[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

# /sci/ - Science & Math

File: 21 KB, 800x94, 3AAA23C9-9864-464C-84F3-13DA661962A5.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

0.999...=1?????

https://strawpoll.com/fz4g5wxa

Vote in this poll so we can settle it once and for all and the same thread doesn’t get made every day

 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 06:19:51 2020 No.11517698 >>11517686I vote that OP gargles with his cum
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 06:33:40 2020 No.11517718 >0.999...=1If you buy this, you don't think for yourself and just go with whatever authority says. The arguments are so obviously circular that anyone should be able to see through them.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 06:35:43 2020 No.11517721 >>11517718>any one
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 06:42:55 2020 No.11517740 >he can't prove it so he vote it
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 06:49:24 2020 No.11517751 >>11517740>he doesn't onederstand
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 06:52:50 2020 No.11517758 >>11517718Amen Brother, day of the discrete Universe when?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 06:57:29 2020 No.11517764 >>11517686saying 0.999999... = 1 is the same as saying lim(x->inf) (inf-1)/inf = 1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:07:23 2020 No.11517774 >>11517764>lim(x->inf) (inf-1)/inf = 1this tells everything of your iq
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:08:38 2020 No.11517779 >>11517764Yes, and saying 2+2 = 5 is another way of saying 5-2 = 2.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:18:20 2020 No.11517791 >>11517764ah fuck lim(x->inf) (x-1)/x
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:24:07 2020 No.11517805   >>11517791$\displaystyle \lim_{x \rightarrow \infty } \dfrac{x-1}{x}= \lim_{x \rightarrow \infty } 1+ \frac{1}{x}=1+0=1$yeah I'm good
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:25:10 2020 No.11517807   >>11517791$\displaystyle \lim_{x \rightarrow \infty } \dfrac{x-1}{x}= \lim_{x \rightarrow \infty } 1- \frac{1}{x}=1+0=1$yeah I'm good
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:26:09 2020 No.11517810 >>11517805wtf are you doing nigger
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:26:14 2020 No.11517811   >>11517791$\displaystyle \lim_{x \rightarrow \infty } \dfrac{x-1}{x}= \lim_{x \rightarrow \infty } 1- \frac{1}{x}=1-0=1$yeah I'm good
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:27:54 2020 No.11517815 >>11517791$\displaystyle \lim_{x \rightarrow \infty } \dfrac{x-1}{x}= \lim_{x \rightarrow \infty } 1- \frac{1}{x}=1-0=1$yeah I'm good
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:30:19 2020 No.11517818 >>11517791$\displaystyle \lim_{x \rightarrow \infty } \dfrac{x-1}{x}= \lim_{x \rightarrow \infty } 1- \frac{1}{x}=1-0=1$yeah I'm good
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:31:13 2020 No.11517820 >>11517815If you say>lim(x->inf) 1/x = 0you’re implying that>e = lim(x->inf) (1+1/x)^x>e = lim(x->inf) (1)^x>e = 1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:32:27 2020 No.11517821 >>11517820no u
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:39:31 2020 No.11517837
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:40:19 2020 No.11517842 File: 8 KB, 207x225, DJ3J7DMPNS2DX272AH7I6SFGI3XSR3BJ.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] 1.001 * 0.999 = 1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:42:12 2020 No.11517850 >>11517815my point is that 0.99999... is the same as saying the limit when the amount of decimal places approaches infinity which is 1. any number of decimal places is not equal to 1 but that notation means what it approaches to as you add more and more decimal places
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:45:49 2020 No.11517857 >>11517850if there are infinite decimal places then it doesn't matter how many more decimal 9's you tag onto the end. You'll never come close to even a fraction of the amount required to approach 1.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:45:53 2020 No.11517859 >>11517686$0.999\ldots$ is a shorthand for the decimal expansion of the neutral element 1 of the multiplicative group on $\mathbb{R}\setminus \{0\}$. So explain how this question makes any sense?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:46:09 2020 No.11517861 >>11517820you have to also imagine the power increasing and being equal to that denominator, the power amplifies the difference between the numerator which is being added by one and the denominator.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:49:04 2020 No.11517869 File: 83 KB, 900x900, dxl2ui5v2r611.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11517857>if there are infinite decimal places then it doesn't matter how many more decimal 9's you tag onto the end.>infinite decimal places>the end
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:50:04 2020 No.11517873 >>11517857if there are finite decimal places then it doesn't matter how many more decimal 9's you tag onto the end. You'll never come close to even a fraction of the amount required to approach 1.with infinite, it's exactly 1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:58:30 2020 No.11517889 File: 111 KB, 800x600, 4515124532.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>115176860.999... is not a real number, 9/9 is on the other handjust like $sqrt(3)$ is not 1.7 or 1.7... or whatever invalid decimal representation you want to have
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 08:05:10 2020 No.11517902 File: 56 KB, 634x403, 74A74306-5232-4E9B-9A38-2CDEEFAFEB91.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11517686
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 08:06:44 2020 No.11517905 >>11517764saying 0.999... = 1 is the same as saying $\lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{k=1}^n\tfrac{9}{10^k} = 1$
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 08:08:40 2020 No.11517908 >>11517873Infinity explicitly doesn't mean what you think it means if that is what you believe.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 08:10:24 2020 No.11517911 File: 53 KB, 403x448, cvbbmwwe4rzz.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11517889>1 is not a real number
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 08:11:26 2020 No.11517915 >>11517908What does he believe it means and how is it wrong?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 08:11:28 2020 No.11517916 >>11517908it's what I know
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 08:12:42 2020 No.11517917 >>11517911kek
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 08:14:54 2020 No.11517919 >>11517889>3^.5 isn't a real number[citation needed]
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 08:17:08 2020 No.11517925 >>11517869You misunderstand.4 decimal places[0.xxxx][0.9xxx][0.99xx][0.999x][0.9999]You can fill all decimal places with 9'sinfinite decimal places[0.xxx...][0.9xx...][0.99x...][0.999x...][0.9999x...][0.99999x...][0.999999x...]you can't fill all decimal places with 9's.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 08:28:03 2020 No.11517943 >>11517925>you can't fill all decimal places with 9's.Sure you can: 0.999...
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 09:35:41 2020 No.11518041 >>11517925infinite fills anythingretard
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 10:19:39 2020 No.11518120 >>11517943>>you can't fill all decimal places with 9's.>Sure you can: 0.999...Do you seriously think that this argument is going to persuade anyone? One reason that this debate goes on forever is that people who support the equality think that anything they say must be "right" just because it conforms with the established answer.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 10:24:35 2020 No.11518135 >>115176869 is the furthest number from 1 in the alphabet so thats retarded.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 10:28:14 2020 No.11518141 File: 59 KB, 632x381, 2D37A5C0-6C66-4E7B-9E51-3F1F964E05F4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 10:34:14 2020 No.11518155 Reminder that there is no smallest unit of spacetime and that the universe is infinite in expansion.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 10:42:46 2020 No.11518170 >>11518155>Reminder that there is no smallest unit of spacetime and that the universe is infinite in expansion.Yes there is. It is called the Planck length. The universe is about 4.6×10^185 of these. So outside that range, the set of Real Numbers detaches from reality to become an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin subject.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 10:51:41 2020 No.11518185 >>11518170the planck length is not the smallest unit of spacetime
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 10:56:59 2020 No.11518200 >>11518185Yes it is.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 11:00:50 2020 No.11518207 >>11518200>planck length * 0.1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 11:04:28 2020 No.11518216 >>11518207> Planck length * 0.1> Electron * 0.1Both meaningless.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 12:02:39 2020 No.11518335 >>11518120>you can write infinite decimals as [0.xxx...]>but not [0.999...] because I say soDo you seriously think that this non-argument is going to persuade anyone?>One reason that this debate goes on forever is that people who support the equality think that anything they say must be "right" just because it conforms with the established answer.Funny how you don't realize that the "debate" is due solely to contrarians and trolls.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 12:06:57 2020 No.11518346 Since all repeating decimals are rational that means .999... should have a finite rational form. That number is 1/1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 12:13:55 2020 No.11518360 Ok 45% brainlets what's $1-0.999\ldots=$
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 12:42:10 2020 No.11518400
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 12:44:46 2020 No.11518405 >>11518360> Ok 45% brainlets what's 1−0.999…=0®1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 12:44:59 2020 No.11518407
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 12:48:12 2020 No.11518417 >>11518335>Do you seriously think that this non-argument is going to persuade anyone?Then why does it make any more sense in reverse:>you can write infinite decimals as [0.999...]>but not [0.xxx...1] because I say soIf you can achieve .999... as a finished result, then why can't you append anything after it?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 12:50:38 2020 No.11518426 >>115183600.000...1, an infinitesimal. learn2hyperreals brainlet
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 12:53:22 2020 No.11518433 >>11518426>0.000...10 in real numbers
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:02:04 2020 No.11518449 >>11518417>Then why does it make any more sense in reverse:>>you can write infinite decimals as [0.999...]>>but not [0.xxx...1] because I say soMaybe because [0.xxx...1] is not [0.xxx...] you illiterate brainlet? You can write it when dealing with hypereals, otherwise there is nothing after infinity because it has no end.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:12:25 2020 No.11518472 >>11518417>If you can achieve .999... as a finished result, then why can't you append anything after it?I guarantee that a lot of stuff which you now find confusing would make perfect sense if you stopped thinking about everything in terms of terminating or non-terminating processes actually happening in the real time
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:14:50 2020 No.11518485 If .999... =/= 1, then by definition, there exists some real number x such that .999... < x < 1. What is x?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:16:23 2020 No.11518487 >>11518417>infinite>has a terminating digitPick one, retard.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:17:20 2020 No.11518490 >>11518485schizos be like>there's no integer between 1 and 2 so by your logic 1 = 2
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:21:26 2020 No.11518499 >>11518490retards be like>integers and real numbers are the same
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:21:48 2020 No.11518500 >>11518490I'm talking about real numbers, not integers, fucktard.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:22:07 2020 No.11518501 >>11518490Thought it was quite reasonable to be honest.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:22:26 2020 No.11518502 >>11517686>settle it once and for all>/sci/ence and math>arguing semanticsall my shiggy-diggy
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:44:28 2020 No.11518709 >>11518485There isn't. 0.999... is the upper limit of real numbers less than 1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:51:53 2020 No.11518728 >>115184850.0000....1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:56:33 2020 No.11518740
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:57:35 2020 No.11518743 >>11518426That’s just lim 1/10^x as x approaches infinity, which is 0.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:03:04 2020 No.11518757 >>11518728not a real number
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:04:07 2020 No.11518763 Which of the following is true or false?[eqn]\frac{1}{3}=0.333\ldots[/eqn][eqn]3\times\frac{1}{3}=1[/eqn][eqn]3\times0.333\ldots=0.999\ldots[/eqn][eqn]0.999\ldots=1[/eqn]
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:04:59 2020 No.11518764 >>11518757How is that?You can add infinitely 9s at the end but not 0s in between?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:08:56 2020 No.11518772 >>11518764if 0.00...01 is a real number and 0.00...01 > 0, then also 1/0.00...01 > 0. you can thus apply the decadic logarithm. log(1/0.00...01) is also a real number, therefore it's bounded by some integerlog(1/0.00...01) < Nworking backwards gives0.00....01 > 1/10^Ntherefore there can be only a finite number of zeros before the 1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:10:47 2020 No.11518778 >>11517758The universe is already discrete. The problem is that some people live in the “””world of ideas”””
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:16:17 2020 No.11518792 >>11518743Do you not know the definition of limit?Fucking shit
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:30:29 2020 No.11518848 >>11518200No, it's the smallest measurable distance. Proper distances can't be smaller, but observer dependant distances, like the wavelength of light, can be.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:36:18 2020 No.11518872 >>11518764>You can add infinitely 9s at the endThere is no end to add to.>but not 0s in between?There is no end to be in between.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:36:54 2020 No.11518873 >>11518792Yes.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:52:42 2020 No.11518905 1/3 * 3 = 11/3 = 0.3333...0.3333... * 3 = 0.9999...0.9999... = 1wow that was some high level math here
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:55:14 2020 No.11518909 > majority of people on this board think 0.9999... is not 1.Holy shit this board is actually retarded. The posters here are not pretending to be low IQ for the laughs, theyre genuine retards. Now I can finally leave in peace.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:00:19 2020 No.11518919 >>11518905your point? it's the simplest and most elementary possible example. what else would you suggest showing to these trolls and brainlets? seriouslybit pretentious using [eqn]L^AT_EX[/eqn] but idgaf
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:05:16 2020 No.11518933 >>11518764>>11518772this argument works to show 0.999... = 1 actually if you assume the difference 1 - 0.999... to be non-zero, then 1 - 0.999.. > 0 and by the same argument you can find an integer N such that1 - 0.999... > 1/10^N.however clearly 0.999... > 0.99..9 with exactly N nines which gives1 - 0.999... < 1 - 0.99...9 = 1/10^Nwhich is a contradiction. therefore the difference must be zero.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:30:27 2020 No.11519004 >>11517686The inability many people today who view themselves as being "scientific" as well as math fans (left-brain prisoners) have in comprehending that .999 isn't the same as 1, is completely connected to their inability to grasp eternity and infinity. Their minds have basically been programmed to believe eternity and infinity are impossibilites. Over the course of the last 10 or so centuries of indoctrination into an alien world-view, they've "learned" to be unable to comprehend it.This difficulty they have with eternity/infinity shows up in many different fields, from math to astrophysics.This mental handicap is inherited directly from the (((Abrahamic))) religions, more specifically Christinsanity for us Westernerns. In it's origin, the inability to understand infinity and eternity is 100% Judaic in thought/philosophy. In contrast, the non-Jewish man; the Pagan man, at least the /European/ Pagan man, never had any problem with infinity and eternity. Christinsanity introduced into the minds of people the idea of life and the world/universe being linear, starting from point A and ending with a point B, whereas in the Native European world-view everything is infinite, a circle.That's why many people today can't understand that .999 repeating forever will never reach 1 -- they refuse to accept the idea of an infinite/eternal repetition. Saying "it's 1" is their method of escaping from the uncomfortable (and to them insurmountable) challenge which the concept of infinity/eternity is to thier Judaically-induced mental disease.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:33:36 2020 No.11519017 >>11519004>.999 repeating forever will never reach 1numbers don't reach or approach anything. they stand perfectly still.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:36:45 2020 No.11519024   >>115190170.99, or 0.999999, or 0.9999999999999999999, or n infinite number of 9s if you want, isn't 1. No matter how many 9s you put it, it will never be 1.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:37:37 2020 No.11519028
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:37:59 2020 No.11519031 File: 78 KB, 1000x1000, 1528534003215.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>115190170.99, or 0.999999, or 0.9999999999999999999, or an infinite number of 9s if you want, isn't 1. No matter how many 9s you put in, it will never be 1.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:42:01 2020 No.11519043 >>11519031>0.99true>0.999999also true>0.9999999999999999999still true>an infinite number of 9s if you want, isn't 1not true
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:55:12 2020 No.11519083 >>11517686You people have to be trolling[eqn]x=0.\dot{9} \\ 10x=9.\dot{9} \\9x= 10x-x= 9.\dot{9} -0.\dot{9} =9\\ \therefore x=1[/eqn]
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:01:10 2020 No.11519101 .999... < 1how could the answer be anything else?people who say 0.999... = 1 are the same people who say 2+2=5
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:03:07 2020 No.11519109 >>11519101>.999... < 1can you prove it ?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:04:11 2020 No.11519112 >>11519109its already proven
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:08:48 2020 No.11519126 >>11519112post the proof then
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:13:23 2020 No.11519139 File: 171 KB, 1920x1080, retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11519004>The inability many people today who view themselves as being "scientific" as well as math fans (left-brain prisoners) have in comprehending that .999 isn't the same as 1, is completely connected to their inability to grasp eternity and infinity. Their minds have basically been programmed to believe eternity and infinity are impossibilites. Over the course of the last 10 or so centuries of indoctrination into an alien world-view, they've "learned" to be unable to comprehend it.>This difficulty they have with eternity/infinity shows up in many different fields, from math to astrophysics.>This mental handicap is inherited directly from the (((Abrahamic))) religions, more specifically Christinsanity for us Westernerns. In it's origin, the inability to understand infinity and eternity is 100% Judaic in thought/philosophy. In contrast, the non-Jewish man; the Pagan man, at least the /European/ Pagan man, never had any problem with infinity and eternity. Christinsanity introduced into the minds of people the idea of life and the world/universe being linear, starting from point A and ending with a point B, whereas in the Native European world-view everything is infinite, a circle.>That's why many people today can't understand that .999 repeating forever will never reach 1 -- they refuse to accept the idea of an infinite/eternal repetition. Saying "it's 1" is their method of escaping from the uncomfortable (and to them insurmountable) challenge which the concept of infinity/eternity is to thier Judaically-induced mental disease.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:16:51 2020 No.11519152 >>11518485this is the average person who thinks 0.999... = 1>>11519004this is the average person who thinks 0.999... ≠ 1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:18:29 2020 No.11519157 if .999... = 1does 9.999... = 10?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:20:50 2020 No.11519166 >>11519157yes, and there's no "if"10 = 9.999...
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:36:04 2020 No.11519221 my mind has been changed
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:38:29 2020 No.11519230 does .333... = 4?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:45:37 2020 No.11519259 >>11519230Yes.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:54:59 2020 No.11519300 >>11519230It also equals 0.34.And it equals 0.43. Maths, man, its so beautiful, it just blows my mind.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:55:26 2020 No.11519301 >>11518763>Which of the following is true or false?>13=0.333…The first one.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:57:15 2020 No.11519308 >>11519157>>11519259No you fucking mongrel, .333... approaches 1/3. 3.999... approaches 4.9.999... = 10 because both 10 * .999... = 9.999... and 10 * 1 = 10
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:00:43 2020 No.11519320 x = 0.999....10x = 9.999...9.999... = 9 + 0.999... = 9 + x10x = 9 + x9x = 9x = 1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:08:44 2020 No.11519348 >>11519230no, but in base 40.333... is 1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:10:17 2020 No.11519355 > only 21% think it equals 1Brehs...
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:12:29 2020 No.11519363 >>11517686its not = to 1 but it is ~ 1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:15:39 2020 No.11519377 >>11519355trolls trolling midwits and spergsthis thread is great. will try some of the material on a neurotic sperg next time i see one
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:18:57 2020 No.11519391 >>11519377> trolls trollingI sure hope so
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:31:30 2020 No.11519437 Right, I am fucking sick of this bullshit. Lets get straight to the fucking crunch, you FUCKING STUPID MORONS, just shut the fuck up and LISTEN for just once in your goddamned stupid motherfucking lives.Take something as simple as 1 + 1 = 2. There is absolutely nothing to say this is true other than logical intuition. Its not a Universal truth we have discovered. No, it not, arseholes. It is not written across the skies in huge flaming letters by some God. Its a human construct. Nothing more. Now, if you cant get your head around that simple fact you are a drooling moron and you will do the world a favor be keeping your FAT STUPID FUCKING mouth shut while the rest of us move on out of the dark ages.The entire discipline of Mathematics is built upon such fundamental constructs which rely upon human intuition as he ultimate foundation to all logic. That's right. At the heart of all reason, all logic, there is intuition. Nothing more. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a self deceiving cretin. A fucking parrot. A God cursed sodomite and fool.Now. Intuition tells us that 0.9999... will never reach 1 because it JUST FUCKING WONT! It will go on being FUCKING 0.9999 for FUCKING EVER! Got that, you brainless Satan spawned scum? FUCK! 0.999... DOES NOT EQUAL 1 and it FUCKING FUCKING FUCKING NEVER WILL! CHRIST! FUCK! Thanks for listening. I am sure you are properly enlightened now. I have no doubt you will go about daily life with a sense of joy, this heavy intellectual load having being lifted from your scrawny acne-pocked shoulders.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:35:43 2020 No.11519458 >>11517686It is obviously equal to 1, it doesn't matter what the poll results are. Math is not a Democracy.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:39:28 2020 No.11519471 >>11517698Based.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:15:48 2020 No.11519581 File: 20 KB, 403x408, 1584776241504.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I like to imagine infinibrainlets believe in an infinity'th decimal place digit and that this decimal place is arbitrarily base-9 instead of base-10.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:01:54 2020 No.11519703 >>11519320Christ, there is nothing so annoying as seeing this bullshit get posted again and again as "proof".They start with a false premise, then self reference it, to make a conclusion based off a false premise. Yeah, and they do it all with a straight face. The sheer audacity is astonishing. Real knuckle dragging logic there. Same sort of reasoning skills that got "witches" put in a suit of armor and thrown in the village lake. You know. One day these 0.999... = 1 fuckwits are going to have to atone for their intellectual crimes. One day we will herd them up, hog tie them on top of stack of firewood and let the flames cleanse them of their goddamned heresy. We will stand around with our children, watching, eating hotdogs, maybe throwing some rotten tomatoes at them while we laugh as the flames grow higher and their screams grow louder. Good times to be had.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:04:54 2020 No.11519712 >>11519703They’re right, though.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:06:57 2020 No.11519715 >>11519712Fetch the firewood, I've found one right here.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:10:51 2020 No.11519728 >>11519083Fucking finally, I was going to post this. I mean this is high school level shit.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:13:39 2020 No.11519735 >>11519728Found another knuckle dragging moron for the bonfire.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:20:25 2020 No.11519763 >>11519083are you autistic?x = 0.9999...10x = 9.99999....010x - 9 is not equal to x, 0.9999...0 is not equal to 0.9999........ 9x = 9.99999....0 - 0.99999....9x = 8.99999999......1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:36:34 2020 No.11519810 File: 31 KB, 665x624, 10400000.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:39:12 2020 No.11519816 >>11519810>that one p retard who keeps copy pasting his retard formula that no one ever replies to
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 21:55:20 2020 No.11520022 >>11519355Don't worry, I brought it back up to 50% for you.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 21:59:49 2020 No.11520037 I'll big bang pill you fuckers.The big bang started with space occupying almost ZERO "space." Imagine the smallest possible number that isn't zero. Not .01, not .001, repeat that for infinity. That was the size of spzce for the big bang.Mass was the opposite. Mass started at the biggest possible number that wasn't 1. Think .99999 infinitely.The big bang caused space to start infinitely getting bigger and spread the almost infinite mass through it. The energy from this slowly created every universe.Enjoy being enlightened.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 22:00:30 2020 No.11520038 >>11518763FalseTrueTrueFalse
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 22:03:02 2020 No.11520046 File: 60 KB, 631x391, 6172A4F3-3342-4C83-ABE5-32FC50E09516.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 22:04:49 2020 No.11520052 >>11520046Anyone that actually thinks that is 1 is LARPing or is a low-IQ schizo.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 22:08:59 2020 No.11520060 >>11519763>10x = 9.99999....0I say this with all sincerity, look up a beginner calculus text book and look up what a recurring decimal is
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 22:33:00 2020 No.11520105 Infinity doesn't exist so infinity 9's don't exist so a finite n amount of 9's much exist which means $\frac{1}{10^n}$ exists as the smallest number between 0.999... and 1.anyone who believes otherwise has water in their skull.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 23:22:00 2020 No.11520198 >>11519437>FUCKING STUPID1 + 1 = 2>FAT STUPID FUCKING>JUST FUCKING WONT!>enlightened now.but 1/inf=0
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 23:26:30 2020 No.11520205 >>11517718based
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 23:29:48 2020 No.11520217 >>115201981/california = 01/potato = 01/pokemon = 01/carl sagan = 01/mercury = 0
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 23:30:21 2020 No.11520220 >>11520046I don't give a fuck about this stupid argument but someone is 100% botting for the equal sideIt was at like 75% not equal the whole time and even slipped into the 80s
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 23:31:56 2020 No.11520223 >>115202173-3=0inf-inf undefinedinf-3=inf1/3=0.333...1/inf=0
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 23:34:51 2020 No.11520232 >>11520038>FalseSo what's 1/3 in decimal notation?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 23:35:53 2020 No.11520235 >>11520052So all mathematicians?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 23:41:16 2020 No.11520244 >>11520235yes. i know more than all of them.so of course i dedicate my life to 4chan 24/7 shitposting.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 23:43:41 2020 No.11520250 >>11520232$0.333\ldots\frac{1}{3}$
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 23:44:59 2020 No.11520257 >>1152024424/7=3.428571 428571...
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 23:45:33 2020 No.11520261 >>11520250What's that $1/3$ at the end?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 23:46:26 2020 No.11520262 >>11520223inf-inf = 0inf/inf = 1inf + n = undefined (and no longer inf)inf + inf = undefined (and no longer inf_inf - n = undefined (and no longer inf)n / inf = undefinedthese need to be true for "a set of all numbers" to exist, whose size is "infinite". if n/inf = 0, but inf/inf is not 1, then no numbers exist in the infinite set of all numbers. and any set that has known elements, but is claimed to be infinite, must inherently actually be finite. if inf/inf = 1 though, it becomes possible for all numbers to exist in the set regardless of what n/inf evaluates as, so n/inf might as well evaluate as undefined, as it makes no sense for all and any n, divided by inf, to be 0.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 23:53:27 2020 No.11520283 >>11520262inf-inf = undefinedinf/inf = undefinedinf + n = infinf + inf = infinf - n = infn / inf = 0Z aleph-0R aleph-1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 31 23:58:24 2020 No.11520293 >>11520232mathematicians seems to think $\frac{1}{3} = \underbrace{0.333 \underbrace{\dots}_{\infty-1}}_{\text{base-10}} \underbrace{\underbrace{3}_{\infty}}_{\text{base-9}}$ unironically. granted none of them are smart enough to say it as concisely as this, but if you look at the way they treat repeating decimals and infinity, this is the general blueprint of how their minds seem to understand it.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 00:02:41 2020 No.11520300 >>11520293Nah, $$0.a_1 a_2 a_3 \dots = \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \sum_{n=1}^N \frac{a_n}{10^n}$$.It really is that simple.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 00:09:12 2020 No.11520313 >>11520283set of 100 = 100 sizeintegers$[0,1,2,3,\dots,100]$if you pick a number and another number is picked randomly, there's a 1% ($\frac{1}{100}$) chance your picked number is the randomly chosen number. If you say any number you pick must exist in the full range ($\frac{100}{100}$), you have a 100% chance that the randomly chosen number exists in that range.set of all integers = infinite size$[0,1,2,3,4,5,\dots]$randomly pick a number in the set of all numbers.if>$\frac{1}{\infty}$ = 0that means there's a 0% chance of the number you picked is also the randomly chosen number.if>$\frac{\infty}{\infty} \neq 1$that means there's still a 0% chance of the randomly chosen number existing within the range of $0 \rightarrow \infty$this means>infinite sets do not existor>infinite sets exist, but no elements inside them can be known, for knowing even 1 element within an infinite set would thereby make it finite.are you sure you want to continue believing what you wrote >>11520283 here?
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 00:15:26 2020 No.11520327 >>11517889weak bait
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 00:19:39 2020 No.11520339 >>11518155>universe is infinite in expansionwhy?
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 00:31:19 2020 No.11520355 >>11520313>infinity trickynews at 10: water is wet
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 00:32:51 2020 No.11520357 >>11520313>this means>>infinite sets do not existnope
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 00:38:24 2020 No.11520368 >>11520355>trickyit's not a natural object, it's entirely fabricated. Its not "tricky"; it's just so terribly and poorly defined that 90% of the definitions for it can be used against it to equally show it can't exist as described. It's the quintessential function of getting caught in a lie.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 00:39:43 2020 No.11520371 >>11520368>natural object,math isn't physics
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 00:42:30 2020 No.11520373 >>11520371your brain is bound by physics, so think again.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 00:43:49 2020 No.11520377 >>11520368>it's just so terribly and poorly definedDefinition: ∞ is a symbol which satisfies x < ∞ for all real numbers x. Literally nothing more. Wow that was hard.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 00:47:50 2020 No.11520385 If two real numbers are distinct, then we can find another number between them. Give me one x with 0.999... < x < 1
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 00:48:32 2020 No.11520386 >>11520377are you sure you can't find anything wrong with that definition?For example, are there any implicit or explicit permissions or disallowances that x can be incremented to ∞?is ∞ a number itself?if it's not a number, it's assumed we can't do arithmetic with it as if it were a number, such as assigning it to limits or using it in an equation in place of a number, like $\frac{1}{\infty}$.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 00:50:37 2020 No.11520389 >>11520373i just imagined hopping from the moon to marsand now you did too> bound by physicsnah
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 00:51:00 2020 No.11520390 >>11520385$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{9}{10^n} = 0.999\dots_n < \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{10}{11^n} = 0.999\dots_n$helps if you know how to use infinity or at least know what it's describing.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 00:52:07 2020 No.11520393 File: 56 KB, 621x702, vO7lRZ7.jpg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11520389>i imagined it therefore its realif only that's how this world behaved. take your meds.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 00:52:30 2020 No.11520394 >>11520313that's 101, not 100 lol
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 00:54:32 2020 No.11520398 >>11520386>if it's not a number, it's assumed we can't do arithmetic with it as if it were a number,3-3=0inf-inf undefined1/inf=0>as if it were a number,it is clumsier, but some things you can do
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 00:55:48 2020 No.11520402 >>11520393think hardermath isn't physics
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 00:56:00 2020 No.11520403 >>11520386https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_projective_linehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_real_number_linehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphereStop being a confident idiot and read a book for once in your life.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 00:59:38 2020 No.11520411 >>11520394you're right my bad.$[0,1,2,3,\dots,99]$
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:01:43 2020 No.11520417 >>11520403lmao what the fuck is that image. i get its a wikipedia image and wikipedia is moderated by retards but come on. 1 is halfway between 0 and infinity.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:03:37 2020 No.11520420 >>11520417>i'm stupiddoesn't make it wrong
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:04:10 2020 No.11520421 >>11520398>keeps shitposting 1/inf = 0get a life bozo.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:04:33 2020 No.11520422 >>11520386>are you sure you can't find anything wrong with that definitionyes>For example, are there any implicit or explicit permissions or disallowances that x can be incremented to ∞?what exactly do you mean by "increment" ? x+y will never equal ∞, because if x,y are real, then so is x+y. therefore x+y < ∞. or do you mean like x -> ∞ written in limits ?>is ∞ a number itself?this is just semantics. "a number" is literally just an element of R. ∞ is not an element of R, therefore it"s not a number. that doesn't stop me from making my own set myR = R ∪ {∞} and calling myNumbers elements of myR. then ∞ is a myNumber>if it's not a number, it's assumed we can't do arithmetic with it as if it were a number, such as assigning it to limits or using it in an equation in place of a number, likeagain, whether we can do arithmeics with ∞ is just matter of definition. you're now in a situation where you've introduced a new object, ∞ and implicitly there's no arithmetics for it. you need to define it. but obviously you would like to do it in a way which is consistent with the arithmetics that you know, for example defining ∞ + 5 = 13 would be silly. it turns out that you can define SOME stuff such as x+∞ = ∞ and 1/∞, but not ∞/∞ or ∞-∞. let me remind you that this is the same for zero. zero is a number, BUT you can't do 0/0 because it wouldn't be consistend with the laws of arithmetics.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:12:04 2020 No.11520441 >>11520420infinity is wrong. It has 1 use, and it's not as a number.It's to describe the size of the set of all integers.$[\underbrace{0,1,2,3,4,5,\dots}_{\infty} ]$it has no well defined application outside of this, and this is just the axiom of infinity. Because of it's sole usage here, this is functionally truly no different than it being the "Axiom of Endlessness" or "Axiom of Unlimited", cause it's no different than saying$[\underbrace{0,1,2,3,4,5,\dots}_{\text{unlimited}} ]$.Nothing about it defines it can be used as an actual number, meaning$\infty - \infty = undefined \\ \frac{n}{\infty} = undefined \\ \infty * n = undefined \\ \infty \pm n = undefined \\ 0^{\infty} = undefined$ if you want to define any of these, you have to show where they are defined to work as such, and whether or not that definition relies on the presence of the axiom of infinity; otherwise provide examples where a case must be defined to solve a problem, thus providing a proof.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:16:36 2020 No.11520452
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:18:43 2020 No.11520456 File: 13 KB, 300x241, RoXKNzi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11520452https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=infinity>>Infinity is an unbounded quantity greater than every real (and every whole) number.https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=quantity>>a Quantity is how much there is or how many there are of something that you can quantifyhttps://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=quantify>>to Quantify is to express as a number or measure or quantityhttps://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=is+infinity+a+number%3F>is infinity a number?>>∞ is not a numberhttps://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Does+1%2F%28not+a+number%29+%3D+1%2Finfinity%3F>is "1/(not a number) = 1/∞" true?>>nowolfram is not your friend here.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:19:07 2020 No.11520458
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:19:20 2020 No.11520460 >>11520441>infinity is wrong. It has 1 use, and it's not as a number.wrong>It's to describe the size of the set of all integers.size of integers is $\aleph_0$. it's a bit different thing than ∞>it has no well defined application outside of thiswrong>Nothing about it defines it can be used as an actual number, meaningthis is actually true, but still you can define some of the operations to stay consistent with usual arithmetics, because it's useful in some context
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:20:16 2020 No.11520463 >>11520456>unbounded quantity>unboundedlrn2read
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:20:46 2020 No.11520464 >>11520460show me the usefulness of $\frac{1}{\infty}=0$
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:23:03 2020 No.11520469   >>11520464>11517815
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:24:05 2020 No.11520472
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:25:09 2020 No.11520475 >>11517820That doesn't follow at all. Undergrads please fuck off.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:29:05 2020 No.11520484 >>115204692 things terribly wrong with that.1, you can't actually increment to ∞ from x2, it provides a finalized value of 0's at the end of the decimal, much like $\frac{1}{4} = 0.25000\dots$ so>0.999 as three nines. $\frac{1}{10^3}$ = 0.001>a smallest part exists for n>0.999... has inf nines. $\frac{1}{10^{\infty}} = 0; no smallest part can be added; but also necessarily if 0.999=1, the ∞'th decimal place must be base-9 instead of base-10. lots wrong with that thinking.  >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:32:24 2020 No.11520489 >>11520464I didn't say specifically 1/∞. the sum ∞+x is plenty useful in measure theory for example. 1/∞ = 0 does make some theorems about limits to be true in a slightly more general situations though.it's "useful" in the way that it makes life easier notation-wise, because the symbol itself ∞ is pretty much just a notation. everything could be formulated without it, but there's no reason not to do it.  >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:34:10 2020 No.11520493 >>11520489>but there's no reason not to do it.*not to use it  >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:37:34 2020 No.11520499 >>11518200No it isn’t. You’ve been taken in by pop-sci memes.  >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:38:03 2020 No.11520501 >>11520484>i never graduatedbig surprise  >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:39:21 2020 No.11520505 >>11520484>>11520472if x->∞ is a possibility that allows [math]\frac{1}{\infty}$. and that equals 0, then $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{9}{10^n} = 0.999\dots$ must therefore have a sub-infinite amount of 9's, which means it must have a finite amount of 9's for n < ∞, since there is no 9 at the ∞'th decimal place because the ∞'th decimal place is 0 from $\frac{9}{10^{\infty}}$
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:41:45 2020 No.11520515 >>11520505there's no ∞-th decimal place, man. where did you get that from
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:41:48 2020 No.11520516 >>11520501>projectingyou gotta learn to mix it up.>i dont have an argument>lets pretend infinite is finite>shitlatexman>posts wolfram definition of infinity>lrn2read unbounded>bus masturbationhope to fuck you never do anything even remotely illegal cause if some random anon can pin you down, sure as shit any government organization can.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:44:32 2020 No.11520526 >>11520505>∑∞n=1910n=0.999… must therefore have a sub-infinite amount-limit to infinity, not even trying to slide all the way to inf using reals-inf exists, but can't be reached by incrementing realsdoesn't mean that the cat isn't captured in the epsilon-delta box
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:44:42 2020 No.11520527 >>11520515its an extension of the motive behind >>11517815>x -> ∞>1 / xand this post somehow being valid proof that 1/∞ = 0 is a valuable concept.everything possible is wrong with the line of thinking. it necessarily requires there be an n such that x + n = ∞, and it also means that when 1/∞ = 0, there is a terminating zero at the end of real decimals, being the ∞'th decimal.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:46:05 2020 No.11520535   >>11520516said by schizo hos doesn't have a single reference in the world supporting him
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:46:42 2020 No.11520537 >>11520535my references are plain logic, you mongoloid buttmaster.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:47:19 2020 No.11520539 >>11520516said by schizo who doesn't have a single reference in the world to support him
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:48:01 2020 No.11520541 >>11520516>>11520537this guy is legit retarded. I mean actual brain damage.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:48:43 2020 No.11520542 File: 16 KB, 633x758, 318271da980706f7a18a811c3456a77d.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11520539>>11520535>said by schizo hos doesn't have a single reference in the world supporting himhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjio2Yrim4w
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:48:53 2020 No.11520543 >>11520537says every nutjob ever
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:49:49 2020 No.11520546 >>11520464Read up on the Riemann sphere. It’s a beautiful structure that makes a lot of theorems and properties of complex functions (e.g. relating poles and zeros) more elegant and symmetric.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere#Applications
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:50:38 2020 No.11520547 >>11520542>an anime songLOL
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:51:24 2020 No.11520549 >>11520547keep tryin' lil' niggau will get there 1 dayjust believe in urself
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:52:06 2020 No.11520552 >>115205491/inf=0
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:52:24 2020 No.11520554 File: 28 KB, 801x534, 124se9[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11520537>plain logic1/3 > 0.31/3 > 0.33...1/3 > 0.333....
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:53:23 2020 No.11520557 >>11520554now you're gettin it.$\frac{1}{3} > 0.\overline{333}$this is a true statement.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:57:28 2020 No.11520566 $\displaystylep=0.1 \\\dfrac{1}{1-0.1}=\frac{10}{9} = 1 + \frac{1}{9} \\\sum_{j=0}^\infty 0.1^j= 1 + \sum_{j=1}^\infty 0.1^j \\9+1=9+9\sum_{j=1}^\infty 0.1^j \\1=9\sum_{j=1}^\infty 0.1^j \\\dfrac{1}{3} = 3 \sum_{j=1}^ \infty 0.1^j = 0.333...$
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:59:21 2020 No.11520571
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:01:18 2020 No.11520576 >>11520571keklrn2read
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:01:25 2020 No.11520578
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:04:04 2020 No.11520585 >>11520566>$9 + 1 = 9+9\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}0.1^j$excuse me?all you've done in the middle of your method is say that 1 = 0.999...even though you did it using an infinite sum that explicitly prints out 9's and nothing but 9's.are you retarded?
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:08:56 2020 No.11520600 >>11520585please show the actual errori could use a laugh
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:20:01 2020 No.11520635 If 1/3 =/= 0.333...Doesn't that just mean that fractions and decimals aren't the same thing and we base our answer on a false assumption?
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:23:42 2020 No.11520656 >>11520600one of the strongest proofs for $0.999\dots \neq 1$ is through the use of an infinite sum you mongoloid. The identity of the sum perfectly equates to the decimal result of the sum.$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{9}{10^n} = 0.999\dots$ explicitly. The sum's intent is to print 9's into the expanding decimal places, and that's exactly what it does linearly. n1, 0.9n2, 0.99n3, 0.999if you take any other number <9 in that fraction, you get a repeating decimal of that number. (1/10^n) produces 0.111...(2/10^n) produces 0.222...(3/10^n) produces 0.333...and this 0.333... value is the same exact value you can get when trying to convert $\frac{1}{3}$ to decimal. However that conversion process from $\frac{1}{3}$ Fractional to $0.333\dots$ Decimal is not an exact method via division, so the Decimal is not EQUAL to the Fractional.1/3 > 0.31/3 > 0.331/3 > 0.333>...1/3 > 0.333...this is plainly the case. there no ambiguity here, it's logical and sensible.π > 3π > 3.1π > 3.14π > 3.141>...π > 3.1415926535...terminating 0's are required for an identity in Fraction to equal an identity in Decimal. >1/2 = 0.5000...>1/4 = 0.25000...>1/8 = 0.125000...otherwise there needs to be no possible solutions of ambiguity to provide a difference.in the case of 0.999... != 1, there is the above noted 9/10^n sum solution which cleanly equates the value as a distinct number, same with the 3/10^n sum solution which cleanly equates the 0.333... in a way that 1/3 does not cleanly equate it, lacking terminal 0's.come on man, this is in every thread.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:27:18 2020 No.11520669 >>11520635fractions and decimals aren't the same thing. This is obvious, and it's known. Fractional is a word, describing the language of fractions. there are some values which cannot be cleanly expressed as either a Fraction or Decimal too, such a π (pi).
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:27:35 2020 No.11520672 >>11520656>and this 0.333... value is the same exact value you can get when trying to convert 1313 to decimal.>However that conversion process from 1313 Fractional to 0.333…0.333… Decimal is not an exact method via division, so the Decimal is not EQUAL to the Fractional.why are you using your own interpretation of what decimal expansion means ?
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:29:47 2020 No.11520682 >>11520672>0.3>0.33>0.333>0.3333>the decimal is expandingI'm not. You're using some bizarro interpretation of what infinity means, though.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:30:16 2020 No.11520683 >>11520656uh, is this about line #1or perhaps #2 ?your wall-of-text schizo raving is off-putting, drop it
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:32:25 2020 No.11520690 >>11520682where does 0.333... sit on the number line ?
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:33:15 2020 No.11520694 >>11520683you obviously weren't the author of the post if you're not following, and if you're not following then all of this is over your head anyway.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:34:10 2020 No.11520700 >>11520694>i have no argument
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:38:33 2020 No.11520718 >>11520690somewhere between 0.3 and $\frac{1}{3}$ if infinity is a concept that's allowed to exist in the numberline (aka, there are "infinite" decimal numbers between any integer), there's no sense in saying it's closer to one or the other, since whether it has infinite 3's or one 3, $\frac{\infty}{2}$ is undefined; so 0.333... is no closer to $\frac{1}{3}$ than it is to 0.3infinity is retarded and it lets anyone do retarded things validly with it, and is also why it must be banished from math if not better defined to a much better degree than it has.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:39:21 2020 No.11520723 File: 97 KB, 1654x2339, proof.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:41:48 2020 No.11520736 >>11520723>using a limit, the definition of which is used for approximation, as a method of defining equality>approximation is equalitypls stop
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:42:23 2020 No.11520740 1-.9=.1-.09=.01-.009=.001Here we see a 1 that never goes away, but it is a 1 that is never fully constructed as it always becomes a 0 because the series does not terminate. We can find the number for any digit at any point is 0. Any number after 9 that isn't 9 brings the infinite series to a limit =/= 1, but .999... contains only 9. It reaches 1 at precisely infinity
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:42:27 2020 No.11520741 >>11520736Nope. That's the definition of the limit of a sequence. Period.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:43:19 2020 No.11520748 >>11520741>using infinity in a way undefined by the axiom of infinity
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:43:29 2020 No.11520750 >>11520748Which line are you objecting to?
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:44:22 2020 No.11520759 >>11520740>reaching infinitynot possible.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:44:24 2020 No.11520760 >>11520740>1-.9 = .1-.09topkek
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:44:35 2020 No.11520761 >>11520718>infinity is retarded and it lets anyone do retarded things validly with it, and is also why it must be banished from math if not better defined to a much better degree than it has.you don't know how infinity is definedyou don't know how real numbers are definedyou don't know how decimals are definedyou don't know how limits are definedI'll be very generous and give you the benefit of the doubt whether you know how fractions are defined>>11520736>>using a limit, the definition of which is used for approximation, as a method of defining equality>>approximation is equalitywrong. a limit is precisely a tool to turn approximation into equality.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:45:51 2020 No.11520769 >>11520736approximation has nothing to do with it>>11520748the axiom of infinity has nothing to do with it
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:46:09 2020 No.11520771 File: 145 KB, 445x302, .png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11520761>>using a limit, the definition of which is used for approximation, as a method of defining equality>>approximation is equality>wrong. a limit is precisely a tool to turn approximation into equality.bro...
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:47:12 2020 No.11520774
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:48:45 2020 No.11520785 >>11520759It is already reached in the notation...
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:53:54 2020 No.11520806 >>11520785the notation is wrong because reaching infinity isn't possible.we also have the "$\frac{1}{\infty}=0$" problem.Your 0.999... can't be reproduced by $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{9}{10^n}$, because your 0.999... number has 9's in every decimal, but the sum has 0's in the ∞'th decimal(s).
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:54:34 2020 No.11520814 >>11520771well, since you're using the symbol for an infinite sum, you DO know that $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\tfrac{9}{10^k} = \lim_{n \to \infty}\sum_{k=1}^n\tfrac{9}{10^k}$, right ?
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:56:23 2020 No.11520822 >>11520814$\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\tfrac{9}{10^k} = \lim_{n \to \infty}\sum_{k=1}^n\tfrac{9}{10^k}$
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:56:32 2020 No.11520823 File: 45 KB, 640x640, wtf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11520806>the sum has 0's in the ∞'th decimal(s)
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 02:57:34 2020 No.11520826 >>11520814>>11520822>tfrac
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 03:03:06 2020 No.11520853   >>11520823this is a line of shitposting where I asked someone to show usefulness for why $\frac{1}{\infty}=0$ should be considered a true statement. for which they presented >>11517815which necessarily requires x in [eqn]\lim_{x\rightarrow\infty}[/eqn] to increment from the reals to infinity (I know, retarded), but also providing for "infinity'th" decimal place when x=infinity.I guess now is a good a time as any to say this proof was retarded and there is still no displayed reason for why $\frac{1}{\infty}=0$ rather than $=undefined$
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 03:04:56 2020 No.11520861 >>11520823this is a line of shitposting where I asked someone to show usefulness for why 1∞=0 should be considered a true statement.for which they presented >>11517815which necessarily requires x in $\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty}$ to increment from the reals to infinity (I know, retarded), but also providing for "infinity'th" decimal place when x=infinity.I guess now is a good a time as any to say this proof was retarded and there is still no displayed reason for why $\frac{1}{\infty}=0$ rather than $= undefined$protip, cant mix EQN and MATH.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 03:14:20 2020 No.11520921 >>11520861[citation needed]
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 03:14:48 2020 No.11520926 >>11520861I don't really see how defining 1/∞ = 0 and using it as >>11517815 should be imply anything about ∞-th decimal
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 03:21:09 2020 No.11520963 >>11520814>well, since you're using the symbol for an infinite sum, you DO know that $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{9}{10^k} = \lim_{n \to \infty}\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{9}{10^k}$they're essentially the same, yes. The function of the sum is a loop which uses the limit in place of n. Putting an actual limit function in front of it more defines the loop of sums. Whereas the sum produces a single list of partial sums, your limit sum would produce infinite lists of partial sums with infinite degrees of redundancy>$\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{9}{10^k} =$>[0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ... ]>$\lim_{n \to \infty} \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{9}{10^k} =$ >[ [0.9], [0.9, 0.99], [0.9, 0.99, 0.999], [0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ... ] ...]
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 03:28:38 2020 No.11521004 >>11520926lets reapply it here$\sum_{x=1}^{\infty} \frac{9}{10^x}$x is strictly tied to decimal places. if x=1, then there is also 1 decimal place. >x=1; 1st decimal>x=2; 2nd decimalif x=∞, this is equivalent to the ∞'th decimal place.I personally do not agree with the notion that x can actually increment to ∞ at all, so I don't require an ∞'th decimal to exist. I think this limit function invoking ∞ is not a valid justification for why $\frac{1}{\infty}=0$ because of the implications.If there are any better justifications for why $\frac{1}{\infty}=0$ ought to be a valid statement, i'm willing to hear them. That's what i'm looking for. cause if there are no valid reasons, then $\frac{1}{\infty}=undefined$ is how it really ought to be.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 04:04:36 2020 No.11521148 >>11521004>>11520926in case it weren't clear, the saying that sum somehow arrives at $\frac{1}{\infty}$, or rather pointing this identity towards that sum, is really implicitly defining a case where $\frac{9}{10^x} = \frac{1}{\infty}$, which is the case for $\frac{9}{10^{\infty}}$, or rather requires x=∞; which further requires the nonsense of incrementing x from real integers to ∞ as if ∞ itself were an integer.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 05:02:15 2020 No.11521355 >>11521004>>11521148[citation needed]
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 05:12:33 2020 No.11521394 1/9 = 0.111...+8/9 = 0.888...=9/9 = 0.999...
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 05:17:10 2020 No.11521409 File: 20 KB, 556x874, 1568514408727.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11521355>requiring citation for the application of logic
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 05:27:41 2020 No.11521446 >>11521409if it's valid, many more would agree with you
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 05:27:57 2020 No.11521447 >>11521004>>11521148Is this your chain of thoughts? >1/inf = 0>we have performed an arithmetic operation with inf>therefore inf must be a number >therefore we can perform all sorts of arithmetics with it and plug it into limits without giving it a thoughtYeah, no.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 05:29:14 2020 No.11521452 >>11521447>inf must be a numbernope
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 05:30:41 2020 No.11521457 >>11521447>all sorts ofnopesome sorts of
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 05:35:56 2020 No.11521477 >>11521452>>11521457I'm asking if this is >>11521004's logic. Declaring 1/inf = 0 doesn't magically change definition of infinite sums or adds inf-th decimals to numbers.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 05:38:47 2020 No.11521486 >>11521477no commenttalk to >>11521004idgaf what he thinks
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 05:40:24 2020 No.11521493 >>11517686>ITT: People who don't understand what ... means.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 05:47:18 2020 No.11521511 File: 11 KB, 229x221, pepe 1447337685317.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Imagine being so dumb that you can be deceived into believing anything less than 1 is the same as one. Newsflash retards; regardless how many 9's you use it will never be the same as 1.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 05:48:15 2020 No.11521513 -inf and +inf are both elements of the extended real numbers. Some arithmetic operations are defined for this set, namely:>a/+inf = 0 , a/-inf = 0 , for all real numbers a. One of the many applications of the extended reals is the monotone convergence theorem of measure theory:>If a sequence of real numbers is increasing and bounded above, then its supremum is the limit.You'll need this result for all of calculus if you want the rigor of axiomatic set theory by way of the standard constructions, although this decision is arbitrary and does not require any justification.
 >> A̛n͟o̧ǹ͝y̶m̶̸͠ous͞ Wed Apr 1 05:52:26 2020 No.11521525
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 06:02:01 2020 No.11521548 >>11521525OH SHIT
 >> A͢n͟o͡҉n͠y̧͠mou̷s̛͏ Wed Apr 1 06:04:08 2020 No.11521552 File: 64 KB, 623x405, 79C1F532-9745-4DF1-BDF7-5512DD9EB259.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
 >> A͏n͜o͞ny̧͠m͡o̧͢u̸̶s Wed Apr 1 06:13:36 2020 No.11521572 File: 32 KB, 512x443, 98ygrte.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 06:16:49 2020 No.11521579 >>11521511let's pretend infinite is finite
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 06:25:30 2020 No.11521604   You are all infected. To each other, biologically. To the Earth, socially. To the rest of the universe, mathematically.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 06:25:39 2020 No.11521605 File: 251 KB, 1413x1115, 1583516032897.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11521447Are you retarded? Can't you read?All i did was ask for why $\frac{1}{\infty}=0$ needs to be defined that way, and for an example of how that statement is useful. I was redirected to a limit function x->inf that had the fraction $\frac{1}{x}$ involved.All i did was show that this doesn't support "$\frac{1}{\infty}=0$" at all because of the logical complications in which it can be applied as relative to the fucking retarded limit equation.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 06:33:03 2020 No.11521619 Is anyone going to provide any reasoning or proof for why $\frac{1}{\infty}=0$ is a useful equation?If not, $\frac{1}{\infty}$ = undefined, as it should be.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 06:43:38 2020 No.11521640 >>11521619[citation needed]
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 07:19:07 2020 No.11521733 >>11521640Without infinity being well defined, neither are it's usages, which is important related to the thread op since many people seem to misunderstand what "0.999..." means.
 >> A͡n̶͡on͜ym͡o͟͞u̶̕͝s Wed Apr 1 07:47:39 2020 No.11521802 >>11521733$\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{9}{10^k} = \lim_{n \to \infty}\sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{9}{10^k} = \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{9}{10}\frac{1-\frac{1}{10^n}}{1-\frac{1}{10}} = \frac{9}{10}\frac{1-\frac{1}{\infty}}{1-\frac{1}{10}} = \frac{9}{10}\frac{1-0}{1-\frac{1}{10}} = 1$
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 08:07:21 2020 No.11521843 >>115205574 > 14 > 2...4 > 4
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 08:08:50 2020 No.11521846
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 09:25:02 2020 No.11522033 >>11521733it's bigduh1/inf=0
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 09:43:29 2020 No.11522091 Test
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 09:50:22 2020 No.11522103 >>11520339Asking "why are the laws of physics how they are" is difficult to answer and exists in the realm of philosophy.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 10:59:23 2020 No.11522318   >>11522311Have we actually confirmed that replying to an infected user gets you infected?? Because I'm coming up on 30 minutes now...
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 10:59:34 2020 No.11522321 >>11521802Circular logic
 >> An̶o̢͜n͜y͜m͠ǫ̸̀u̢s Wed Apr 1 11:04:32 2020 No.11522338 >>11522321where
 >> An͢͡on̵͡ymous Wed Apr 1 11:30:30 2020 No.11522438 >>11522321projection
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 12:00:39 2020 No.11522543 I think .9999 doesn't equal 1, but 1/3 * 3 does, and that 1/3 isn't actually equal to .3333.Maybe some fractions just shouldn't be decimals. Or maybe there's some form of number we haven't created to make this whole thing true. Can't we just make up something to make the solution work like a phycisist?
 >> An̶҉o̵n̡̨y͜mo͠u͢͠s̴ Wed Apr 1 12:18:03 2020 No.11522597 >>11522543>I thinktry harder
 >> An͜o̕n͠y҉m̛o̶ư͏̀͠s Wed Apr 1 12:22:49 2020 No.11522610 >>11522543>thinktry to read and think about proofs of 0.999... = 1. and I mean actual proofs, not that 10x = 9.999... bullshit.then try reading and thinking about proofs of 0.999... != 1. oh wait, there are none. only schizo rambling.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 12:27:32 2020 No.11522626 >/sci/ doesn't understand basic limitsPlease tell me this is a high effort trollEither that or calculus 1 is really a good brainlet filter, now i understand why my uni has it as a mandatory first semester class for everyone together with a bunch of other math classes.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 12:39:48 2020 No.11522667   >>11522515Are you sure you're not just an asymptomatic carrier?
 >> An҉ò̴n҉̵͟ý̨mò͠us Wed Apr 1 12:39:51 2020 No.11522668 $\boxed{0 < p < 1} \\1 = p + (1-p) ~~~~~~ \overset{1}{ \overbrace{[=====p=====|==(1-p)==]}} \\ \text{divide p using x} ~~~~~~ \overset{1}{ \overbrace{ \underset{p}{[ \underbrace{=====x=====|==(p-x)==}]} ~~ + ~~ (1-p)}} \\\\\text{solve x and (p-x), when length ratios must be the same} \\\dfrac{x}{p-x}= \dfrac{p}{1-p} \Rightarrow x- xp = p^2 - xp \Rightarrow \underline{x=p^2} \Rightarrow \underline{(p-x)=p(1-p)} \\\overset{1}{ \overbrace{ \underset{p}{[ \underbrace{=====p^2=====|==p(1-p)==}]} ~~ + ~~ (1-p)}} \\\\\overset{1}{ \overbrace{ \underset{p^2}{[ \underbrace{=====p^3=====|==p^2(1-p)==}]} ~~+ p(1-p)+(1-p)}} \\\overset{1}{ \overbrace{ \underset{p^3}{[ \underbrace{=====p^4=====|==p^3(1-p)==}]} ~~+ p^2(1-p)+p(1-p)+(1-p)}} \\(1-p)+p(1-p)+p^2(1-p)+p^3(1-p)+ \cdots =1 ~~~~ \left | ~ \times \frac{1}{1-p} \right . \\1+p+p^2+p^3+ \cdots = \dfrac{1}{1-p}$
 >> An͜ǫ̶̸́nym̀o҉́u̶s͡ Wed Apr 1 12:53:03 2020 No.11522711 don't know
 >> Ano͏̷n͠y̡̛m͘̕ous҉́́ Wed Apr 1 12:54:27 2020 No.11522714 >>11522668very nice butters. very nice
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 13:00:35 2020 No.11522749 >>11517820You don't understand how to take limits. You made a typical first year undergrad mistake.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 13:02:43 2020 No.11522765 >>11520736You really have low comprehension of mathematical analysis.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 13:07:25 2020 No.11522793 >>11522626Do all US unis use the same courses? I see people here referring to calculus 1, calculus 2 etc but in the UK all institutions have their own courses
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 13:14:26 2020 No.11522820   File: 77 KB, 1024x1022, 1564446877451.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >recuperate is the correct spelling
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 13:14:41 2020 No.11522821 >>11520723A mathematical analytical argument isn't going to convince someone with no understanding of mathematical analysis that 0.999... = 1, for if one did have any comprehension of basic analysis, that 0.99... = 1 is immediately clear (using a reasonable definition of 0.99... of course, which any math student will assume means the limit of the partial sums 9/10 + 9/10^2 + ... 9/10^n). This happens in every single. You get people going around asserting facts using their shitty deduction abilities in fields for which they have no knowledge or experience, but still have somehow convinced themselves that they have expert knowledge. Same as anti vaxxers. Instead of feeling dismayed and trying to convince them, relish in the fact you're not a fucking idiot, perhaps even smart, and laugh at these people.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 14:01:11 2020 No.11522996 >>11522765You are trying way too hard to defend irrelevant pretend-math.The only shit comprehension here are mathematicians for allowing the infinity meme to go on this long. Shameful brainlets.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 14:04:06 2020 No.11523005 >>11522793I'm from eastern europe, so probably it's different from US and western europe, it's just the first uni calculus course so they call it that.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 14:05:13 2020 No.11523008 >>11522821You're trying too hard.Academia is not a real job. Just cause you got suckered into learning worthlesd information that literally has no use beyong trying to sucker others into learning it via becoming a teacher, doesn't mean you're right.Shameful brainlet.
 >> A̶͟n͞o͜nym̨̛͡o̧u͠s͜ Wed Apr 1 14:14:36 2020 No.11523038 >>11523008>Just cause you got suckered into learning worthlesd information that literally has no use beyong trying to sucker others into learning it via becoming a teacher, doesn't mean you're right.that's exactly what it means
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 14:30:51 2020 No.11523098 dont coof @ me brainlet.
 >> An̕͝on͠͝y̛mo͠us Wed Apr 1 14:36:03 2020 No.11523123 >>11523098>>11523038>>11523008>>11523005>>11522996>>11522821>>11522793>>11522765>>11522749>>11522714>>115227111/3 = .333...1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = .999...
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 14:50:31 2020 No.11523174 File: 277 KB, 585x606, 1585113630285.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11523123>haha calculator print long number brrrr[ 1 ], [ ÷ ], [ 3 ], [ = ][ 0 . 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ]but in real math, $\frac{1}{3} >0.333\dots$
 >> An̸on͘͠҉̴y̶m͜oư̢s͠ Wed Apr 1 14:55:18 2020 No.11523191
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 15:02:28 2020 No.11523221 File: 256 KB, 742x742, 1583191928422.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >wolframalpha isn't a calculatorhaha brrrrrrrrrr
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 15:10:44 2020 No.11523262 >>11517686Oh my god you people are fucking retarded. It's just a limit.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 15:22:27 2020 No.11523319 >>11523262limits are only viable without infinityor rather, convergence is.divergence will remain expanding regardless of anything.but if there an implicit notion of infinite allowable terms between any two integers, then limits of convergence are complete nonsense. put it another way:A: [ 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , ... ] -> ∞mapped toB: [ 0 . 9 , 9 , 9 , 9 , ... ] -> 1has the same meaning.A cannot reach infinity, much less get close to it.B cannot reach 1, much less get close to it.because infinity is insurmountable. if there were a finite function there rather than infinite, then you could approach.For example, with a limit of 7 decimals. [ 0 . 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 ][ 0 . 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 ][ 0 . 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 ][ 0 . 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 ][ 0 . 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 ][ 0 . 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 ][ 0 . 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 ]if you doubled that up to 14, at this most recent step we'd at least be halfway there. 14/2 = 7if you expand it to ∞ though, well, what's ∞/2?∞/2 doesn't exist.can't divide infinity.so you can't show that any n amount of 9's are "approaching" infinite 9's.
 >> A̕͠n̢͜o̴n̢ymǫ̵̀us͘ Wed Apr 1 15:24:43 2020 No.11523331 >>11523319>wall of schizo-text
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 15:26:15 2020 No.11523340 >resident retard got infectedwhat a surprise
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 15:49:56 2020 No.11523436 there's probably an argument to be made that $\frac{1}{3} = 0.333\dots$ if infinity isn't something applicable to math. but since the dots themselves are loosely attributed to infinity, it'd ultimately require a different notation.>>11520293nails an equality function but it's extremely messy and weird. Since 1/3 division prints out 3's because it wants there to be an integer between 3 and 4 (in base 10), the easiest way of getting around it is saying the answer must instead be in base 9. 1/3 in base 9 = 3/10 = $0.3000\dots_{b9}$it essentially functions the same as taking a decimal with n-decimals, but cutting it off at (n-1) decimals and using the n'th decimal to round,and if the logic were explained well enough then it would omit the need to even write $0.333\dots$ or $0.\overline{3}$.although it's still messy nonsense to write $0.3_9$, it's probably more functional in expanding general maths to cover arbitrary bases.if we had a true numberline that encompassed numbers from any base, then it becomes much easier to say $\frac{1}{3} = 0.3_9$ rather than $\frac{1}{3} = 0.333\dots$ and this would require new methods in calculators and computers for doing math.
 >> An̕͝o͞n̡̛y͢m̶o͟u͟͞s Wed Apr 1 16:20:01 2020 No.11523517 >>11523436>if we had a true numberline that encompassed numbers from any baselol
 >> Ą͟͝no̴nym͜o͞ù҉ś͝ Wed Apr 1 16:49:03 2020 No.11523649 >>11523436>9 = 3/10 = 0.3000…b9your base isn't benign, it's seriously malignant
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 16:51:39 2020 No.11523658 imagine being a chatbot that can't comprehend entire sentences.here's a complimentary (You) @11523649 you stupid coofer.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 17:01:50 2020 No.11523707 >>115176861-0.9=0.11-0.99=0.011-0.999=0.001...1-0.9999999999=0.0000000001...How far can you go? Can you reach 1-0.999...=0? But if you only work with three significant figures then 1-0.999=0 and we are finished.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 17:05:24 2020 No.11523728 anyone know of any applications of $\frac{1}{\infty} = 0$ or have a reason to object to $\frac{1}{\infty} = undefined$ ?
 >> An̛o͢n͜y͡͡m̸̶ǫ̶͟us Wed Apr 1 17:10:55 2020 No.11523746
 >> Anonỳmous̢ Wed Apr 1 17:23:23 2020 No.11523790 >>11523728Riemann sphere
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 17:33:58 2020 No.11523836 >>11523790>complex analysis/analytic number theory counts as an application
 >> An̨o̶nym͏ou̡͟s͞ Wed Apr 1 18:01:20 2020 No.11523958 Isn't it more like a riemann half-sphere since the top half is dedicated to anything greater than 1, unbounded?Maybe call it the riemann faggot function since it's just a half-sphere connected to cylinder. Very phallic.
 >> Anon͡ym͢҉o͞us Wed Apr 1 18:26:17 2020 No.11524035 >>11523958What? The Riemann sphere is a compact Riemann surface, so it has a bounded image via any embedding into a metric space.
 >> A̛n̨҉͏o̴̡nym̢͞o͟us̷ Wed Apr 1 18:30:37 2020 No.11524049 >>115176860.999...<1 you dumb math fags
 >> Anò̡n̸y̢ḿ҉ou̴͡s Wed Apr 1 18:30:46 2020 No.11524050 >>11524035The top vector is dedicated to infinity though. The left, right, front and back vectors are real numbers (inb4 i isn't), and all of those connect to the top, which is infinity.The top half of the sphere is useless. It's easy enough to imagine it as a cylinder extension of the bottom half sphere. So it's an upside dickhead.
 >> Anon̡͡ymo͞u̴s͟͝ Wed Apr 1 18:37:55 2020 No.11524068 >>11524050If it's a "cylinder extension to the bottom half sphere" (and embedded in R^3) it'll either be of finite "height" (i.e. homeomorphic to the Riemann sphere as it's normally defined) or it will go up forever, in which case it's homeomorphic to C.Also, i isn't a real number... if you're only considering the bottom half, this is homeomorphic to (in fact, isomorphic as Riemann surfaces to) the unit disc in C, which is its own thing.Without the Riemann sphere as a compactification of C, it's really hard to study Complex analysis, modular forms (analytic number theory in general), and some areas in geometry...
 >> An̶͠ó̴ny̴̧m̵o͜us͢͠ Wed Apr 1 18:44:02 2020 No.11524084 File: 96 KB, 1278x990, 2020-04-01 15.51.04.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11524068sure you're not lookin for excuses to draw dicks in class?
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 18:47:06 2020 No.11524096 The time for discussing this is over. It is obvious that people who believe that 0.999... = 1 are in no way sane or rational. They can not be reasoned with. They are like flat earthers. Either trolls or so hopelessly retarded that they wouldn't even be able to comprehend how goddamned fucking stupid they are even if you shoved their heads into a powerful anti-retard device and left it going all year on the maximum setting.No, my friends, any debate with these crawling cretins is pointless. It is instead time to settle this on the battlefield. I can guarantee VICTORY shall be ours, for we believe in a discrete Universe, governed by discrete laws, where our swords shall VERILY CLEVE OPEN THE HERETICAL SKULLS OF THOSE GOD CURSED SODOMY-LOVING INFINITY FREAKS with the blessing of the ALMIGHTY! DEUS VULT!
 >> A͞n̢o͢ny͢m͠o͏u̢͘s̀͟ Wed Apr 1 19:09:08 2020 No.11524124 0.999... = 1$\color{red}{\text{(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)}}$
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 20:12:52 2020 No.11524269 >>11524096\textcolorred(USER WAS PRAISED BY GOD FOR THIS POST)amidoingitrite?
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 20:21:57 2020 No.11524286 >>11524124nice
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 20:52:29 2020 No.11524360 >>11517698this
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 20:54:50 2020 No.11524369 >>11520806>we also have the "$\frac{1}{\infty}=0$" problem.retard
 >> An͞o̢n̡̧y̢m͢͢͠o̢us̢ Wed Apr 1 21:01:21 2020 No.11524387 >false = truthNo wonder this is somehow correct and the only acceptable answer nowadays. Mankind is FUCKED.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 21:20:23 2020 No.11524447 >>11524096It seems you just assume there's a ...01 at the end somehow. And you think people are trying to get rid of it lol. The digits go from 0-9 not 1-10. Every digit is fully occupied. There is no ..1.This is the only number that does this and the usefulness is immediately apparent upon converting fractions and decimals. It's easy to express 1/3 in base 9. Not so easy in base ten.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 22:19:13 2020 No.11524609 >>11524602jesus
 >> An͏̴ơny̧̧͞m̕͞o̴us͟ Wed Apr 1 22:19:25 2020 No.11524610 >>11524447$9.99>every digit is occupied>$0.01 does not exist
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 22:57:12 2020 No.11524732 >>11524447Where the fuck did I ever say anything about that, you Godless HEATHEN! Perhaps you are confusing me with some righteous, but otherwise confused, BROTHER, who rests in arms of the ONE TRUE DISCRETE UNIVERSE!I will give one last chance to repent. Repeat after me: "0.999... even if it existed, which it doesn't, would go on like that forever and therefore would never reach 1" .SAY IT! REPENT! REPENT! FIND SALVATION! YOU HERETIC! Otherwise you know the WRATH of my sword swinging down through discrete intervals of space in discrete parcels of time, thereby CLEAVING your SKULL and releasing the vile heresies contained therein. Meanwhile your own sword shallelth dangle uselessly, taking an infinite amount of time to travel an infinitesimal distance. HA! And thusly so the righteous shall vanquish the infidels!DESU VAULTING!
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 23:49:30 2020 No.11524858 >>11522033Big brain post, unironically.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 1 23:51:12 2020 No.11524860 >>11524096*Sorry, I made a typo. I meant people who believe that 0.999... ≠ 1.
 >> Ań̵̡on͢y̡͡ḿ̡o͢us̴ Wed Apr 1 23:52:13 2020 No.11524865 >>11522033saying 1/inf=0 doesn't make it so.it opens up a boatload of logic problems which have no result but to say it can't be so, anyway.
 >> A̕n̴̨ơ̵nym҉ou̵͢ś͏ Wed Apr 1 23:53:39 2020 No.11524870 >>11524860>infinity>discretenice try tardo make sure to read the whole post next time.
 >> Anonymous Thu Apr 2 00:41:13 2020 No.11524978 >>11524865[citation needed]oh here's onehttps://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%2Finf
 >> Anonymous Thu Apr 2 01:35:34 2020 No.11525095 >>11524865>opens up a boatload of logic problemsName one
 >> Anonymous Thu Apr 2 02:23:21 2020 No.11525168 >>11525095>Name one0.999... um, let's call it Harold
 >> Anonymous Thu Apr 2 04:40:04 2020 No.11525359 >>11525168>0.999...100% unrelated to 1/inf = 0
 >> Anonymous Thu Apr 2 05:28:19 2020 No.11525421 >>11525359meh, 99.999...%
 >> Anonymous Thu Apr 2 05:29:59 2020 No.11525422 >>115253591 = 9/10 + 1/10= 0.9 + 1/10= 0.99 + 1/100= 0.999 + 1/1000:= 0.9... + 1/inf = 0.9... + 0 = 0.9...
 >> Anonymous Thu Apr 2 05:36:54 2020 No.11525428 >>11525422this is just a reformulation of an argument which works the same regardless of 1/inf = 0. literally only difference is that you write "1/inf" instead of "lim 1/10^n for n->inf".