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

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

# /sci/ - Science & Math

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 44 KB, 862x266, Point_9_Repeating.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Why is this true?

 >> Anonymous Sat Jan 25 17:40:30 2020 No.11331554 >>11331532It isn't really unless you are talking about the symbols.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jan 25 17:59:20 2020 No.11331600 >>11331532Also, there is a drawing of a cock on the one, so you might want to use a different image next time.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jan 25 18:13:04 2020 No.11331631 >>11331554>>11331600What do you mean?
 >> Anonymous Sat Jan 25 18:38:50 2020 No.11331700 It isn't if you understand the notation of an infinite series doesn't actually mean an infinite number of sums, but the limit to which the sequence converges.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jan 25 20:42:39 2020 No.11332016 astounding
 >> Anonymous Sat Jan 25 21:10:39 2020 No.11332054 >>11331631What he means is that 0.9999.... < lim{x -> 1-} (x)
 >> Anonymous Sat Jan 25 21:57:47 2020 No.11332123 >>11332054What are you saying?
 >> Anonymous Sat Jan 25 22:36:47 2020 No.11332183 >>11332054low iq and wrong.>>11331631what he means is0.9999... ~~= lim {lacid benis -> errect benis} (x) ^ bagina
 >> Anonymous Sat Jan 25 23:37:57 2020 No.11332277 >>11331532You can use limits to prove this but I'll walk through the full argument instead of just invoking limits cold.First choose any number 0 < x < 1, then there's some y = 1 - x, and y is some small positive number.y has some decimal representation, choose enough zeros that something like .0000000000000000001 is smaller than y.Then x < 1 - .0000000000000000001 = .9999999999999999999, which is still less than .9999999999999999999999999999999 going on forever.So then any number you choose smaller than 1 can be proven to be strictly smaller than .999 repeating.And I assume we can agree that .999 repeating isn't any larger than 1, so it must be equal to 1.
 >> Prof Sai Sat Jan 25 23:43:19 2020 No.11332283 File: 10 KB, 618x175, Slope Proof .999...≠ 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11331532If .999.. = 1 then 1=0.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jan 25 23:43:28 2020 No.11332284 What is the difference between this and 0.999...?
 >> Anonymous Sat Jan 25 23:44:25 2020 No.11332286 >>11331532dude just means if you want your dick to fit into a hole with a diameter very close to your dicks diameter it will fit even tho your ruler was not that precise. there is allways lub also.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jan 25 23:45:47 2020 No.11332288 >>11332283The real numbers are dense, so induction does not work
 >> Anonymous Sat Jan 25 23:48:24 2020 No.11332293 >>11332283The limit of that series of functions actually is f(x) = 0 though.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jan 25 23:55:20 2020 No.11332307 >>11332277If 0.999999 = 1 then 1.00....1 = 1. Therefore everything is equal.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jan 25 23:56:46 2020 No.11332309   >>11332277Why isn't 0.999... equal to something no more nonsensical than a number with infinitely-repeating digits, i.e. there are no numbers between 0.999... and 1? Who gives a fuck. It is no more nonsensical to say 0.999... is infinitely close to 1 as 0.999... is in the first place.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jan 25 23:59:45 2020 No.11332316 >>11332277Why isn't 0.999... equal to something no more nonsensical than a number with infinitely-repeating digits, i.e. there are no numbers between 0.999... and 1? Who gives a fuck. It is no more nonsensical to say 0.999... is infinitely close to 1 than is 0.999... in the first place.
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 00:04:58 2020 No.11332324 >>113323071.00....1 is not really a number. If you have a chain of zeros followed by a 1, then the chain of zeros is not infinite, it would have been longer if you just kept adding zeros.>>11332316If there are no numbers between 0.999... and 1, then what is their sum divided by 2?
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 00:06:09 2020 No.11332327 >>11332307ting is there is nothing equal in nature.
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 00:07:09 2020 No.11332329 The mathematical illiteracy of this board is astounding sometimes.
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 00:10:20 2020 No.11332336 >>11332324>what is their sum divided by 2?0.999...
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 00:17:34 2020 No.11332346 >>11332329Is the one who questions their indoctrination smart or stupid?
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 00:19:49 2020 No.11332351 >>11332123Hes saying that 0.999999.... is less than the limit of x as x approaches 1 from the left.
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 00:21:43 2020 No.11332354 >>11332336Then the following argument seems to apply:.5*(1 + 0.999...) = 0.999...1 + 0.999... = 2*(0.999...)1 + 0.999... = 0.999... + 0.999...1 = 0.999...
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 00:31:04 2020 No.11332369 becuz....0.999 is not 1. It's approximately 1, but it isn't one. You'd have to use the squiggly lines for it to be true.
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 00:49:22 2020 No.11332412 >>11331532cocky numbers are an entirely different class of numbers than real numbers.
 >> Prof Sai Sun Jan 26 03:13:48 2020 No.11332610 File: 9 KB, 216x144, 0≠0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11332288>>11332293What is the slope of line BZ? How is it different from BW? If you have two different lines with the same slope, then hasn't your number system failed?
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 10:19:09 2020 No.11333219 >>11331532intuitive and non-rigorous treatment of numbers can get you only so far. once you move past rationals, you have to say how exactly do you define "numbers" and their operations, otherwise you run into inconsistencies. in contemporary mathematics, the symbol 0.999... unarguably stands for the limit of some sequence, and this limit unarguably equals 1. feel free to invent your own number system where 0.999... is not 1, but you have to be precise. no bullshit explanations like "it only gets closer but never actually gets there".
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 10:52:11 2020 No.11333285 >>11331532because infinitesimals exist
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 11:02:53 2020 No.11333310 File: 2.90 MB, 638x360, iowa.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] Pajeet and highschooler central - the thread. Very embarrassing for this board, seeing the very low intelligence of the posters in this thread. I think many good people left this board because of threads like these.Besides: have you people not been there for the last 100 times this exact thread was made in the last year? Are all of you so new here?I am very disappointed... Perhaps I will leave.
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 11:09:24 2020 No.11333327 >>11333310Please don't leave, what kind of threads and replies do you like so we can be more satisfactory next time?
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 11:14:20 2020 No.11333341 >>11333327Threads about actual things and concepts, not arguing about semantics or things that don't have any meaning. Replies by informed and curious people, not by narcissistic schizos with not enough attention span to look up what real numbers are or what an equation even means. Also threads that have not been made literally hundreds of times before.
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 11:14:21 2020 No.11333342 >>11331532It’s just the limit of a convergent series, you cunt
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 12:21:20 2020 No.11333528 Fyi the real numbers are constructed as equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences, which is why everyone always invokes the limit argument and why that argument even makes sense in the first palce.
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 12:32:20 2020 No.11333555 >>11331532real answer: it isn't truehyperreal answer: depends on how you are defining the numbers
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 12:53:08 2020 No.11333618   >>11332354When something doesn't make sense, you need to consider the possibility that it is you who don't understand something. Have you considered that possibility?5*(1 + 0.999...) = 9.999... obviously>1 + 0.999... = 2*(0.999...)>1 + 0.999... = 0.999... + 0.999...point?>1 = 0.999...non sequitur, assumes 0.999... can equal 0.999... 0.999... i nonsensical in the first place. There's no reason to assume one infinity equals another, even when composed of the same number.
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 12:54:17 2020 No.11333621 >>11332354When something doesn't make sense, you need to consider the possibility that it is you who don't understand something. Have you considered that possibility?5*(1 + 0.999...) = 9.999... obviously>1 + 0.999... = 2*(0.999...)>1 + 0.999... = 0.999... + 0.999...point?>1 = 0.999...non sequitur, assumes 0.999... can equal 0.999... 0.999... is nonsensical in the first place. There's no reason to assume one infinity equals another, even when composed of the same number.
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 13:18:24 2020 No.11333705 File: 40 KB, 657x527, help.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11332324>The real numbers are dense, so induction does not work>0 isn't a numberlol keep the excuse coming fren
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 15:34:48 2020 No.11334059 WELCOMETOTHE MACHINE
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 15:39:36 2020 No.11334069 >>11333555Based, check'd and kek'd
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 16:31:55 2020 No.11334228 >>11331532Well if you added a dick to 0.9999... it would be true. Alternatively, remove the dick and it would also be true. Facts.
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 16:41:27 2020 No.11334253 >>11331532because 1 is not penis1
 >> Prof Sai Sun Jan 26 18:54:53 2020 No.11334633 File: 655 KB, 1091x707, Camcorder.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11332324>If there are no numbers between 0.999... and 1, then what is their sum divided by 2?It depends on whether or not you find it useful to keep count of infinitesimals to that level of detail or not. If you don't find that necessary then half of an infinitesimal is meaningless, like asking what 1/2 means in the set of Whole numbers.If you want to keep track of such things then you can define an infinitesimal number line. Then:.999... = [email protected](.999...+1)/2 = [email protected]with @ being like a decimal point marking the transition between Real and Infinitesimal values. You can also include ; to mark infinite and sub-infinitesimal quantities if you want.([email protected])/0 = 1;[email protected]
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:06:20 2020 No.11335000 >>11332307>1.00....1 = 1Wrong. You not understanding the terminology and notation isn't our problem.
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:09:11 2020 No.11335006 >>11332346Yes, if they're questioning something obviously true just to be edgy and different.
 >> Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:10:32 2020 No.11335014 >>11332369Technically true! .999=/=1.But .999...=1The ellipses are actually important.
 >> Prof Sai Mon Jan 27 10:34:17 2020 No.11336356 File: 8 KB, 272x185, download-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] Base infinity:.999... = .999... = [email protected]1+2+3+4+5+... = 1;(-1/12)@...999 = 1;[email protected](.999...+1)/2 = [email protected]> A random number generator will output a real number between 0 and 1:Chance of .5 = @1Chance of 2 = 0
 >> Anonymous Mon Jan 27 12:00:10 2020 No.11336550 >>11331532https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...Stop being ignorant of math.
 >> Prof Sai Mon Jan 27 13:23:54 2020 No.11336793
 >> Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:22:29 2020 No.11337474 >>11336793I accept the reality that retards are allowed to petition Wikipedia to make stupid edits based on not understanding the material nearly as well as they think they do.
 >> Anonymous Tue Jan 28 00:35:28 2020 No.11338264 if it exists...
 >> Anonymous Tue Jan 28 00:38:41 2020 No.11338270 >>11331532Because infinity doesn't exist.http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/infinity.html
 >> Anonymous Tue Jan 28 00:40:31 2020 No.11338274 this was a big one... my proudest fap to date... felt powerful
 >> Anonymous Tue Jan 28 00:52:24 2020 No.11338284 >>11336793how the fuck can 0.999.... = 1 these mathematic nerds blow my mind sometimes
 >> Anonymous Tue Jan 28 01:04:09 2020 No.11338295 Everyone who thinks there is a difference is too low IQ>OMG HOW CAN 9S EQUAL 1!!!!!
 >> Anonymous Tue Jan 28 01:07:03 2020 No.11338303 Something's isn't right about this. This is the fifth time today that I've coomed to this image. Currently in the afterglow of round 5, I'm meditating on my performance overall, rounds 1-5, looking for properties, but it's weird. Round 4 was anomalous: ~3pm I was in a parking garage restroom with no internet because of all the concrete, but luckily I had the image saved on my phone. I was getting really into it when my phone died sadly. In the desperate heat of the moment I erected a pencil and scribed the formula from memory on the wall of the stall. JUST AS GOOD, and I finished in record time! Felt good at the time, but in retrospect I'm worried this might be some kind of cognitohazzard. If so, it might be malevolent. Then again, perhaps it is benevolent. My inner mathematician keeps asking, what is this shit? I just keep cooming and cooming, and the more I do, the less opaque the truth of it becomes. It keeps happening, but a new prospect vexes me, that maybe I don't really understand it at all. I can't shake that horrible feeling that I don't know it well enough, like I'm missing something somewhere. I've decided to continue researching this inequality I've taken to calling The Wang Theorem. I'll post any Wang Theoretic developments in /mg/, but it might take some time.
 >> Anonymous Tue Jan 28 01:07:38 2020 No.11338304 >>11338295sorry bro but face reality 0.999 is not = 1
 >> Anonymous Tue Jan 28 01:12:36 2020 No.11338312 File: 112 KB, 953x613, 0.999 = 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11338304Oh look, it's THIS thread again...
 >> Anonymous Tue Jan 28 01:15:02 2020 No.11338318 >>11338312i like your picture, but that's proving that 0.999... = 1. not 0.999 = 1 :)
 >> Anonymous Tue Jan 28 01:18:51 2020 No.11338320 >>11338318learn to [math]LaTeX[/math]
 >> Anonymous Tue Jan 28 01:31:11 2020 No.11338337 >>11332346>>11335006>obviously true...go on
 >> Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:49:17 2020 No.11339452 >>11338284How the fuck can 2/2 = 1? It's almost as though math nerds aren't stupid enough to believe that there's only one way to write down a number!
 >> Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:50:20 2020 No.11339454 >>11338304True, you need ellipses.
 >> Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:51:23 2020 No.11339456 >>11338337>>11338312Retard who wrote comment 37, read the 12 comment written by the math CHAD.
 >> Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:54:24 2020 No.11339466 >>11331532because 1/9 is 0.1111111So 0.999999 is 9/9 is 1
 >> Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:55:26 2020 No.11339474 >>11339466uh let me rephrase0.111... is 1/9and 0.999... = 9 * 0.111... = 9 * 1/9 = 9/9 = 1
 >> Anonymous Tue Jan 28 13:07:55 2020 No.11339510 >>11339474It's sad that people are literally too stupid to understand this simple concept :(
 >> Anonymous Tue Jan 28 13:52:20 2020 No.11339609 >>11339510Yes. It is funny that you say this, and your sadness is also a thing that is funny. I am and we are, all of us, except you, laughing at your misfortune and the other things.
 >> Anonymous Tue Jan 28 13:55:15 2020 No.11339619 >>11339609We're both on 4chan instead of outside. To a certain extent, we are all sad.
 >> Anonymous Tue Jan 28 14:09:30 2020 No.11339660 >>11331532The same number can be represented in different ways.0.5 = 1/2 = 2/4. It is not strange that the same number can be represented in different ways, you already know that a fraction can be represented in infinite different ways.So what you have there is two different representations of the same number.Further:We can construct number systems in many different ways.If we want a system where 1 =/= 0.999.... then 1 - 1 must be different from 1 - 0.999... so therefore 0 =/= 0.000....
 >> Anonymous Tue Jan 28 20:29:46 2020 No.11340754 >>11339660>1 - 0.999... so therefore 0 =/= 0.000....Suppose 0.999... actually does not equal 1 (which you should have been doing in the first place, you retarded NPC -- every single concept one intends to assess the truth (or falsity) value of, needs to be considered as if it were true). What, then, would the answer be? It'd probably either be something like 0.000...1, representing an infinitesimal, i.e. 0.000... ending in 1, or, since there is no standard symbol for the appropriate infinitesimal (even if this were the case, one would be defined beforehand) the answer could be "undefined." It most certainly would not be you're purposely retarded answer of 0.000....
 >> Prof Sai Wed Jan 29 01:10:16 2020 No.11341519 File: 54 KB, 1024x600, Bow ties are kool. 59983.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11339466>because 1/9 is 0.1111111>So 0.999999 is 9/9 is 1>>11339510>It's sad that people are literally too stupid to understand this simple concept :(What is sad is that people don't recognize circular logic when they see it. Who says that .111... is exactly 1/9? Prove it. You'll see it is the exact same question in a different form, so by bringing up 1/9, you have answered nothing.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jan 29 04:41:05 2020 No.11341844 File: 33 KB, 576x1076, consider the following.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Wed Jan 29 14:23:04 2020 No.11343132 >>11341519What does 1/9 actually equal, then? Any retarded two year old can say "nuh uh" over and over again. You're on the /sci/, board do some math. PROVE that 1/9=/=.1...
 >> Anonymous Wed Jan 29 14:25:46 2020 No.11343139 >>11341844Wrong. The middle one is strictly less than .9... and 1. The 1 at the END means that the decimal expression terminates, and thus isn't an infinite series of 9's. Just because you SAY there are infinite 9's between the point and the 1, doesn't mean there are are that many.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jan 29 18:19:52 2020 No.11343802 bump
 >> Anonymous Wed Jan 29 18:27:50 2020 No.11343815 >>11333341new sci culture these days involves replying to semantic threads and IQ shenanigans. Every time I post something interesting, it gets 0 replies.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jan 29 18:37:03 2020 No.11343827 >>11331532If you think .999 repeating isn't equal to 1, that means you don't understand what "repeating" means here.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jan 29 19:13:17 2020 No.11343884 >>11338320Seems like the right place to ask:What comes into the brackets to enter TeX mode?
 >> Anonymous Wed Jan 29 19:19:44 2020 No.11343897 >>11331631He's referring to the penis on the digit 1.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jan 30 04:11:15 2020 No.11344899 >>11343897the fuck are you talking about
 >> Anonymous Thu Jan 30 09:05:24 2020 No.11345302 >>11344899the penis on the digit 1.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jan 30 09:06:49 2020 No.11345305 >>11332610They're not different lines.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jan 30 09:07:54 2020 No.11345307 >>11345302i dont see it
 >> Anonymous Thu Jan 30 09:09:56 2020 No.11345311 >>11333310Good, leave already.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jan 30 09:12:39 2020 No.11345316 >>11343827Boi you really showed him
 >> Anonymous Thu Jan 30 09:16:10 2020 No.11345323 >>11341519long division, retard.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jan 30 22:44:06 2020 No.11347218 File: 45 KB, 640x427, ' 300k.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >300k starting
 >> Anonymous Fri Jan 31 00:53:54 2020 No.11347465 >>11332610line BZ has slope z/.999.... and slope BW is 0, there's no problem here.
 >> Anonymous Fri Jan 31 04:30:19 2020 No.11347786 >>11345316he's right tho
 >> Anonymous Fri Jan 31 04:36:08 2020 No.11347794 >>11331532At 39 digits, you're already below the Planck length. Assuming the universe only exists in discrete increments, 0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999 is literally the same physical thing as 1.
 >> Anonymous Fri Jan 31 04:41:24 2020 No.11347799
 >> Anonymous Fri Jan 31 07:04:03 2020 No.11348015 >>11347794You are right in that the universe probably isn't "real".That still doesn't make 0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999 equal to 1.
 >> Anonymous Fri Jan 31 08:26:25 2020 No.11348182 >>11347799>15 minutes of the math vlogger on the nature of .9999I can't do that, anon. The subtle prejudices I harbor towards this mode of exposition could stunt my judgement of the theory. I will not bet against this hazard, and I dare not contemplate the consequences.
 >> Anonymous Fri Jan 31 08:39:35 2020 No.11348212 >>11333621>infinity equals anotherwe are comparing numbers>even when composed of the same numberWhat's that supposed to mean? Infinities are not "composed of numbers". Infinities and numbers are different concepts
 >> Anonymous Fri Jan 31 10:06:14 2020 No.11348400 >>11348015>That still doesn't make 0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999 equal to 1.Numerically, no, but the idea of there being a difference also doesn't matter in the slightest.
>>