/sci/ - Science & Math

0.999... + dx = 1

>>7668954
No. No it really isn't that hard.

>>7668954
There are two colors in this image.
They differ by less than 0.01%. [ie, one represents 1 and the other represents 0.9999].
Can you tell the difference?

>>7668954
1/3 = 0.3333....
3 * 1/3 = 3 * 0.3333....
1 = 0.9999...

>>7668973
easy, then again my eyes are perfect
>They differ by less than 0.01%
In what, wavelenght? frequency? something else?
Specify what you mean, now you're percentage is meaningless.

>>7668993
Somehow my line got fucked up, its the dark line in the middle, not the blurry one to the left.

x=0.999...
10x=9.999...
10x = 9 + 0.999...
10x = 9 + x
9x + x = 9 + x
9x = 9
x = 1

also

>>7668983

>>7669199
>the nature of the proof isnt ultimately flawed by the fact of it being 9.99...90000....

Seriously poster I'm honestly ashamed of your logic skills

>>7669204
nigga what is infinite and why are you putting things at the end of it

>>7668961
If dx = 0 then your statement is true.

>>7669228
Don't ask, he's /sci/'s resident schizophrenic and main source of word salad

>>7669236
What happened to Aether then?

>>7668954
Think of it like this. You're claiming to be able to write down 0.999..., while you really can't. If you can not write it down, how can you know what it is? We know that 0.2 > 0.142857..., which is also a neverending number, but we know this because it can be expressed as fraction. Try expressing 0.999.. as a fraction.
>pro tip: geometric series
Seriously, try it. It's a good excercise + it gives you some insight on the subject.

>>7669228
>Infinite
>Singular
>Chaos (singular) and not just a mess (plural etc)
>Singular > Multiple vectors/perspectives
>Position
>Movement
>Infinite being relative
>Subjective reason being clouded by limits
And then there's the fuckery of the lack of concurrence in the system of limits do to holocaust level ignorance of the conditions of open boundaries

In short poster
>Open Boundaries

I can put whatever the fuq nugget I want on the end of it, its math it doesn't have to make sense you can make a proof for any shape and the distance in it is entirely subjective to the terms and conditions of the fabrication that is the bag of dicks that we casually call 'One'

k bro? Or do I have to rocket you off the planet to understand?

>>7669204
His proof is rigorous enough.

Assume there is a small perturbation, e > 0, such that 1 = 0.999... + e.

0.999... = 3 * 1/3 = 3/3

so 1 = 3/3 + e,

We know that there exists an integer, d, such that 3 = d * 3, namely d = 1.
Hence 3 divides 3. We know that 3 = 1 * 3 so 3 divided by 3 is 1.

Hence we have 1 = 1 + e. But since we chose e > 0, we have that 1 is strictly greater than 1. This is a contradiction.

Hence we must have that 0.999... = 1.

>>7669269
bro e subject to infinite expansion.. so we basically acquire something similar to 'planes' or layerings of space... which I guess would mean that addition is infact the most fabulous problem in existence

>>7669279
I'm the guy you replied to and what you just posted is entirely nonsense. e is just an arbitrarily small perturbation.

>>7669290
I know I'm just thinking applicability

>>7669260
Can you elaborate further

>>7669297
Are you high, or is English a second language for you? You're making entirely no sense.

>>7669302
The poster is literally just thinking with addition, get your head out of your ass

>>7669301
Which part? It's as easy as 1 2 3 A B C dadada doobeedidoobeeedidoo... or however that tune goes

1 - 2 =~ infinity

Prove me wrong faggots.

>>7669309

>>7669309
>The poster is literally just thinking with addition
No he isn't. And you're worse than him.

>>7669318
I don't have time right now to see what you're implying but if you look back at how each chain point in my post makes the elaboration of the previous point I'll come back and have a go at any qualms you might have