[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

# /sci/ - Science & Math

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 178 KB, 500x512, IMG_1139.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

There will always be an infinitesimally small distance between them. Why is this even still up for debate?

 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:55:11 2019 No.10437705 >infinitesimally smallso, 0.
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:56:15 2019 No.10437708 File: 319 KB, 795x567, IMG_1089.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10437705t. Retarded fucking idiot
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:05:25 2019 No.10437729 >>10437694My thoughts regarding the picture:x=0,99999....999910x=0,9999....999010-x=8,9999....9981Therefore 9x=/=9
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:12:42 2019 No.10437751 >>10437694What do you mean by “infinitesimal”?What do you mean by “distance”?Why do you say “always” when numbers are eternal and not time-dependent?You should try working on your formal jargon because I have no idea what you are trying to convey
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:14:22 2019 No.10437754 >>10437729What about the right side?9 x 1/9
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:14:46 2019 No.10437755 >>10437705Wow it's almost like there's a distinction you're purposefully choosing to ignore, a number greater than zero cannot also be zero
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:16:20 2019 No.10437761 >>10437755infinite isn't a numberinfinitely small also isn't a number
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:18:20 2019 No.10437764 >>10437708>>10437729So what number is in between .999... and 1?
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:19:04 2019 No.10437767 >>10437761Again, a value greater than zero cannot equal zero
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:20:54 2019 No.10437777 >>10437767Again, infinitesimal is not a quantity
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:22:32 2019 No.10437784 >>10437777I never said it was. That was OP, I'm telling you 0 =/= >0
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:22:33 2019 No.10437785 >>10437764(0.999.... + 1) / 2
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:25:36 2019 No.10437797 >>10437785That’s 1, anon
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:26:15 2019 No.10437802 >>10437785What does the decimal expansion look like?>>10437784What does the decimal expansion of 1-0.999... look like?
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:27:49 2019 No.10437807 >>10437797It's1 - ((1 - 0.999...) / 2)
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:28:52 2019 No.10437808 >>10437802>What does the decimal expansion look like?I typed it out but too long to post here
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:29:40 2019 No.10437809 >>10437807What does 0 have to do with this now?
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:30:52 2019 No.10437814 >>10437808At least your response was remotely clever
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:30:52 2019 No.10437815 1=3/3=3*(1/3)=3*0.333...=0.999...
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:31:38 2019 No.10437817 >>10437802A number greater than zero
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:31:54 2019 No.10437818 >>10437817Proof?
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:33:41 2019 No.10437823 >>104378180.999...<1
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:36:47 2019 No.10437831 >>10437817What number?
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:37:55 2019 No.10437832 >>10437823But that's a false statement anon
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:38:16 2019 No.10437834 >>10437823that is only true if you can show that there is a number between 0.999... and 1.
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:38:41 2019 No.10437835 >>10437815>1/3 = 0.3333...>being this stupid
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:40:58 2019 No.10437842 >>10437835prove it wrongeven better, give the "correct" answer
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:43:59 2019 No.10437850 >>10437842the correct answer is: 1=1
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:45:12 2019 No.10437854 >>10437694Hey OP, can you help me solve this?$\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}9(10)^{-i}=?$
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:48:52 2019 No.10437864 File: 90 KB, 474x711, brainlet4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] Infinitesimals don't exist in the field of real numbers since the real numbers are defined by the completeness axiom. Everything bounded above has a least upper bound. What could the least upper bound be other than 1. Every real number is defined in terms of cauchy sequences, where for all epsilon we can find an element of the sequence such that all successive elements will be within epsilon of its limit. If you were correct the irrationals would also never equal what they are. Stop posting this garbage.
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:49:29 2019 No.10437869 >>10437708how is that /pol/?
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:50:55 2019 No.10437877 >>10437708anti-/pol/tards are in a constant state of seething about /pol/
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 16:05:35 2019 No.10437929 >>10437694and your penis is infinitesimally small. why is this still up for debate?!?
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 16:25:28 2019 No.10437983 File: 2.61 MB, 360x360, x.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10437694A distance is something finite and measurable so if you say that there is a distance between 0.9... and 1 you are saying that there is a numer x that satisfies 0.9...+x=1 So please find x :)And don't tell me x=0.0...01 because as soon as you put a digit 1 after zeroes your are telling that x has finite digits, but x must have infinite digits since 0.9... has infinite digits, and so the only possible answer is x=0.0...=0.And pls don't even tell me that x=1-0.9... come on don't be a brainlet ;)
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 16:26:55 2019 No.10437987 >>10437983yeah, 0.000... is patrician-tier
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 16:32:24 2019 No.10437994 >>10437877its funny because literally no one likes /pol/, i guess we're all seething together, its not so bad desu
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 16:40:59 2019 No.10438014 File: 157 KB, 1035x1083, 1543864027575.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10437785fucking this
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 16:52:42 2019 No.10438040 >>104377641/10^∞
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 16:56:02 2019 No.10438043 $\frac{1}{\aleph_0}$
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 16:56:57 2019 No.10438044 File: 119 KB, 583x482, 1551545614196.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10437694>another 1=0.999 thread
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 16:58:14 2019 No.10438048   >>10437983You seem smart, can you help me with a really simple problem? Current through a 300mH coil increases at a rate of 50uA per 10us, how much is the induced voltage?It should just be V=L (di/dt), which I computed as 1.5V but the correct answer is 1.5kV
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 17:01:22 2019 No.10438056 >>10438048post in >>10412555 or >>>/wsr/
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 17:01:22 2019 No.10438057 >>104377640.000......01
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 17:12:51 2019 No.10438078 File: 43 KB, 530x378, brainletsbtfo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 17:15:41 2019 No.10438088 >>10437729yeah but its 0.999.....not 0.999...999Then nines do not end.
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 17:49:04 2019 No.10438194 >>10438057That implies that .999... terminates
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 17:52:56 2019 No.10438199 >>10438194No it doesn't. Go back to >>>/x/ fucking retard
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 18:10:57 2019 No.10438268 >>10438199Yes it does. Go back to >>>/lgbt/ fucking retard
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 18:11:45 2019 No.10438270 >>10438044Based tired old frog poster
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 18:52:47 2019 No.10438350 >>104376949/9 equals 19/9 does not equal a "0.999..." that is different to 1Q.E.D
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 18:57:28 2019 No.10438358 >>104376940.999... x 10 = 9.999... 9.999... - 0.999... = 9Oopsy
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 19:09:30 2019 No.10438394 >>104376940.999... is and infinity sum that converges toward 1. how stupid can you be
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 19:10:16 2019 No.10438396 >>10437694>>10438350$0.\bar9=0.9+0.09+0.009+\cdots=\dfrac{9(0.1)}{1-0.1}=\dfrac{0.9}{0.9}=1$(Using a geometric sum)Never post here again
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 19:26:26 2019 No.10438427 That .1 you think exists is actually accounted for. There is no end to the number but if you pretended there were and you wanted to add that ...1 and equal 1 you wouldn't be able to without going over one because in reality there is no goddamn ...1 because again there is no end to the number.The number .999 aint shit it's just a way of saying 3/3 which equals one
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 19:34:44 2019 No.10438448 >>10437877/pol/ is an example of an idiot
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 19:54:55 2019 No.10438487 >>10438448cry some more
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 22:27:03 2019 No.10438780 >>10438199Yes it does you fucking brainlet
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 22:34:24 2019 No.10438804   File: 321 KB, 546x697, 10333444-1479822591311.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10438780Why are you even talking still when you already lost? Rope yourself you fucking baffoon.
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 22:37:29 2019 No.10438810 >>10438804This is my first reply in this thread you braindead subhuman.999... /= .000001.999... Doesn't end
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 22:57:11 2019 No.10438861 >>104383501/9 = 0.111...+8/9 = 0.888...=9/9 = 0.999...
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:03:39 2019 No.10438869 >>10438861Thank you for confirming what I just saidLearn to read next time
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:09:40 2019 No.10438882 File: 154 KB, 640x398, Alberta-Industrial-Heartland.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] If 0.999...=1 then 0.999...8=0.999...and 0.999....7=0.999...8and so ontherefore 0.000...=1
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:12:00 2019 No.10438893 >>10438882>...8stop
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:17:46 2019 No.10438900 File: 98 KB, 1200x900, nysw7k-b88582437z.120151203130923000g5mdhska.10.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10438893Who cares about that ...8? its never coming anyways. Might aswell throw a ....73 in there
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:23:02 2019 No.10438910 >>10438882>and so onflesh this out a bithttps://youtu.be/BROS4TUg-WU
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:24:49 2019 No.10438916 >>10438882>then 0.999...8=0.999...Isn't correct
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:27:37 2019 No.10438927 >>10438900You can't terminate a recurring decimal at an arbitrary point and say it's equal to another recurring decimal.
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:28:33 2019 No.10438931 >>10438916is too
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:30:05 2019 No.10438937 File: 71 KB, 800x536, s3.reutersmedia.net.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10438910I didnt make it through the whole video, got stuck on 9:59:59...
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:31:28 2019 No.10438940 >>10438927How about 0.999...=1.000...?
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:33:56 2019 No.10438947 >>10438940As long as you don't terminate either decimal that equation is correct
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:35:30 2019 No.10438952 >>10438947and 0.999...888...=1.000...?
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:36:41 2019 No.10438955 >>10438947oh bullshit, terminate on the right just as you please
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:37:36 2019 No.10438960 >>10437694Life gets so much easier when you figure out how to differentiate semantic arguments from ones of substance. "numbers" are symbols for abstract concepts that can describe lengths and amountsDoes the symbol 0.999... represent the infinite series 1/(10^k), or does it represent it's sum? If it's the sum, it's 1, but if you wanted to say 1 why not just 1? If it's not the series, then it can't be compared to any real number, but then why is it written sort of like a number? Either way, who cares? Not me.Most philosophy is rubbish, but study pragmatism.
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:38:14 2019 No.10438962 >>10438952yes 0.999...888... = 0.9... = 1
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:39:25 2019 No.10438964 >>10438960>who cares? Not me>writes a wall of textkek
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:40:45 2019 No.10438967 >>104389620.9...8...7...32...1...76352...42...=1?
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:41:32 2019 No.10438968 >>10437694Both 'proofs' use infinite series in their premises. That's literally the problem.
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:41:51 2019 No.10438970   File: 69 KB, 200x200, julie_steinbacher.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>104388100.999.... == 0. ... 01. Nice try you worthless sack of shit.
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:41:55 2019 No.10438971 >>10438962You're wrong anon>0.999...888...Implies the number is decreasing, which doesn't make it .999...
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:42:49 2019 No.10438975 As mathematics student i can tell you 0.9999is a defined number and there is a space between 0.9999 and 1 for example 0.99995 but if there is no space between 2 numbers p.e. 0.9'(' stands for ongoing ) there is no countable number between 0.9' and 1....further the left side of the picture is the right method to get the value for x ...the ' is resembled by the .... (Sry for bad english im german)
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:43:41 2019 No.10438978 >>10438967yes0.9...8...7...32...1...76352...42... = 0.9... = 1
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:44:49 2019 No.10438981 >>10438971anything after '...' is zero
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:45:23 2019 No.10438984 >>10438970>0.999.... == 0. ... 01No it doesn't.999... Goes on for eternity, if you know the end of the sequence then it is just an infinitesimal number, therefore it isn't .999...You are either baiting or genuinely retarded
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:46:17 2019 No.10438988 >>10438964It's boutta get even more ironic>>10438960I'm gonna go ahead and prove the second option I said was true and 0.999... is not a number to save time because that's where this debate always leads eventuallyI hope we can agree thatif 0.999... is a number, 0.999... is irrationalFrom the definition of equality of real numbers (no number in between)if 0.999... is a number, 1=0.999...So if 0.999... is a number, 1 is irrational1 is not irrationalTherefore 0.999... is not a number
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:47:04 2019 No.10438992 >>10438952You're looking at it the wrong wayImagine you've got 2 cars driving next to eachother on a long road, printing 9's onto the path behind them>0.99999...>0.99999...These cars are printing the same numberAt some point, the 2nd car decides to stop printing 9's and start printing 8's>...999999...>...998888...The two cars are now printing different numbers, and the gap between those numbers will continue to grow forever.>>104389550.999... = 1 = 1.000... (closest number to the right of one)Though that might be going a bit to far for the people in this thread
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:47:06 2019 No.10438993 File: 52 KB, 1024x576, 715928128-norilsk-industrial-area-chimney-architecture-factory.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>104389780.9...a cat...mitch hedberg...3...(you)...=1?
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:47:11 2019 No.10438994 >>10438981No, it represents the number repeating itself
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:48:31 2019 No.10438997 >>10438988>0.999... is irrationalretards say the darndest things
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:49:28 2019 No.10438999 >>10438988>.999... is irrationalBut can't you represent it as a fraction, 3/3?
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:51:14 2019 No.10439001 >>104389940.1 = 10^-10.01 = 10^-20.001 = 10^-3:0.000...1 = 10^-inf = 0
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:51:33 2019 No.10439002 https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/0,999… answer of your question I guess
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 4 23:56:29 2019 No.10439009 File: 26 KB, 645x773, 1511812775109.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10439001>0.000...1 = 10^-inf = 0
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 00:03:55 2019 No.10439023 >>10438997>>10438999Ok that's wrong but the original point still stands.Decimals are an engineering format, fractions are the true representations of numbers. There's no such issue in fraction form and no need for this ... bullshit.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 00:12:48 2019 No.10439043 File: 498 KB, 680x649, brainletSlur.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 00:13:50 2019 No.10439046 >>10439023$\displaystyle\boxed{0 < p < 1} \\p^n-1 = (p-1)(p^{n-1}+p^{n-2}+ \dots +p+1) \\\dfrac{p^n-1}{p-1} = \sum \limits_{j=0}^{n-1}p^j \\\displaystyle\lim_{n \to \infty} \dfrac{p^n-1}{p-1} = \lim_{n \to \infty} \sum \limits_{j=0}^{n-1}p^j \\\displaystyle\dfrac{0-1}{p-1} = \sum \limits_{j=0}^{\infty}p^j \implies \dfrac{1}{1-p} = \sum \limits_{j=0}^{\infty}p^j$
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 00:41:56 2019 No.10439104 >>10439046the fuck is this supposed to prove??
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 00:44:56 2019 No.10439111
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 00:47:25 2019 No.10439122 >>10439111I know what a geometric series tell me what it is you're trying to prove buddy.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 00:49:11 2019 No.10439128 >>104391220.9...=1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 01:13:07 2019 No.10439164 >>10439128How so? Your final equation holds
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 01:30:01 2019 No.10439186 >>104376941 - 0.999 = 0.001The one who agree with this, please suck my cock
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 01:40:26 2019 No.10439206 >>10439186>0.001>my cocksounds about right
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 01:50:23 2019 No.10439222 >>10437767How much greater than 0 is it?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 02:18:46 2019 No.10439265 >>10439164$p=0.1 \\\dfrac{1}{1-0.1}=\frac{10}{9} = 1 + \frac{1}{9} \\\sum_{j=0}^\infty 0.1^j= 1 + \sum_{j=1}^\infty 0.1^j \\9+1=9+9\sum_{j=1}^\infty 0.1^j \\1=9\sum_{j=1}^\infty 0.1^j \\$
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 02:35:50 2019 No.10439291 >>10439265>>10439046Oh so it's literally just the 0.000...1=0 circular reasoning argument but with Latex?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 02:39:17 2019 No.10439296 >>10439291point at the failing lineinstead of making hand wavy overemotional gasps
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 02:52:08 2019 No.10439314 >>10439296line 4 of your first post.p^n goes to 0 with infinity.I know what you're going to say, and the problem is actually on the right hand side of the equation. You can't keep it in series form once you take the limit. You have to take its sum using the identity you used in the line above.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 02:58:41 2019 No.10439326 >>10439314>line 4 of your first post.>p^n goes to 0 with n->infinity.0
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 03:03:01 2019 No.10439336 >>10439326>I don't care that I'm wronggood for youbye bye
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 03:09:43 2019 No.10439353 >>10439314that's just a variation of 1/infhttps://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%2Finf
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 03:15:03 2019 No.10439364 >>10439353Other guy is a retard who didn't read the second part of my post. Don't be like other guy. Read the second part of my post.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 03:17:56 2019 No.10439370 >>10439364>can't keep it in series form once you take the limit.[citation needed]
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 03:30:59 2019 No.10439388 >>10437694you cant compare rational and irrational numbers
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 03:40:15 2019 No.10439400 >>10439388well fuck, there goes my theory that 3 < pi
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 03:45:04 2019 No.10439404 >>10437694OP is stooped. 0.9> = 1.0> Because the point is infinitly small the point doesnt exist.like relativity no one fucking notices that small of a disturbance.BTFO half cup fool nigger.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 03:46:50 2019 No.10439407 >>10439404the pills won't help if you don't take them
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 03:48:09 2019 No.10439408 >>10439370Ok forget the second part of what I said actually. it is p^n that's wrong.0infb=p^-n as n->inf cb=(p^n)(p^-n) as n-> infcb=p^0 as n-> infcb=1if c=0, cb=/=1therefore c=/=0inb4 you just post wolfram instead of actually using reason like a human being
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 03:50:25 2019 No.10439410 >>10439407tell me how large the distance between 0.9> to 1.0>write it.now.write it.....OP is STOOPED!
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 03:55:54 2019 No.10439419 >>104394081/inf>just post wolframit's done already>reason like a human beingI'm sure WA doesn't calculate it, it reads it from a database that a human mathematician created.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 04:00:43 2019 No.10439428 File: 9 KB, 218x231, duuude.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10439408that scribble, my eyesuse latex you beastor at least write it on paper using normal math notation and send the picture
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 04:01:06 2019 No.10439430 >>10439419appealing to authority in an argument of logic is nothing short of conceding defeat
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 04:02:07 2019 No.10439431
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 04:05:07 2019 No.10439435 >>10439430>>10439431>I know more math than WA but can't figure out how latex worksk
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 04:09:00 2019 No.10439439 >>10439435I've written countless homeworks and lab reports in latexBut why the fuck would I take the time just so a couple NEETs on 4chan can read my post in 5 less seconds?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 04:15:20 2019 No.10439443 >>10439439>why write math when talking mathk
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 04:16:53 2019 No.10439444 >>10439443who gives a fuck as long as the information is thereare you gonna make a reply or not?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 04:18:00 2019 No.10439445 >>10439444>as long as the information is thereit isn't, it's just madman scribble
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 04:18:25 2019 No.10439446 File: 112 KB, 953x613, C7473FA965194B0B8FE526924E00C01D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 04:21:57 2019 No.10439449 >>10437694what's an infinitesimally small distance
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 04:22:57 2019 No.10439450 >>10437729so if you cancel the nines, x=nothing? is x an empty number?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 04:24:09 2019 No.10439451 this just means that infinitesimals don't exist because space is continuous, it's the same thing as with Zeno's paradoxes
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 04:25:47 2019 No.10439452 >>10439445are you retarded? What don't you understand, besides the fact that you're wrong?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 04:27:29 2019 No.10439453
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 04:36:51 2019 No.10439458 >>10439453Just admit you're wrong, freak.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 04:48:38 2019 No.10439466 >>10437694there are no infinitesimals in Rin the filed of the reals the convergent series 0.99999... is equal to 1.your argument would be valid in the hyperreals (*R)
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 05:03:55 2019 No.10439479 >>10439458sure, me, WA, wikipedia, every math course in every university everywhereWe're all wrong, thank god we are now saved by the 4chan mathjesus, who writes to us in zodiac killer scribble
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 05:09:18 2019 No.10439482 >>10439479I'm glad you've finally admitted defeat, oh good champion of math
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 05:15:26 2019 No.10439492 >>10439482I see your deduction capabilities are intact.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 06:27:43 2019 No.10439580 >>10439222Infinitesimally.>>104378310.00..1>>10437834No, because 0.00..1 is the next number after 0. By your logic 1 = 2 because there is no number between them (in the domain of natural numbers).
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 06:34:17 2019 No.10439587 >>10437864>every real number is DEFINEDIt's really fucking dumb when people use model processes to try and explain reality.We didn't DISCOVER the Bayer Process. We INVENTED it. We MADE A PROCESS. It produces a result. This result is a direct consequence of a process, not a fact of the nature of aluminum. For fuck's sake. We didn't "bring out the natural aluminum." We fundamentally modified a reality.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 06:36:25 2019 No.10439592 File: 54 KB, 625x325, retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10439580By your logic Z is R
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 06:40:39 2019 No.10439601 File: 60 KB, 442x509, nytRiitti.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10439587>philosophy
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 07:00:52 2019 No.10439622 >>10439592How so?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 07:02:40 2019 No.10439625 >>10437708>living rent free in your head
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 07:04:36 2019 No.10439627 Will people ever stop falling for this bait?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 07:08:25 2019 No.10439632 >>10439622Not him but you're assuming that $|(0,1)|=\aleph_0$ (this is wrong btw)Which is probably what he's getting at
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 09:40:13 2019 No.10439909 File: 2.06 MB, 2976x3968, IMG_20190305_153826.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 10:02:06 2019 No.10439944 >>10439909>let's pretend finite is infinite
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 10:39:20 2019 No.10440025   File: 53 KB, 685x567, 10349128-1547749908968.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10438984Stop trying, just admit you've lost.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 11:00:51 2019 No.10440063 >>10439909>that autistic looking handwritingYou should have been drowned at birth
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 11:03:00 2019 No.10440067 >>10439944where did i pretend that finite was infinite?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 11:04:49 2019 No.10440071 >>10440063autistic looking handdrawing for an autist (you)
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 11:09:30 2019 No.10440080 >>10440025prove him wrong instead of spouting ad hominems
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 11:10:36 2019 No.10440083 >>104399098.99... = 9 thoughBecause $8.\bar9=\\8+0.9+0.09+\cdots=\\8+\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}9\cdot0.1^i=\\8+\dfrac{9\cdot0.1}{1-0.1}=\\8+\dfrac{0.9}{0.9}=\\8+1=\\9$
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 11:14:37 2019 No.10440091 >>10440083Nayeth! Thyne logic hath no bearing on the purity of my argumentation!0.000... - 0 > 0 since therewith following mine ellipsis there beeth an 0.000...1!
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 11:21:16 2019 No.10440105 >>10439206Then lick my boiclit
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 11:21:27 2019 No.10440106 >>104400910.00...1 isn't a number thoughIf it were then >>10439632 would be true because you could create a bijection$f:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow[0,1]$By having f(1)=0.00...1, f(2)=0.00...2, etc.This is wrong though, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality_of_the_continuum
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 11:24:30 2019 No.10440110 >>10440067by showing finite examplesand alluding that the infinite case is similar
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 11:33:54 2019 No.10440130 >>10440110not alluding but reasoning that the infinite case is similar...or do you see any fallacies?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 11:34:58 2019 No.10440134 >>10440083how does the 3rd row equal the 4th row?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 11:44:45 2019 No.10440165 Yesfor All natural numbers n serie $\sigma_{i=1}^n 9/10^n$is less than one. But the limit is one.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 11:45:57 2019 No.10440169 >>10440134It's a geometric sum
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 11:46:25 2019 No.10440171 >>10440130infinity changes everythinghttps://youtu.be/i7c2qz7sO0I?t=40
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 11:49:24 2019 No.10440178 >>10439458Congratulations on proving every mathematician ever wrong internet warrior.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 11:49:30 2019 No.10440179 >>10437694>.33333... = 1/3>3×(1/3) = 1>3×(.33333...) = .99999... = 3×(1/3) = 1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 12:25:08 2019 No.10440249 >>10440179This is what I was thinking, is the whole .999... = 1 issue just a result of using a base 10 system? I've never thought of how the choice of base affects the "decimal" representation of fractions.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 12:28:27 2019 No.10440255 >>10440249>just a result of using a base 10 systemnah, in base 2 0.111...=1in base 160.fff...=1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 13:10:49 2019 No.10440346 >>10437729so what part about infinity didn't you understand?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 13:15:24 2019 No.10440355 >>10438040this
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 13:20:35 2019 No.10440365 >>10439580>next number after 0wanna know i know you never studied math seriously?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 13:34:54 2019 No.10440409 >>10440365What would be a good explanation of why this is false? Would it be sound to say it is because there exist a number between any two other real numbers?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 13:38:01 2019 No.10440422 >>10440080I already did. Why are redditors always this incompetent?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 13:40:55 2019 No.10440435 >>10440409basically yes. also that decimal expansion doesn't work in a way that you can write 0.000...1, there is no such thing as putting a 1 after "infinite" zeroes.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 13:42:56 2019 No.10440444 >>10440435why the quotes?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 13:46:24 2019 No.10440454 >>10440444because infinity is not a number or a quantity per se
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 13:56:24 2019 No.10440489 >>10440454not a number, but the definition does use the word quantityhttps://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=infinityAn unbounded quantity that is greater than every real number.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 13:59:02 2019 No.10440505 >>10440489https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitythe wikipedia definition uses neither.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 14:03:33 2019 No.10440520 >>10440422No you didn'trefer to >>10439445
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 14:23:04 2019 No.10440580 >>10437694>Why is this even still up for debate?It's not. 0.999...=1>>10437877What horrible thing happened in your childhood that you think everyone who doesn't like you is just offended? You're not even offensive, just annoying. That's it. There's no deeper layer to it.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 14:49:42 2019 No.10440655 File: 120 KB, 634x815, IMG_1109.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10440520Nigger, you're retarded. I'm telling you, 0.999 isn't equal to 1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 15:06:30 2019 No.10440716 >>10440655You didn't say .999 in any of your posts
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 15:49:07 2019 No.10440846   >>10437694So are you pointing out that arithmetics are basically flawed?Yes we can agree with this.So this agreement would end these stupid threads forever?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 16:47:18 2019 No.10441017 >>10437983>please don't give me correct answersOk. (the leading zeros are for formatting)x=0.99901x = 0.99902x = 1.99803x = 2.997...08x = 7.99209x = 8.99110x = 9.99There's one less trailing decimal so if x=0.999... then 10x has one less after infinity then 9x does. While related this isn't a answer to the question you asked so you can still pretend you're correct without issue.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 16:52:49 2019 No.10441025 this is why i hate decimals
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 17:23:54 2019 No.10441103 File: 55 KB, 1080x1920, Screenshot_20190305-232247.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 18:11:39 2019 No.10441236 File: 70 KB, 640x1136, IMG_1161.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>104411030.11111111... * 9
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 18:15:52 2019 No.10441245
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 18:42:39 2019 No.10441298 >>10437694I fucking love the demonstration that 0.999 is equal to 1 without buying into it. It's like ye old troll physics comics but if someone shitposted in academy. And people are SPASTIC about it.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 19:10:29 2019 No.10441380 0.999... is not a number. It is a nonsense phrase created with symbols.If it is a number, then show it to me. Show me an infinite string of 9s after a decimal point. "..." is not an infinite string of 9s and it is not a sufficient substitute.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 19:13:22 2019 No.10441389 >>10439587Based retard. The reals have certain mathematical properties. It is a complete metric space which means it's defined in terms of the completeness axiom, which means that every bounded sequence has a least upper bound. The hyper reals (the field extension where infinitesimals are defined). This means every cauchy sequence is convergent which means that the argument is true.Any 2 different reals have an uncountably infinite number of numbers between them (nonzero measure). Are there an infinite amount of numbers between the limit of the sequence and 1? No, there are zero
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 19:19:17 2019 No.10441406 File: 18 KB, 637x631, dumb_wojak_5.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10441380Pi is not a number. A whole lot of numbers after a decimal and then a "..." because of weak excuses like "we can't calculate that" is not a number. I like my numbers with a beginning and an end.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 19:24:40 2019 No.10441416 >>10441380>If it is a number, then show it to me1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 19:26:35 2019 No.10441422 [eqn] 0.9999.... = 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ... [/eqn][eqn] = 9(0.1 + 0.01 + 0.001 + ...) [/eqn][eqn] = 9 \sum_{n = 1}^\infty (\frac{1}{10})^n = 9( \sum_{n = 0}^\infty (\frac{1}{10})^n - 1) [/eqn][eqn] = 9(\frac{1}{1 - \frac{1}{10}} - 1) [/eqn][eqn] = 9(\frac{10}{10 - 1} - 1) = 9(\frac{10}{9} - 1) [/eqn][eqn] = 9(\frac{1}{9}) = 1 \qquad \square [/eqn]There are no assumptions in this proof other than that you need to accept that 0.999... can be expressed as a series which turns out to be a geometric series whose limit is easy to calculate.Anyone who thinks they can dispute this has no hope achieving anything with mathematics.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 19:30:29 2019 No.10441436 >>10439909nigger why do you write your 9 like a g
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 20:02:18 2019 No.10441527 >Arguing based on a fundamental misunderstanding of definitionsLMAO at you brainlets
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 20:08:24 2019 No.10441539 >>10441527That's literally all this board is along with a handful of self-hating actually knowledgable people
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 20:13:12 2019 No.10441548 >>10441406correct>>104414161 is a number, 0.999... is not
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 21:01:24 2019 No.10441647 >>10441548>1 is a number, 0.999... is notImpossible, they're the same thing. They're either both a number or neither of them are. So you're saying 1 is not a number?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 21:03:12 2019 No.10441650 >>10441548it's not a number? well 1/9 is not out of |N nor Z but it is in Q and |R
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 5 23:06:55 2019 No.10441870 >>10441650Man, I know you're right but fuck you. Your way of writing $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{N}$ triggers me more than faggots saying 1≠0.99...
 >> Anonymous Wed Mar 6 01:11:06 2019 No.10442070 >>10439632>>10440106>>10440106>>10440365What if we constructed a countable set of numbers that includes all reals?>>10440505And we all know Wikipedia is correct about everything.
 >> Anonymous Wed Mar 6 01:23:18 2019 No.10442081 File: 5 KB, 221x250, 1505942714133s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10437694https://www.math.brown.edu/~res/INF/handout3.pdfHow about you spergs learn what a real number is?
 >> Anonymous Wed Mar 6 08:50:42 2019 No.10442599 >>10442070>And we all know Wikipedia is correct about everything.about math it typically is, yeswikipedia math articles are often edited by career mathematicians and professors
 >> Anonymous Wed Mar 6 08:51:45 2019 No.10442604 >>10442081hello, undergraddid you feel smart last week when the prof introduced dedekind cuts?real men use cauchy sequences
 >> Anonymous Wed Mar 6 08:52:45 2019 No.10442608 >>10442070>What if we constructed a countable set of numbers that includes all reals?why don't you ask Cantor and see what he says
 >> Anonymous Wed Mar 6 09:40:26 2019 No.10442675 >>10441236You probably added lots of 1 to represent 0.111... but you have to divide 1/9 to get infinite onesI as well get 0.999... if I just write myself lots of ones
 >> Anonymous Wed Mar 6 15:11:19 2019 No.10443386 >>10439265I would have just said that the constant coefficient is $0.9$, not $9$, but overall well done. I love seeing the truth $\LaTeX$ed out.
 >> Anonymous Wed Mar 6 15:19:25 2019 No.10443404 >>10439408>he thinks the multiplication rule of limits holds for infinite limitsBased retard
 >> Anonymous Wed Mar 6 15:56:18 2019 No.10443493 File: 38 KB, 713x673, proof.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Wed Mar 6 16:43:08 2019 No.10443601 >>10437694ok so what's 1-0.999...?1-0.9=0.10.1-0.09=0.001...you keep doing this but you never stop, it's 0.0000... by induction all the next ones are 0 too so it's just 0
 >> Anonymous Wed Mar 6 16:57:09 2019 No.10443628 >>10439408c=p^m as m->infb=p^-n as n->inf cb=(p^m)(p^-n) as m,n-> infcb=p^(m-n) as m,n-> inf
 >> Anonymous Wed Mar 6 18:07:53 2019 No.10443787   >>10439408>$0\times\infty$ cannot equal $1$$0\times\infty = \lim_{x\to 0} x\times\frac{1}{x} = 1 \\0\times\infty = \lim_{x\to 0} x^2 \times\frac{1}{x} = 0 \\0\times\infty = \lim_{x\to 0^+} x\times\frac{1}{x^2} = \infty \\0\times\infty = \lim_{x\to 0^-} x\times\frac{1}{x^2} = -\infty$They're called indeterminate forms, retard. I bet you think $1^\infty = 1$ as well.Leave immediately and do not come back until you have taken a high school calculus course.
 >> Anonymous Wed Mar 6 18:17:39 2019 No.10443809 >>10439408>$0\times\infty$ cannot be $1$\displaystyle\begin{alignat*}{2}0\times\infty&=\lim_{x\to0}x\times\frac{1}{x}&&=1\\0\times\infty&=\lim_{x\to0}x^2\times\frac{1}{x}&&=0\\0\times\infty&=\lim_{x\to0^+}x\times\frac{1}{x^2}&&=\infty\\0\times\infty&=\lim_{x\to0^-}x\times\frac{1}{x^2}&&=-\infty\end{alignat*}They're called indeterminate forms, retard. I bet you also think $1^\infty$ cannot be anything but $1$.Leave immediately and do not come back until you have taken a high school calculus course.
 >> Anonymous Wed Mar 6 19:46:49 2019 No.10444035 >>10437705dy/dx is undefined, dx is 0
 >> Anonymous Wed Mar 6 20:08:44 2019 No.10444082 10s = 9.999....s = 0.999......10s = 9.999....-s = 0.999...9s = 9.000...s = 1.000....This is how numberphile explained it, but a better way to explain is10s = 9.999....s = 0.999.....10s = 9.999...- 0.999...s = 0.999...9.00000000000000000......1s = 9(9.00000000000......1s)/(9.000000......1s) this is sort of like the same question as ∞/∞ but we could argue 9/9.0000000000....1 = 0.999999..... but 0.000000000....1 = 0 because 0.99999 = 1, an infinitesimal gives you the illusion that 9 = 9.0000001 but really 0.999999 strings on for infinity so this one googleplexth is undefined.
 >> Anonymous Wed Mar 6 21:18:26 2019 No.10444206 File: 121 KB, 220x286, infinitely based.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10437705fpbp>"To those who ask what the infinitely small quantity in mathematics is, we answer that it is actually zero. Hence there are not so many mysteries hidden in this concept as they are usually believed to be." -Leonhard Euler
 >> Anonymous Wed Mar 6 21:23:29 2019 No.10444219 File: 242 KB, 1200x1211, 1551873509686.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] I will say this one last time, you FUCKING, fucking retards.0.333333..... is an incomplete expression. It represents 1 as being constantly divided by 3, therefore 1/3.Multiply 0.33333... and you get 0.9999.... They are both incomplete expressions. It's just a inherent problem of the numbering system humans invented.
 >> Anonymous Wed Mar 6 21:27:33 2019 No.10444225 >>10444219Worst post ITT
 >> Anonymous Wed Mar 6 21:42:43 2019 No.10444256 >>10444219>It represents 1 as being constantly divided by 3No, $\cfrac{1}{3\cdot\cfrac{1}{3\cdot\cfrac{1}{\cdots}}}\ne0.\bar9$If you take the partial fractions you'd see it doesn't converge
 >> Anonymous Wed Mar 6 21:44:04 2019 No.10444262 >>10444256sorry, meant that it approaches zero
 >> Anonymous Wed Mar 6 21:45:47 2019 No.10444265 >>10444256>>10444262also meant $0.\bar3$ lol
 >> Anonymous Wed Mar 6 21:46:55 2019 No.10444267 >>10443493Just use convergence test and geometric series formula
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 7 15:07:32 2019 No.10445983 >>10443493Missing a for all n bigger than N there buddy.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 7 15:10:41 2019 No.10445990 >>10442604Do you think it's necessary to learn aboit dedekind cuts because some nice idea is used in the proof or something like that? I was only taught the method with the equivalence classes of Cauchy series recently.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 7 15:10:50 2019 No.10445991 >>10437694>1/3 = 0.333333...>2/3 = 0.666666...>3/3 = 0.999999... = 1
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 7 16:35:12 2019 No.10446224 File: 12 KB, 279x288, 1503296250350.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10445991>1/3 = 0.333333...
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 7 16:47:06 2019 No.10446264 >>10437994/pol/ lives rent-free in everyone's minds. they don't even think about you
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 7 17:12:55 2019 No.10446361 Get on the next level....9999=x...99990=10*x...99999=10*x+9x=10*x+90=9*x+9x=-1so...999=-1You don't trust me? Do ...9999*....999 and admire the result.Or just do 0-1 in a naive way.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 7 19:07:11 2019 No.10446728 >>10446361wew you're retarded
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 8 00:09:16 2019 No.10447278 File: 396 KB, 562x518, 1551249868908.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10444265Neat
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 8 00:18:21 2019 No.10447305 >>10437694that statement isn't even true now fuck off9(.999)=8.991the x in 10x=9.999 is different than x in 9x=9 why the fuck you tryin to say 1=.999
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 8 00:52:42 2019 No.10447371 >>10447305What are you talking about?I think you've misunderstoodx = .99910x = 9.99910x - x = 99x = 9/9 /9x = 1Therefore .999 = 1
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 8 00:55:00 2019 No.10447373 >>10446728thats literally valid in the p adics you fucking undergrad
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 8 00:57:32 2019 No.10447374 >>10447373>valid in the p adicsSo it's nothing
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 8 01:02:37 2019 No.10447387 >>10447374its not even prime you moronnicely done showing off that you dont know what youre fucking talking about though
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 8 01:04:47 2019 No.10447390 >>10447387You are the biggest brainlet ITTNot even worth my time to explain how wrong you areNever post on /sci/ again for the sake of the rest of us
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 8 01:53:55 2019 No.10447462 >>10447371because you are trying to say x=.999=1 by using two different equations, the fuck you smoking bro?
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 8 03:24:13 2019 No.10447576 >>10446728And you failed.
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 8 09:15:08 2019 No.10448018 >>10447462anon...Please explain your reasoning to me
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:28:51 2019 No.10448509 >>10437705>>10444206Although, zero is an absence of quantity
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:18:35 2019 No.10448888 >>10447462It's the same equationYou're allowed to add, subtract, divide, multiply, and take the root of one side assuming you do the same to the other side and maintain the equalityYou should know this from elementary school
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:30:26 2019 No.10448923 >>10448888Quads of truth and this anon is still wrong hahahaha
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 8 22:24:28 2019 No.10449785 >>104462241/3 = 3/10 + 1/30= 0.3 + 1/30= 0.33 + 1/300= 0.333 + 1/3000:= 0.3... + 1/inf = 0.3... + 0 = 0.3...
 >> Anonymous Sat Mar 9 07:18:55 2019 No.10450713 >>10444206Based Euler
 >> Anonymous Sat Mar 9 13:22:47 2019 No.10451532 >>10437694exactly 1=/=.999 you just fucked up OP
 >> Anonymous Sat Mar 9 13:59:15 2019 No.10451622 >>10444206>FilenameKEK
 >> Anonymous Sat Mar 9 15:58:07 2019 No.10451904 >>10437694There's a lemma stating that two real numbers are unequal to each other if you can find at least one number between both of them.You wont find one between 0,9999... and 1
 >> Anonymous Sat Mar 9 16:18:47 2019 No.10451937 >Why is this even still up for debate?Because /sci/ still takes the bait after 9 years of existence.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 10 00:36:13 2019 No.10453044 >>10439446how is that induction?
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 10 00:57:06 2019 No.10453082 >>10451937>debate>de bait>baithehe
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 10 04:15:46 2019 No.10453413 >>10451904it's shitanon's lemma: two numbers are equal if they're equal
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 10 13:35:15 2019 No.10454237 top b8
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 10 13:46:57 2019 No.10454272 >>10439046>>10439408>>10443493>>10443809>>10443628>Unironically using limits which are just as unconstructive as infinitesimals, R and all the other 0.999... garbage
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 10 13:52:20 2019 No.10454288 >>10454272fuck off back to >>>/x/
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 10 13:55:21 2019 No.10454293 File: 58 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10454288Not so fast... This guy want to have a talk with you.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 10 13:56:22 2019 No.10454294 >>10437694Kek
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 10 13:56:35 2019 No.10454296 >>10454293pedos don't count
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 10 13:59:08 2019 No.10454304 >>10454296A: "your proposed mathematical therorem doesn't sufficently hold"B: "Wow you're a pedophile"
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 10 14:00:55 2019 No.10454309 >>10454293>$\pi$ doesn't real!!! REEEEE
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 10 14:02:46 2019 No.10454315 >>10454304>bus stop masturbator screams at people walking bysorry, no Fields medal for you
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 10 14:04:26 2019 No.10454319 >>10438396>9(0.1)please, for holy fuck's sake, don't do this. reads like the function 9 applied to the parameter 0.1. what does it cost to add the multiplication operator?
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 10 14:08:36 2019 No.10454329 >>10437877Every response before this verified your claim.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 10 14:40:32 2019 No.10454405 >>10437694[eqn]0.999999...=0.9+0.09+0.009...=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}9\cdot10^{-n}[/eqn]I'm sure you agree so far. However, here's the thing about infinite sums, theyare — by definition — equal the limit of their partial sums.That means:[eqn]\sum_{n=b}^{\infty}f(x)=\lim_{i\to\infty}\sum_{n=b}^{i}f(x)[/eqn]So that $0.999999...$ is in fact equal to the limit of the following sum:$0.9$$0.99$$0.999$...Which is obviously equal to 1. So begone, brainlet.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 10 14:43:42 2019 No.10454412 >>10437854-1/12
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 10 14:44:07 2019 No.10454415 >>10437694>>10454405WTF my latex got messed up but it worked in the box where you try it. I hate this.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 10 14:54:52 2019 No.10454444 >>10454405>equalthelimitoftheirpartialsumsthats a weird name for a variable
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 10 15:08:20 2019 No.10454483 If I had a cake and a paper thin slice of cake was taken from me, I might as well have a full cake.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 10 15:12:33 2019 No.10454496 >>10454319Is this a hot new meme or are you really that autistic
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 10 15:13:45 2019 No.10454498 >>10454415Use \text{*put text here*} if you want to write in math mode
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 10 15:15:27 2019 No.10454504 >>10437877Anti-polsmokers are just autists that fear political discussion. They use pol an excuse to invalidate whatever that person just said if it isnt not political. Ironically anti-polsmokers make things political.
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 00:37:03 2019 No.10455887 >>10454272Literally all the things you listed are rigorously defined you retard lmao
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 00:44:29 2019 No.10455910 File: 18 KB, 326x294, bike.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10439587>we invent, not discover, emergent processes in already existing systemsPeople invent the signifiers to describe the process. The process itself already exists in potential.
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 01:05:56 2019 No.10455965 >>10455910>already existing systemsThat we invented.
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 10:27:01 2019 No.10456621 File: 175 KB, 971x580, BergWilder.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10455887>Literally all the things you listed are rigorously defined
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 10:30:44 2019 No.10456625 File: 264 KB, 1149x700, BergWilder2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10455887>all the things you listed are rigorously defined
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 10:31:47 2019 No.10456627 File: 265 KB, 1149x700, BergWilder3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10455887>rigorously defined
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 10:42:11 2019 No.10456652 Just go full Pythagoras, it solves the problem
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 10:50:06 2019 No.10456681 >>10437694Is there number between it and 1? No? It's one. Welcome to real numbers.
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 11:03:48 2019 No.10456712 >>10456627Always post a jpg image of a charlatan and crook if you want to get believed on /sci..
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 11:05:28 2019 No.10456714
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 11:11:40 2019 No.10456731 >>10456712Fuck you and your bullshit opinion
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 11:13:03 2019 No.10456733 >>10456731>i have no argument
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 11:16:36 2019 No.10456745 >>10437751By infinitesimal they mean infinitely small.By distance they mean difference (think $\|x-y\|$)By always they mean that no matter how many more digits you consider, you always get some difference; that is, you never get to exactly 1.Where they are wrong, however, is in how infinite sums work. You can get arbitrarily close to 1 by factoring a sufficient amount of digits, so it equals 1.
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 13:36:46 2019 No.10457110 >>10441017>after infinityF
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 13:58:15 2019 No.10457175 >>10437694Neither of those two statements are contradictory.x = 0.999... = 1
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 14:11:29 2019 No.10457215 Why does this literal zero effort shitpost continually get responses and why am I responding to it too?
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 14:36:09 2019 No.10457257 File: 78 KB, 562x467, 1523535101781.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10443493>He has to use first principles
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 15:34:24 2019 No.10457401 >>10444206wow Euler was based
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 15:54:29 2019 No.10457461 >>10453044it's pronounced inductriontation
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 16:27:42 2019 No.10457568 >>10437850then 1 = 3/3 = 3/3 1/3 = 0.333...1/3 * 3 = 0.999...0.999... = 3/3 = 1
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 16:40:50 2019 No.10457610 >>10456627>even this schizo retard can't deny the undeniable prowess and rigor of based Rudin
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 18:07:33 2019 No.10457832 >>10457610>>10456733ok let's say we have this:$\lim_{x\rightarrow\infty}-\lim_{y\rightarrow\infty} , (x,y) \in \mathbb{N}$The problem with this is that it doesn't has any meaning but it would if we wouldn't write it up like an actual retard.This functions can be executed by something in reality, f.e. you could try to count from x to inf without ever raising y or you could go like x+1 and y+1 or the other way -> y+1 and x+1. The way how the function is executed is hidden because inf says just "heh I'm totally random until I'm too big for you little boy".And you actually didn't mean inf when writing this, you're meaning "arbitrary close to inf", not inf itself. If so then just write it down: $\lim_{x\rightarrow k}-\lim_{y\rightarrow a} , (x,y) \in \mathbb{N} , (k,a) \in \textup{arbitrary high}\in \mathbb{N} \textup{ simultaneously counted per cycle}$
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 18:23:32 2019 No.10457864 >>10437694The decimal system was a mistake
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 18:26:43 2019 No.10457873 File: 57 KB, 550x467, 41948209381.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10438078Funniest thing I've ever seen on this board
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 18:37:53 2019 No.10457903 >>10457832Literally illegible. Take your pills, Wildasberger.
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:08:30 2019 No.10458161 >>10437694it's not 1, but for all intensive purposes its 1.
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 23:28:53 2019 No.10458649 >>10458161For all intents and purposes*, it is 1, because it is 1.Also, if you study it intensively, you will see that it is 1.
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 23:34:56 2019 No.10458664 >>10457832>you actually didn't mean infwrong
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 23:36:22 2019 No.10458668 >>10458161>it's not 1,it's exactly 1
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 11 23:41:34 2019 No.10458680 >>10454272Constructivists literally don't believe in excluded middle lmao gtfo with your nonsense axioms
>>