.00...001 doesnt equal 0

That is... if you want to keep your sanity
>This is basically my counter argument to anybody that says otherwise
OSOYOUWANNTAPPLYTHATTHEOREMBRO
And thats where the insanity drops in
>Any number equals any number after unlimited sets (only need about 5 but w/e)

Logicaly then -1 is the # you wish to know because it solves the complex i illuded to that is a good one old chap.

you can't put anything at the end of 999... it is INFINITE.

>>5491988

what is 1/3 x 3?
what is 0.3333333... x 3?

>>5492205
That one in 1/3 is still 0.999-
That 3 is 2.999..9997

By that math 1=1.00...0(-4)

>>5491993
Kill yourself

Writing an infinity and an equal sign is an abuse of notation.

>>5492032
Well thats the point of saying the 'numbers negative* infinitive definition', which is always implied if you want to say 1=0.9999

The duality of something being in the negative is that it an be of any form as what it is placing itself in is itself a variety of infinity
Take Vibration is to S.Relativity as (^)

>>5492220
No, it isn't.

>>5492032
Well thats the point of saying the 'numbers negative* infinitive definition', which is always implied if you want to say 1=0.9999

>*The duality of something being in the negative is that it an be of any form as what it is placing itself in is itself a variety of infinity
Take Vibration is to S.Relativity as (^)

>>5492205
What are you on about? Do you want to prove that 1/3 equals 0.333...? Well that requires the assumption of 0.999... = 1 which is something you have to prove independently.

>x = 0.99999...
10x = 9.9999.....
10x -x = 9
9x = 9
>x = 1

why does this have anything to do with what the OP is saying

he's saying that infinity is simply the biggest number which isn't true

>>5492259
Wrong again
10= 9.999999...

You're not staying true to your argument
>Your circular logic is ignoring your first >

Also
> my captcha
Seriously accept it and move on with your pitiful curriculum

>>5492269

what is wrong with what i just posted? most mathematicians use this as proof

>>5492274
Yeah it's not complying with it's own arguement, it's a flawed premise by its the fact that it's only using half it's logic

ITT you can 3x4=4x3 but you can't (everything you just typed out backwards)
>9x=8.9999...9998
The ol bait & switch

>>5492281
How does the fact that it only work for one example mean it's wrong?
x - 2 = 3.

A solution to this is 5. But wait! It's no longer true if you change the numbers! Therefore, the entire idea is wrong even for 5!

His proof is wrong, but your reasoning about why it's wrong is wrong.

>>5492281

understand now... that actually is very logical

not sure why i didn't notice that when my secondary school teachers taught this to me /dumb
or why they didn't seem to notice

>>5492290
He has a point thought. If you only used equivalences in your "proof", it should be possible to do it backwards. Let's try:

x = 1
9x = 9
10x - x = 9
10x = 9 + x
[... magical circular assumption that 0.999... does already equal 1]
9.9999... = 9 + x
0.999... = x

>>5491820
he's talking about the integer part, not decimal part.

>>5492290
Well actually, if 1=0.9999 then 3=2.999..9993 in that equation, defining itself from 3.00-00(-4) or -1

You keep thinking you can say what your saying while ignoring science

OMG MATH IS BEING CHRISTIAN!!! GUYSGUYSUGYSUGYSGUYSGUYS!!! MATH!!! ITS BEING CHRISTIAN!!!!! QUICK WE GOTTA POINT AND LAUGH!!!!

But anyway the next step would be to find the patterns in this

Any takers? We wouldn't be able to use regular methods... have to count it out ect until a pattern surfaced

You see the potential though no? Even if it hasn't been fit to standard models of learning yet

>>5492308
>using decimals after ...
>implying that means anything at all

Wow this might actually cause the world to switch to a different base number system....

Hail Anonymous

>>5492310
Yeah I figured but it just adds to the insanity a little

>>5492316
... How?

>>5492625
Er, because base 10 is irrational? and off the top of my head base 18 can access alot more of those infinitives

>>5492643
Well it's not irrational... it's just saying that numbers arn't basing themselves off zero, a little subjectively sure, but that just adds to the possibilities!

No it is only ---99% true

>>5492715
Actually it's infinitely true

>4/10

>>5492715
I've heard 1 percent of the world are scientists, so we've already won the war, the hasn't even begun

>>5491688

>>5492643
Why base 18 and not, say, base 9 or 16?
And wouldn't you get the same issue in base 18, like this?
∞=...HHHHH.HHHHHHH...
(17 being H)

So if infinite is the biggest number, what if I take
...9999.9999... + 1 > ...9999.9999... therefore ...9999.9999... =/= infinite

QED?

>>5492947
Because anything repeated infinitly is considered of a degree of infinite

OP could say the same of 4 or goats in a line, or all possible goats period

>>5492904
How this thread played out & this
>LOL

>>5492950
so then I said to him
"I can count to infinity and 2!"

>>5492950
infinity is not a number

>>5493142
A set of a set you would rather be inclined to say then?

>>5493142
Shut up, retard. You're not qualified to talk about math.

>>5493670
>People on the internet knowing anything

I'll have you know this entire place is imaginary

>>5492947
how about base infinity
fucker

>>5491845
You're assuming Integral Domain structure.

>>5491706
>proofs mathematical identity
>result must be nonsense
you are kidding right?

>>5495077
>spells "proves" wrong

It's not a mathematical identity. That sum diverges. There are ways of analyzing it to give it the value -2 in a consistent manner, but the work involves much more complicated math, not just fooling around with infinite series as if you can manipulate them like normal numbers in a field

>>5494882
In the last one 1 is actually defining itself as 0.999999...99964ish

Which means one actually representing 37

Did you even read the thread?

How'd did all of this result from OP's retard tier standards

>>5492960
$ /inf $ / 10

Anybody here likes pies?

>>5498195
I love pies.

>>5491988
>>5492308
>>5495963

>>5500046
Why?

yes

maybe

>>5495963
>>5500713

Cancer with cancer stamp. Nice one.

Check out my 2/6(4-2)

>>5502492
>check your 0.1666

mfw this one faggot has five consecutive troll posts on the front page

>>5502499

>>5502503

I'm just admiring his dedication