Disprove, please

[Anonymous No.10508724]

Please disprove me, pleaaassssseeeee

[Anonymous No.10508728]

>>10508724

[Anonymous No.10508729]

>>10508724
Why do you think it needs disproof?

[Anonymous No.10508730]

how is what I posted not a visual proof

[Anonymous No.10508731]

it seems pretty obvious right?

[Anonymous No.10509166]

[Proof is left as an exercise]

[Anonymous No.10509332]

>>10508724
the limit does not exist.

[Anonymous No.10509343]

>>10509332
Why not?

[Anonymous No.10509347]

>>10509343
there's a whole thread about this still alive if you're curious

[Anonymous No.10509349]

>>10509343
because infinity is not a number, its a concept.
you can name any finite number and you can always name a bigger one than that. the idea that you can go on naming bigger numbers the idea of it never ending is infinity.
it's more like a numerical concept or an idea about numbers than a number itself.
and because it's not a finite definite number, how can you derive a finite definite answer?

[Anonymous No.10509356]

>>10508724
Yes, you can think of a line as a circle of infinite radius if you want to. There are ways to make the idea precise, and sometimes, in certain contexts, it can be useful. However there is no mystical meaning behind it, and looking at lines this way usually is not helpful at all.

[Anonymous No.10509359]

What in OP's pic is supposed to be wrong? The limits are not only correct but trivial. My question is why OP thinks he's hot shit for writing down two trivial limits.

[Anonymous No.10509378]

>>10509347
note that it no longer behaves like a function when it's input is no longer a finite number.

[Anonymous No.10509399]

>>10509349
I'm sure my maths degree course had some limits as x tends to infinity.
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 +... is 1 as x tends to infinity.

[Anonymous No.10509428]

>>10509399
it heads towards 1 sure, and the limit kinda would be 1 but only 1 if you get to infinity. which will never happen because there is no infinity to actually be at or get to.
it like a homing missle that has it's sights set on a specific part of a big wall, and it locks on and sets off to hit the wall. but then a bazooka comes and blows that part out. the limit is not where exactly is it going to hit but rather where is it heading towards. the spot in the wall no longer exists the missile will just keep going but the limit is not where it hits its where was it was it heading.
so adding those up if you could get to infinity would be 1, but infinity is not a place you can go. so it's not actually 1.
in the instance of 1/r you can see that you can get two different answers. when approaching two different directions. illustrating the function no longer operates as a function. the circle becomes a line if the radius is infinity large. but infinity large is not a measurement of a radius. it's not quantifiable. so you can't have a circle that has 0 curvature that actually exists.
likewise you could add forever and not actually get to 1.the limit is not a guarantee that the point exists.

[Anonymous No.10509453]

>>10509428
That's a very long-winded way of saying you disagree with something that's generally accepted.

[Anonymous No.10509464]

>>10509428
>and the limit kinda would be 1
No, the limit is 1 by definition. If you are talking about some other meaning of the word "limit" then it's irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.10509466]

>>10509453
I don't think the limit and the point being there because the limit and the point are the same thing is generally accepted at all. limits for points undefined is in example of this.

[Anonymous No.10509497]

>>10509464
well look at the graph of 1/r are those points wrong? if they are evaluated those finite points exist except at zero in that case not only is the point undefined by virtue of not being a finite point but the limit does not exist by virtue of also not being a defined limit. if you put a little plus and you said okay ignore the negative then the limit is 0 but also the limit does not exist. you have to remember your'e evaluating
A. a limit whose point may not exist
B. evaluating with an abstract numerical concept.
just because when evaluated it's 0 doesn't mean it actually is and exists as 0.

[Anonymous No.10509511]

>>10509497
>if they are evaluated those finite points exist except at zero in that case not only is the point undefined by virtue of not being a finite point but the limit does not exist by virtue of also not being a defined limit.
Which has nothing to do with infinity. If the left limit was -1 and the right limit was 1 the same would occur.

>if you put a little plus and you said okay ignore the negative then the limit is 0 but also the limit does not exist.
Huh? Are you talking about the limit at 0 from the positive side or the limit at infinity?

[Anonymous No.10509553]

>>10509511
1. yes the discontinuity means there is no point. in this instance the asymptote means there is no point or limit.
2. yeah just the limit from the positive side.
most accurately the limit evaluated is 0 but does not exist I think is the proper way of stating it. And this makes sense, infinity is not a number so the point isn't actually there. but it's a limit so that doesn't matter, but its a discontinuity in a way that means the limit is different from the positive and negative side. so it does not actually exist even though it could be evaluated as being 0.

[Anonymous No.10510467]

>>10509553
>most accurately the limit evaluated is 0 but does not exist I think is the proper way of stating it.
No the limit of 1/r as r approaches 0 from the positive side is infinity.

>And this makes sense, infinity is not a number so the point isn't actually there.
It has nothing to do with infinity though. The limits from either side could just as easily be finite and unequal. I already said this.