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

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 20 KB, 638x451, 0999-equal-to-1-or-0999-smaller-than-1-1-638.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11579629 No.11579629 [Reply] [Original]

Is there a correlation with IQ and questioning the 0,999=1 narrative?

Could it be that people below a certain IQ can't comprehend infinity and repeating numbers so they literally round it in their head? It's frightening to think that some people literally aren't able to visualize a repeating number like this that approaches but never reaches 1, a task many of us were able to do in elementary school. Even reading wikipedia they think that it's 1. It's cray-cray. Is a certain IQ required for it or is some region of the brain responsible for it? Thoughts?

>> No.11579640

>>11579629
Thinking 0.9999...=1 is correlated with schizophrenia, and schizophrenia is correlated with low intelligence. So yes; people that believe 0.99999....=1 are extremely dumb.

>> No.11579642

It's just not intuitive. High school math says that if something starts with 0.X, it's not bigger than 1. Even when finding limits in pre-calc or Calc 1, you're finding long 0.999999999s that approach 1, but aren't 0.999...

>> No.11579645

>>11579642
The LIMIT is 1, but the number NEVER reaches one. So yes 0.X is NEVER one.

How many times do you schizo retards need to be told this?

>> No.11579656

>>11579629
Yes, those who understand that "1.0" isn't the same as "0.999..." have higher intelligence than those who believe they're the same.

>> No.11579658
File: 70 KB, 696x1072, infinity v2 with text.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11579658

>>11579645
This.

>> No.11579710

>>11579629
Lmao simps ignoring the obvious 0.9999999999... > 1
It's infinite after all, how could something infinite be smaller than 1

>> No.11579732

>>11579642
I see, the problem is American education. As always.

>> No.11579736

>>11579629
0.995... == 1
How does this make you feel

>> No.11579739

>>11579736
Increase the number of bits in your floating number system anonbot

>> No.11579741

>>11579710
It's an infinite zoom. Let's say you have a field of view allowing you to see a 5x1 grid which is able to contain a line of length one and is on a high resolution computer monitor. As you keep adding an extra 9, in order to be able to see the next addition you must zoom in and move your point of view slightly to the right, so now you are only seeing a fraction of the cubes on the grid.This "depth" zoom goes on infinitely.

>> No.11579775
File: 8 KB, 232x217, download.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11579775

>>11579741
>Give a serious reply to that shitty bait.

>> No.11579780

>>11579775
I know it's bait, but I still typed that in case any dumb lurkers actually think that way.

>> No.11579796

0.999...
+ 0.999...
---------
1.8
1.98
1.998
1.9998
.
.
.

1.999...8


1.999...8
+ 0.999...8
---------
2.8
2.98
2.998
2.9998
.
.
.

2.999...8

.
.
.


n * 0.999... = (n-1).999...8

>> No.11579839

>>11579629
>Is there a correlation with IQ and questioning the 0,999=1 narrative?
If the recent threads on /sci/ are anything to go by, the people who reject the 0.999... = 1 narrative seem very consistently to do so without actually understanding the math.

I do believe that rejecting notions you do not understand without even understanding what it is you are rejecting is correlated with a low IQ, yes.

>> No.11579849

>>11579629
>>11579640
>>11579642
>>11579645
>>11579656
>>11579658
>>11579741
>>11579796
imagine you have a bottle that contains exactly 1.0L of water. you pour that bottle EQUALLY into three cups. each cup has .333... L of water. then, you pour each cup back into the original bottle. the bottle now contains

.333...
+.333...
+.333...
----------
.999... L of water
but we never lost any water, so therefore:
.999 = 1

>> No.11579864

>>11579629
Not sure if bait, 0.9999999...= 1

I can nearly imagine a possibility where it depends on the context, because maths is a game where we make up the rules.

Under our current rules, there aren't any contradictions arising from 0.999999999...= 1

>> No.11579875

>>11579629
>Is there a correlation with IQ and questioning the 0,999=1 narrative?
Not sure, but I think there is a correlation between not having taken real analysis and questioning it.

>> No.11579879

>>11579629
>Is there a correlation with IQ and questioning the 0,999=1 narrative?
>Is there a correlation with IQ and being stupid?

>> No.11579880

>>11579849
Not op but you never stopped pouring in the first place

>> No.11579895

>>11579629
There is no going, there is no reaching, there is no climbing. There are already an infinite amount of 9s. Because the 9s are infinite, the distance between 0.9 bar and 1 is infinitely small, therefore they are the same.

>> No.11579906

>>11579895
Imagine there were 10 meters between us and my fist travelled 9/10 the distance every millisecond would you ever get punched in the face? Would you even get grazed?

>> No.11579917

>>11579640
/thread
>>11579849
>1/3=.3...
nice approximation, fren

>> No.11579923

>>11579875
>taken
I think the word you are looking for is 'studied'. And the correlation is inverse.
>>11579895
>is infinitely small, therefore they are the same.
non sequiter

>> No.11579934

>>11579849

trisections aren't actually possible either mathematically (geometrically) or physically.

>> No.11579943

>>11579934
Way to out yourself as a sub 80 IQ simpleton

>> No.11579960

>>11579943
If the amount of molecules of water is not divisible by 3 then he is correct retard

>> No.11579974

>>11579960
its a thought experiment to help visualize why .999... = 1, dont take it so literally

>> No.11579977

>>11579960
Just split the atoms retard. We already have the technology

>> No.11579984

>>11579629
Let S=0.111...

A) S=0.111... = 1/10 + 1/10^2 + 1/10^3 + ...

B) S/10 = 1/10^2 + 1/10^3 + 1/10^4 + ...

A and B imply S-S/10 = 1/10 and therefore S=1/9. Then 0.999... = 9*0.111... = 9S = 1.

>> No.11579994

>>11579923
>sequiter
Anglx-Saxonexs should fucking die.
Go speak German you crooked barbarian

>> No.11580069

>>11579629
People with low intelligence are more gullible and thus easily deceived into believing less than 1 is 1.

>> No.11580079
File: 3.18 MB, 1280x9898, Eternity.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11580079

>>11579658
To elaborate further on the core of the problem in the minds of those who believe less than 1 is 1:

The plain truth is the following.

Zero point followed by an infinite amount of nines will never be the same as 1. It will /always/ be less than 1. No matter how many 9s are used; even when the amount of 9s are infinite.

The inability some people who view themselves as being "scientific" have in comprehending that ".999..." isn't the same as "1" - it's completely connected to their inability to grasp eternity and infinity. Their minds have basically been programmed to believe eternity and infinity are impossibilities. Over the course of many generations of indoctrination into an alien worldview, their parents and their parents etc gradually "learned" to be unable to comprehend it and this "learned disability" was inherited, and encouraged/fueled by various external factors from the echoing modern culture.

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 (((Christianity))) 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. (((Christianity))) introduced into the minds of people the idea of life and the world/universe being linear, starting from point A and ending at a point B, whereas in the Native European worldview everything is an infinite 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 their Judaically-induced mental disease.

>> No.11580166

>>11579977
You'd have to split those too retard

>> No.11580177

>>11579629
I think it's correlated with math literacy and knowing how limits work

>> No.11580184

>>11580177
>knowing how limits work
Search up what a limit is

>> No.11580190

>>11579736
0.99 + 5/900
= 896/900 =/= 1

>> No.11580196
File: 144 KB, 1032x1502, zeropointninerepeating.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11580196

Believing 0.999...!=1 correlates with mathematical illiteracy and low IQ

>> No.11580202

What is
0.999.... + 0.999... ?

>> No.11580213

>>11580202
0.181818181818181818....

>> No.11580235

>>11580213
But clearly
0.999.... > 0.9
so 0.1818181818... = 0.999...+ 0.999... > 0.9 + 0.9 =1.8
that doesnt work

>> No.11580251

>>11580202
1.999...

>> No.11580253

>>11580251
And what's 1.999... - 0.999...?

>> No.11580269

Look:
Assume 0.999...!=1
Then
1-0.999.... = 0.0....1
What's 10* (1-0.999...) = 10* 0.0...1?
Is it 0.0....10? That can't be, because 0.0...1 = 0.0...100000... = 0.0...10 are the same number.
Perhaps it's 0.0....1 but with one less zero? But how can there be one less zero than infinite zeros? Infinite zeros is infinite zeros.
If you take the sequence
0, 0, 0, 0, ... (to infinity)
take away one zero, you get the same sequence!
If you don't believe 0.0...1* 10 = 0.0...1 you have to explain how they are different.
And perhaps that will finally force you to DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN!

>> No.11580288

>>11580202
1.999...8
checkmate atheists

>> No.11580290
File: 50 KB, 499x636, XbYPtPy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11580290

>>11580213

>> No.11580303
File: 97 KB, 1654x2339, For 1 tards.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11580303

>>11579629
Yes. People smart enough to do BASIC calculus accept that 0.9999...=1, but people too retarded to understand calculus and understand that the 9's are ALREADY THERE. Numbers are not processes.

>> No.11580306

>>11580288
Is 1.999...8 = 1.999... + 0.0...8?

>> No.11580322

>>11580306
In that case,
0.999... + 0.999... = 1.999... + 0.0...8 = 1 + 0.999.... + 0.0...8
Subtracting 0.99... from both sides, we get that
0.999... = 1 + 0.0...8 = 1.0...8
CHECK MATE RETARDS

>> No.11580332

>>11579906
Yes, retard. Zeno's Paradox is not a paradox when you understand calculus and limits. Please join the rest of us in the ADs.

>> No.11580334

>>11580306
No. 1.999...8 = 1.999...0 + 0.000...8.

>> No.11580336

>>11580303
They have repeatedly demonstrated that they refuse to learn the basic definitions and insist on arguing through their own fuzzy ill-defined notions. The trick is to beat them at their own game as I have done in these posts:
>>11580202
>>11580253
>>11580288
>>11580306
>>11580322

>> No.11580341

>>11580288
Just broke the definition of the .999.. = 1 tards that there isn't a number between .999 and 1

>> No.11580349

>>11579923
1) Fuck you for quibbling over a pathetic difference over "taken" versus "studied".
2) Fuck you so assuming that a correlation is inverse just because you SAY it is.
3) Fuck you for calling a startling, relevant condemnation of your idiocy a "non-sequitur".

>> No.11580352

>>11580334
Ok then, what's
1.999... - 1.999....0?

>> No.11580357

>>11580352
0.000...9.

>> No.11580368

>>11580357
And what's
0.000...9 + 0.000...1?

>> No.11580375

>>11580368
10*(0.000...1)

>> No.11580379

>>11580375
Ok and what is it? Apply the operation.

>> No.11580388

>>11580379
Not that guy but what's .999... + .000...1?

>> No.11580393

>>115803790
0.000...A in base 12. No finite base can handle all these numbers without issue, my dude.

>> No.11580398

>>11580388
The whole reason why im asking these questions is to demonstrate that its inconsistent to hold that 0.99..!=1 and that 0.99.. is a number you can add, subtract at the same time.
This is to help you see that you need to DEFINE WHAT YOU FUCKING MEAN BY 0.999...

>> No.11580402

>>11580388
1

>> No.11580413

>>11580393
What's
0.aaa....(in base 12) - 0.999... (in base 10)

>> No.11580419

>>11580253
1

>> No.11580420

>>11579629
This makes no sense, how would 0.9 periodic ever be = 1 to anyone who understand the concepts of "repeats forever"?

>> No.11580422

>>11580388
1.000...1
Everybody knows this

>> No.11580424

>>11579645
Bait. No way anon is so stupid they can't understand that.

>> No.11580425

>>11580322
>0.999... + 0.999... = 1.999... + 0.0...8 = 1 + 0.999.... + 0.0...8
1+1=2+0=1+1+0

mindblown.jpg

>> No.11580427

>>11580413
0, of course.

>> No.11580433

>>11580425
Look, guy, I'm on your side. Of course 0.99...=1
What I'm doing with these posts is like chess:
I'm assuming their own understanding of numbers and decimal expansions is consistent, and asking them questions to get them to contradict themselves. You can see how they're forced to make ad hoc rules: they wriggle and wriggle until SNAP: they're proven to be retards because they contradict themselves.

>> No.11580435

>>11580303
The limit of something literally defines the closest value of what it never reaches, retard. That's why you have left and right limits. From the left the limit is 0, from the right it's 1. That doesn't mean 0.999 == 0 or that 0.999 == 1, it means it never does. Why do you pose as if you understand calculus online, anon?

>> No.11580444

Alright fags what's .999 + .999 + .999?
How about .999...+ .999... + .999...?

>> No.11580445

>>11580427
What's
0.00...11 - 0.0....1?

>> No.11580450

>>11580445
10*(0.000...1)

>> No.11580454

>>11580433
>I'm on your side
no one cares anon

>> No.11580458

>>11580445
>>11580450
Alternative notation: 1/10^(inf-1)

>> No.11580460

>>11580444
>.999 + .999 + .999?
3*.999 = 3(1-0.001) = 3-0.003 = 2.997
>How about .999...+ .999... + .999...?
3*1=3

>> No.11580462

>>11580450
So do you believe that 0.0...1 is smaller than 0.0...100...?

>> No.11580463

>>11580445
0-0=0

>> No.11580465

>>11580462
That notation is ambiguous.

>> No.11580468

>>11580465
0.000...1 < 0.0...2 < 0.00...3< ... < 0.0...12 ?
So 0.0...2 < 0.0...12 but
0.0...2 = 0.0...20 just like 1 = 1.000
so what's going on here?

>> No.11580470

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.

>> No.11580474

>>11580468
No, your notation is ambiguous.

For example, it is not clear by 0.000...12 whether you mean 12/10^inf or 12/10^(inf-57).

>> No.11580483

>>11579629
>x=0.999...
>10x=9.999...
>10x-9x=9.999...-0.999...
>x=1
>0.999...=1

I could give a least 2 or 3 separate mathematical proofs that conclude that 0.999...=1, but brainlets don't know what proofs are since they never passed high school geometry.

>> No.11580488

>>11580474
What are you, dumb? 0.0...12 means infinite zeros with 1 2 followed by it.

>> No.11580490
File: 7 KB, 192x166, 6a00d8341bfda053ef00e54f5947008833-800wi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11580490

Dispute 3/3 = 1, I dare you.

>> No.11580493

>>11580213
based

>> No.11580495

>>11580490
It's already been disputed, retard.
The 0.999... != 1 morons don't believe 1/3 = .333...

>> No.11580499

>>11580488
>infinite zeros
>followed by it

Imagine you go to buy toilet paper. The queue is infinitely long. Can you walk to try and join the end of it?

>> No.11580504

>>11580488
I was happy to play along when we were using single digits on the end for the sake of argument, but if you want to get into advanced mathematics, we're going to have to be more formal. For example, you cannot express 1/10^(inf-3) in your notation without equating it with 1/10^inf by the rules of your notation.

>> No.11580512

rounding dy and dx to 0 forms the basis of calculus

>> No.11580514

>>11580504
If you want to be formal, let's be formal.
What is
0.999...?
I believe the expression is ambiguous, just like you believe 0.999...12 is ambiguous, and ask you for the definition of it.

>> No.11580517

>>11580079
LMAO
M
A
O

>> No.11580521

>>11580514
0.999... = 9/10^1 + 9/10^2 + ... + 9/10^inf

>> No.11580523

>>11580521
Ok I assume by 9/10^n you mean regular fractions?
What do you mean by inf? As you know there are different kinds of infinities.
Also what do you mean by ....?

>> No.11580528

>>11580495
I asked them to dispute 3/3 = 1, not 1/3 = .3333, imbecile.

>> No.11580529

0.999... can be expressed as
[eqn]\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{9}{10^n}[/eqn]
And
[eqn]\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{9}{10^n}={1}[/eqn]
So 0.999... =1

>> No.11580534

>>11580523
Oh, this is all by definition to make sense out of 0.999... in the least arbitrary manner. I could have defined it to be 9/10^1 + 9/10^2 + ... + 9/10^(inf+78), but chose a simpler interpretation.

>> No.11580536

>science and math board
>people can't figure out the very basics of limits and addition

>> No.11580538

>>11580523
Have you ever taken anything higher than prealgebra? Because if you have, you'd be comfortably familiar with each of these concepts.

>> No.11580541

>>11580534
You haven't defined what you mean by .... and by "inf".
It's still ambiguous.
Mathematicians have a precise definition of what they mean by "0.999...":
It's the least equivalence class of cauchy sequences of rational numbers x such that
x is greater than all of the numbers in the set that is the image of the function f:N->Q given by f(n)=1- 10^(-n).
So what do you mean by "inf" and "..."?

>> No.11580542

>>11580538
I'm familiar with them in the standard sense, but anon is clearly not doing standard mathematics, because if he did, he would accept that 0.999... = 1 .

>> No.11580552

>>11580542
That's my bad. The previous anon's post was so vague and incoherent that I figured he was trying to prove that 0.999...=1.

>> No.11580559
File: 306 KB, 720x866, Abramovic-Rothschild.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11580559

>>11579645
>>11579642
>>11579640
>>11579629
The point is to destroy the meta narratives (Postmodernism/Marxism) and finally bring degeneracy to Math as well which is the final frontier for (((them))) to destroying logic, science and the western Civilization
https://youtube.com/watch?v=FH2WeWgcSMk
https://www.nicholasjfuentes.com/master-narratives-of-postmodernity/
https://youtube.com/watch?v=AZZNvT1vaJg

>> No.11580566

>>11580541
... clearly increments the exponent by 1 until reaching inf. Inf is a concept that is defined for the purposes of addressing 0.999... The final digit in 0.999... is the infth digit.

>> No.11580575
File: 124 KB, 519x699, 1550761214622.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11580575

>>11580559
Google "decolonize math"
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post-mobile.php?story=20171006102945514

>> No.11580637

>>11580523
>different kinds of infinities
all of them are >R
1/inf=0, no matter what inf

>> No.11580776

>>11579934
source: my ass

>> No.11580794

>>11579629
>>11579645
>>11579658
>>11580435
>>11580470

Man I swear, people who support 0.999... is not equal to 1 are still in high-school.
>approaches but never reaches
Great job forgeting the "in finite amount of steps" part. That's what they tell high schoolers to prevent them from saying stuff like 1/0=inf and 1/inf=0.

If you are aware of the epsilon delta definition of the limit, it states (for this case) that if you can get your function to be arbitrarily close to a specific value by making your x as big as you want then that value is the limit of the function at +inf. Now if you consider the sequence 0.9 0.99 0.999 0.9999 and so on, by chosing a number of the sequence as big as you like you can get arbitrarily close to 1. So the limit is 1.
Similarly you can show that the limit is 0.999... (with as big a step in the sequence you want, you can get arbitrarily close to 0.999...) Because of the uniqueness of the limit theorem (taught in every college calculus class) which states that this sequence must have one limit, we can conclude that 1=0.999...

>> No.11580796

>>11580794
>1/inf=0
1/inf=0

>> No.11580801

>>11580796
It's true but not in the way a high-schooler would understand. Infinity is not a number and so pretending like it is, is wrong

>> No.11580807

>>11580499
Dumb analogy. More like you are in a queue that becomes bigger and bigger. After infinite time, are you still in the queue?

>> No.11580817

>>11579629

I have been talking to GOD a lot about this recently. GOD has told me that the problem is that people who think 0.999...= 1 are SODOMITES. Cursed for finiternity.
GOD also tells me that is the scared duty of the RIGHTEOUS to take up arms against the SODOMITES and bring them to JUDGEMENT before the ALMIGHTY!

Say it with me, Brothers and Sisters of the ONE TRUE FINITE UNIVERSE. DEUS VULT! DEUS VULT! DEUS VULT!

>> No.11580845

>>11580817
stop eating the TP

>> No.11580954

>>11580807
Your analogy is exponentially more retarded. Much like yourself.

>> No.11580957

>>11580499
this is misleading, because you can. ω+1

>> No.11581091

>>11580460
Brainlet cope

>> No.11581094
File: 437 KB, 1218x1806, Blainwash.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11581094

This OP is onto something. I suspected it
already.

The children soon are taught in school how
0.999... is shorthand for decimal expansion
of 1. This charade is constantly propagated
through the media and by the scientists.
They go on and on about it in an unstoppable fashion.

Yet the dissent has been growing during this lockdown.
The media and the scientists have had to change focus.
People are afraid to go to a physician to get vax, and
there are few passenger planes spreading chemtrails.
The brainwashing chemicals that NASA and the government
have been spreading to the masses in a constant stream
up until now during all those years lose their grip and
potency. The sheeple are waking up for the awful truth.
We see it clearly demonstrated here on /sci/ in posts
like the OP.

Yes, the facts are slowly showing. In reality 0.999...
is a secret code for various locations on Earth's disc.
The locations where alien spaceships drop off supplies
of those brainwashing chemicals that NASA requires for
their suppression strategy, and which cannot be produced
in the huge quantities needed here on Earth itself. But
the deep secret is unravelling; finally we see a light.

Wait, why do several black SUVs right now as I type
approach the trailer park from along the dirt road?

Why do they stop right here in front of the door to
my granny's trailer.

What are those gas pistols and syringes meant for that
the men in black suits carry? This doesn't look right.
They are coming nearer.

What shall I do? Anons, they are forcing their way in
here. PLS HLP!!!

Noooooooooooooooo...

>> No.11581190

>>11581091
>i have no argument

>> No.11581197

>>11581190
>I can't do math

>> No.11581204

>>11581197
show the error

>> No.11581209

>>11580202
2

>> No.11581210

>>11581204
.999... =/= 1

>> No.11581214

>>11581210
give the definition of .999... and then prove your claim

>> No.11581216

>>11581209
Cope harder tranny

>> No.11581219

>>11581216
>I have no argument

>> No.11581220

>>11581214
How about you actually try to solve the question I gave you first?

>> No.11581229

>>11581219
>I can't disprove the argument

>> No.11581230

>>11580460
Seethe faggot seethe

>> No.11581234

>>11581230
>I have no argument

>> No.11581238

>>11581220
>solve the question
Another poster with english as its 5th language.

>> No.11581252

>>11581234
>I can't do basic math
WHAT'LL BE AT THE END OF THOSE 9'S FAGGOT? HUH CAN'T SUBTRACT IT ANYMORE CAN YOU?

>>11581238
You know glasses aren't too expensive in this day and age. You could also try to zoom in or bring the screen closer to your face.

>> No.11581255

>>11581252
there's no end

>> No.11581258

>>11581255
And does that mean it doesn't end or that it equals to 1?

>> No.11581266

>>11581258
there is no last digit in 0.999....
0.999... = 1

>> No.11581268

>>11581258
both

>> No.11581271

>>11579629
.999 and 1 don't actually exist they are just concepts that describe the world around us in the best way compatible for our brains.

>> No.11581273

>>11581252
Sorry anon. I exaggerated. Is english your 7th language? You are a genius.

>> No.11581274

>>11581268
>>11581266
Cope. You know exactly what that means

>> No.11581281

>>11581274
>i have no argument

>> No.11581283

>>11581273
Hey it's not my fault you can't read.

>> No.11581284

>>11581274
>I have no argument

>> No.11581291

>>11581281
>>11581284
I could literally say the same to you I hope you realize that right? It doesn't change the fact that you can't refute what was stated.
>i have no argument

>> No.11581302

>>11581271
We could also say that 0.999... and 1 are symbols. On paper each would be "real" as squiggles of ink on a surface. Some would argue that as such they do exist. And "concept" would be a wrong denotation for either. You have to have "interpretation" to get from the squiggles to concepts. Unfortunately the retards on /sci/ refuse to consider any such thing.

>> No.11581307

>>11581291
>It doesn't change the fact that you can't refute what was stated.
what do you mean exactly ?

>> No.11581323

>>11581302
Exactly, you use the .999 or 1 concept depending on in which situation it is more useful.

>> No.11581328

>>11581283
I did not say that I cannot read. I said that you cannot write using english language. And I am correct.

>> No.11581360

>>11581291
I've got loads of citations.
Wikipedia articles & their references, Wolfram-Alpha, then with extra digging any university's math section's library etc. etc. ad nauseatum.
You've got nothing.
All you have is hurr durr cope.
It's like looking at a masturbating pisspant bum screaming in the street, just pathetic.

>> No.11581510

>>11579943
>>11580776

Did you really not learn this in grade school? This is literally one of the first things we learned in geometry in primary school. It's such a basic result how could you not remember it? It's like not knowing about xylem and phloem or photosynthesis in biology. Lmfao.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_trisection

>The problem as stated is impossible to solve for arbitrary angles, as proved by Pierre Wantzel in 1837

>Because it is defined in simple terms, but complex to prove unsolvable, the problem of angle trisection is a frequent subject of pseudomathematical attempts at solution by naive enthusiasts. These "solutions" often involve mistaken interpretations of the rules, or are simply incorrect.

Have fun proving your trisections!! Morons.

>> No.11581525

>>11580528

3/3 is the sum of three 1/3's so if someone is disputing the equality between 1/3 and it's decimal representation that dispute needs to be resolved before you make a sum with it.

Not saying I agree or disagree with equality but that's the process you would have to go through.

>> No.11581550

>>11581510
270 degrees
oooh 90 degrees sooo hard

>> No.11581558

>>11581510
sure bud
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL2lYcggGpc

>> No.11581567

>>11581550

>Because it is defined in simple terms, but complex to prove unsolvable, the problem of angle trisection is a frequent subject of pseudomathematical attempts at solution by naive enthusiasts. These "solutions" often involve mistaken interpretations of the rules, or are simply incorrect.

>These "solutions" often involve mistaken interpretations of the rules, or are simply incorrect.

>often involve mistaken interpretations of the rules, or are simply incorrect

>often involve mistaken interpretations of the rules

>mistaken interpretations of the rules

>mistaken interpretation

>mistaken

>mistake

>> No.11581572

>>11579849
evaporation, nigga

>> No.11581575

>>11581567
[hand waving intensifies]

>> No.11581578

>>11579934
1/3, 1/3, 1/3

I did it

where am nobel prise?

>> No.11581581

>>11581558

>>Because it is defined in simple terms, but complex to prove unsolvable, the problem of angle trisection is a frequent subject of pseudomathematical attempts at solution by naive enthusiasts. These "solutions" often involve mistaken interpretations of the rules, or are simply incorrect.

>These "solutions" often involve mistaken interpretations of the rules, or are simply incorrect.

>These "solutions" often involve mistaken interpretations of the rules

>mistaken interpretations of the rules

>mistaken interpretations

>mistaken

>> No.11581596

>>11581510
>with just a compass and a straightedge

>> No.11581602

>>11581567
You can trisect the angle if you can draw a perfect Archimedean spiral

>> No.11581638

>>11579629
My best friend growing up had all the trouble accepting this basic mathematical fact, yet he had no trouble swallowing the Catholic bullshit and memorizing complex theological arguments in service of his god. Smoothbrains gonna smoothbrain.

>> No.11581643

>>11581581
>>11581575

>> No.11581667

>>11581510
that's only about angles you retard
you can trisect a line segment perfectly fine

>> No.11581685

>>11579629
0.999... > 1
Prove me wrong. Protip: You can't

>> No.11581688

>>11581685
0.999... = 1
therefore 0.999... > 1 if and only if 1 > 1 which is obviously false

>> No.11581699

>>11581685
[math] \displaystyle
\boxed{0 < p < 1} \\
p^n-1 = (p-1)(p^{n-1}+p^{n-2}+ \dots +p+1) \\
\dfrac{p^n-1}{p-1} = \sum \limits_{j=0}^{n-1}p^j \\
\displaystyle
\lim_{n \to \infty} \dfrac{p^n-1}{p-1} = \lim_{n \to \infty} \sum \limits_{j=0}^{n-1}p^j \\
\displaystyle
\dfrac{0-1}{p-1} = \sum \limits_{j=0}^{\infty}p^j \implies \dfrac{1}{1-p} = \sum \limits_{j=0}^{\infty}p^j
[/math]

[math] \displaystyle
p=0.1 \\
\dfrac{1}{1-0.1}=\frac{10}{9} = 1 + \frac{1}{9} \\
\sum_{j=0}^\infty 0.1^j= 1 + \sum_{j=1}^\infty 0.1^j \\
9+1=9+9\sum_{j=1}^\infty 0.1^j \\
1=9\sum_{j=1}^\infty 0.1^j = 0.999... \\
\dfrac{1}{3} = 3 \sum_{j=1}^ \infty 0.1^j = 0.333...
[/math]

>> No.11581707

>>11581667
What is 0.999... - 1?

>> No.11581779

>>11579849
can you give an example that doesn't have a tendency to spontaneously disappear?

>> No.11581833

>>11579629
>0.999...=1 narrative
go back to /x/

>> No.11581995

>>11580794
Spotted the retard that got a B in calculus 1

>> No.11582040

Mathematics is predicated on the continuity of the number line, so that between any two, different numbers, there is an infinite number of numbers between them. As such, any possible minimal quantization of such numberline is bogus. The infinitesimal is an attempt to quantize such a continuous numberline with infinitely small parts. But a continuous thing cannot be quantized. The infinitesimal is itself a contradiction, since nothing can be infinitely small on a continuous numberline. The infinitesimal, describing the smallest thing, then, on this numberline, would be a jump of zero. As such, 0.9999.... = 1 - an infinitesimal, but since an infinitesimal is really 0, 0.999... = 1. QED

>> No.11582062

>>11581995
ok f-tard

>> No.11582206

>>11579629
There's a 0.999... correlation, but it's not 1.

>> No.11582228

>>11582040
>Mathematics is predicated on the continuity of the number line, so that between any two, different numbers, there is an infinite number of numbers between them.
Classical Euclidean geometry is part of mathematics, and it does not say in any way that a line has continuity. That only came many centuries late with Cantor and Dedekind. Also "continuity" does not mean what you think it does.

>> No.11582247

>>11579906
>every millisecond
Over which timeframe? Years, milennia, seconds? In which case no.
Over INFINITY? Yes.

>> No.11582253

>>11582228
No, the elements assume cotinuity implicitly. See the whole discussion surrounding preposition 10 from book 3. The proof doesn't go through if you don't assume continuity.

>> No.11582259

>>11582253
The very first preposition of the first book fails, in fact. Because without continuity the two circles need not to intersect, and so you might fail to construct a equilateral triangle

>> No.11582343

>>11579645
The repeating forever of 9's is basically a limit.
So it's 1.
Another way to state it is:
0.999... = 1 - LIM[x->inf] of (1/10^x)
Since the limit is zero, then 0.999... is one.

>> No.11582388

>>11582228
There is no way of getting around what I said.
>Classical Euclidean geometry is part of mathematics, and it does not say in any way that a line has continuity.
You fucking retard, I am using the numberline as a representational tool to demonstrate to retards like you that there is no smallest quantity above 0 between 0 and 1, and that any attempt to find such a quality results in endless paradoxes.
Hilarious that a person can be educated enough to know the name of Cantor yet be so grossly uneducated that he didn't realize that even the greeks were thinking and speaking and writing about the continuum. "That only came many centuries late", yeah, maybe to people who clearly know nothing about the whole history of philosophy and mathematics.
"Continuity" does mean what I think it does: a connection with no sharp breaks. This only proves the not only do you not know what continuity means, but you are not even smart enough to resolve my argument, let alone refute it.

>> No.11582409

>>11582343
0.9999.... isn't a limit, retard

>> No.11582415

>>11580445
That depends on how many zeroes are represented by the ellipses. And no, there aren't an infinity of zeroes because the eventually END and a couple of ones appear.

>> No.11582421

>>11582228
The fuck do you think Eudoxus was doing?

>> No.11582436

>>11582409
It's the limit of 0.999999... where the number of '9' digits approaches infinity. That is a limit, by definition. The other way I wrote it is also a limit.

>> No.11582437

>>11580435
Show me ANY calc textbook or result that uses your retarded definition of limit.

>> No.11582439

>>11580470
You don't continually add the nines, theyre already there. Stop not understanding infinity while accusing others of not understanding infinity.

>> No.11582443

>>11580529
Careful with that sharp Sigma notation, you'll scare off the retards.

>> No.11582449

>>11580166
>In the first step to prove that 0.999 is not 1, we look at how we can split the atoms in a water bottle

>> No.11582451

>>11580575
If Hitler were revived, and announced that he'd Holocaust everyone who thinks "decolonize math" and "0.999...=/=1" are sound, sensical statements, then I'd be in the street sieg heiling before he could even finish that statement.

>> No.11582453

>>11581995
Getting a B in calc is a hell of a lot better than never taking it or getting an F.

>> No.11582649

>>11579849
numbers are an abstraction and not perfect.

>> No.11582690

>>11579629
here is the issue.
say you have 0.999...
Okay, so as it goes on, it approaches 1. The closeness to 1 has no limit(For any closeness, expanding it some more gets closer). Agreed?
and what it is equal to is what it eventually 'gets to', right?
Okay, let it eventually get to something, and that is what it is equal to. Let that be X. I say X must be 1. For if X is not 1, then
If X is less than one, then 0.999... expanded never got passed X approaching 1. So the closeness to 1 was limited by X. But it was said that the closeness is unlimited. This is a contradiction.
And if it is greater than 1, then as it expanded it didn't approach 1, but it went further. It was therefore approaching some larger number X.

Therefore X is not lesser than 1, or greater than 1. Therefore it is equal to 1.

>> No.11582699

>>11582436
But it's fucking not

>> No.11582704

>>11582437
James Stewart:
Essential Calculus: Early Transcendentals
Seethe and take yourself out the gene pool now, faggot

>> No.11582707

>>11582409
>0.9999.... isn't a limit, retard
okay.
what does = mean with respect to 0.999..., exactly? if I say 0.999... = x, does that mean 'eventually what 0.999... gets to'? that couldn't be anything other than 1. If not, what is it?

>> No.11582712

>>11582453
Cope

>> No.11582716

>>11582707
= means equivalence. lim(x -> infinity)[0.99999] = 1 means the limit, the CLOSEST value that is NEVER reached as 0.999 goes to infinity is 1. Not that 0.9990 =(is equivalent to) 1

>> No.11582718

>>11582716
0.9999* not 0.9990, typo

>> No.11582721

>>11582716
you just said equal means equal.
You say 0.999... never reaches 1, and therefore
0.999... != 1. Is that right? Does that mean you consider "0.999..." to mean what the expansion 'eventually' reaches?
(I put eventually in semiquotes because, as it is infinite, it doesn't /really/ have an endpoint)

>> No.11582748

>>11582436

lmfao this nigga thinks the sequence is the limit NO nigga the limit is what the sequence approaches my nigga damn

>> No.11582755

>>11582748
why shouldn't 0.999... = 1?
can you actually express why that's wrong?

>> No.11582814

>>11582755

0.9 < 1
0.99 < 1

by induction

0.999... < 1

and since no number exists between 1 and 0.999... 1 must be its limit

likewise, since distributive property is preserved for limits then we should expect multiplication to not change the limit

lo and behold

when we multiply 0.999... by n, it's limit is always n, which we should expect if the limit is 1.

2*0.999... = 1.999...8

but d0.d1d2d3...dn = d0.d1d2d3...

therefore

2*0.999... = 1.999...

and

lim 1.999... = 2

likewise

3*0.999... = 2.999...

lim 3*0.999... = 3

and by induction

n*0.999... = (n-1).999...

lim n*0.999... = n

>> No.11582820

>>11582814
>0.9 < 1
>0.99 < 1
>by induction
>0.999... < 1
okay, so "0.999..." is something you get as the actualization of the continued expansion of 0.9 -> 0.99 -> 0.999 ->, etc, right?

>> No.11582823

>>11582820
>Limits preserve strict inequalities
Kek

>> No.11582824

>>11582823
?
did you mean to respond to someone else? I didn't mention limits.

>> No.11582833

>>11582823
>strict inequalities aren't preserved under induction

retard alert retard alert

>> No.11582835

>>11582824
What you did was effectively evaluating a limit, so yes you implicitly used limits

>> No.11582838

>>11582814
Limits don't generally preserve strict inequalities, retard.

>> No.11582839

>>11582835
>He thinks there's such a thing as a infiny-th induction step
Induction only proves things for the natural numbers

>> No.11582840

>>11582835
No, I am just trying to understand what the person I'm responding to means by "0.999...". The 'inequality' thing is something they proposed, not I.

>> No.11582846

>>11582839
Meant for >>11582833

>> No.11582847

>>11582838
He doesn't believe their limits.
>>11582833
>>11582823
christ, find a debate club and join it. You really need to learn how to talk to people.

>> No.11582849

>>11582847
they're*

>> No.11582860

>>11582839

lmfao says who? do you even know what induction is?

>>11582847

you must be 18 years or older to post here

>>11582838
>strict inequalities don't hold under induction

kek

>> No.11582875

>>11582860
>you must be 18 years or older to post here
you must be 18 years or older to post here

>> No.11582879

>>11582860
Induction shows that for every n 0.9...9 < 1 with n 9s. It says nothing about infinite ns.
Do you know what induction is?

>> No.11582893

>>11582860
pls verify >>11582820 if you are >>11582814

>> No.11583047

>>11579658
god fucking damnit 4chan. Kek

>> No.11583083

>>11579658
Christianity is in favor of eternity and infinity. Whatever drugs you are on are bad for you.

>> No.11583089

>>11580349
1) Learn English. To study a subject is not to 'take' a subject.
2) Fuck you for assuming that me saying the correlation is inverse is my grounds for 'assuming' that said correlation is inverse.
3) Fuck you for wrongly assuming that I am the OP, faggotfuck downtuber.

>> No.11583116

>>11580349
>>11583089
1) Fuck
2) Fuck
3) You
4) You
5) Fuck
6) You
7) Fuck
8) You
(its math&science related cause counting)

>> No.11583244

>>11580388
1+1/∞

>> No.11583257

>>11582707
>if I say 0.999... = x, does that mean 'eventually what 0.999... gets to'?

it means x=0.9999.... retard

>> No.11583292

>>11583257
x = 1 + 1 + 1 +... y times
you keep on writing 1's, you'll never write 'y'.
so x will never = 'y'.
1 + 1 + 1 != 3

>> No.11583296

>>11583257
>>11583292

didn't mean to reply to you

>> No.11583310

>>11583292
>>11583296
Then shut the fuck up faggot

>> No.11583533

>>11579629
x = 0.999...
10x = 9.999...
10x = 9+x
9x = 9
x = 1
so, 0.999.... = 1
If you can mathematically dis-prove this, or prove otherwise that 0.999... =/= 1, then do it.

>> No.11583539

>>11583533
>10x = 9+x
non-sequitir

>> No.11583552

>>11583539
x=0.999... and 10x=9.999..., so 9+0.999... is the same as 9+x
10x and 9+x are the same number.

>> No.11583565

>>11582443
If that were true this thread would've died as soon as I posted it

>> No.11583574

>>11583539
Keep coping brainlet

>> No.11583575

.999.... is a concept

1 is a real thing

they are two distinct entities

>> No.11583583

>>11583575
>implying numbers are real and not all concepts

Nice cope though

>> No.11583586

>>11583575
Numbers, such as 0.999... and 1, ARE concepts, you literal retard.

>> No.11583591

>>11583586
no ur retarded

there are many meanings of concepts

>> No.11583597

>>11583586
i bet ur verbal iq is retarded

>> No.11583616

>>11583575
Show me the number 1

>> No.11583639

>>11582893

yeah kid that's me what do you want

>> No.11583670

>>11579629
3 * (1/3) < 1

>> No.11583682

There really isn't a 0.999 recurring, it's just 1 with rounding errors

>> No.11583693

zero point zero recurring, 1
needs to be some finite recurring or it's zero

>> No.11583780

>>11579629
let x = .999....
write x in base x
1

its 1
one and done

>> No.11584129

>>11581707
0

>> No.11584132

>>11583670
lol, that math test went well

>> No.11584133

>>11582814
>0.9 < 1
>0.99 < 1
>by induction
>0.999... < 1
wrong

>> No.11584167
File: 1.53 MB, 420x314, perfecto.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11584167

>>11583244

>> No.11584325
File: 49 KB, 949x746, 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11584325

>>11580529

>> No.11584340

>>11583533
9.9...9 - 0.9...99 is not 9*0.9...99

>> No.11584379

>>11584325
been there, done that
>>11581699

>> No.11584386 [DELETED] 

>>11584340
irrelevant

>> No.11584393

>>11584340
10-1 is 9*1

>> No.11584462

Claiming a number close to 1 might as well be one is the same as claiming that there is a finite number that might as well be infinite.

So which number is that?

>> No.11584465

>>11584462
[math] 1.7 × 10^{308}[/math]

>> No.11584467
File: 710 KB, 1080x1669, 2018-05-13 23.40.03-1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11584467

>>11584325
>>11584465

>> No.11584470

>>11584462
>>11584465
>>11584467
the absolute state of mathniggers.

>> No.11584471

>>11584462
>close
infinitely close, summer child

>> No.11584475

>>11584467
forcing WA to fiddle with real numbers is retarded
and proves nothing

>> No.11584478

>>11584471
>unendingly close
>unlimitedly close
>indeterminably close
Uh oh who let the tard out of his stable? Go get your lasso and boots, it's time we have ourselves a good ole fashioned tard wranglin' contest!

>> No.11584481

>>11584478
yet another retard confusing finite with infinite

>> No.11584501

The more indeterminable something is, the less relevance it has to anything outside it's scope.

As a hellbound retard you may be, you ought to be terrified of what your eternal, infinite, indeterminable future holds in store for you.

Now take a hike and go kill yourselves you soulless shit golems.

>> No.11584511

>>11584501
back off everyone, we've got a real live stable genius here

>> No.11584557

>>11579629

I am sure many of you here have seen these threads before. Yet you are drawn to them inexorably, like moths to a candle.

Fortunately there are a dedicated few, like myself, motivated by our supreme faith in the ONE TRUE FINITE UNIVERSE, who patrol such threads to spread the word of GOD and warn sinners of their heresy.

Hear this, only GOD CURSED SODOMITES think 0.999... = 1.

I implore the sinners to repent, or face a discrete amount of finite DAMNATION in the fires of HELL. Amen.

>> No.11584561

Why the fuck are there multiple 100+ reply threads on this every weak SINCE YEARS...

>> No.11584572

>>11584557
impressive, did you quote that from your PhD'?

>> No.11584618
File: 860 KB, 1280x1920, glaeserphoto5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11584618

>>11580303
>people too retarded to understand calculus and understand that the 9's are ALREADY THERE. Numbers are not processes.
>ALREADY THERE
Oh really, retard? So you're saying 0.999... is a completed object?
Could you please show me all the 9's in this object again? All of them. Should be easy if they're AlReAdy tHeRE.

>> No.11584680

>>11584618
with infinite 9's it's completed
with finite 9's it's incomplete

>> No.11584690

>>11584618
>Oh really, retard? So you're saying pi is a completed object?
>Could you please show me all the digits in this object again? All of them. Should be easy if they're AlReAdy tHeRE.
this is how stupid you sound
3 < π
3.1 < π
3.14 < π
3.141 < π
3.1415 < π
3.14159 < π
3.141592 < π
this continues endlessly
π < π

hurr durr

>> No.11584750
File: 18 KB, 288x334, lenvUwE--8EqODdq5VdW_LNkqYCK_sJMurqEfWaM_4VbOb0hwEmWfy-lozemS8SzXTY7PPh4oo3etZAcrzuMY3wTcMPfDyIqkzXDDQirM_j-Qld_db_Djix7jO_5F5e6amHGCgGQSOAT422YIPkZ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11584750

>>11584690
>"this continues endlessly"
Oh, but you previously claimed:
>"Numbers are not processes"
hurr durr, indeed. What is it like to be a retarded midwit, anon?

>> No.11584785

>>11584750
0.999... is static, the length is aleph-0 from the get go.
Your naive cartoon vision of a diesel engine chugging along is ridiculous. Even embarrassing.

>> No.11584787

1/3 = 0.333...
1/3 * 3 = 0.999... aka 1
Unless you disagree that 1/3 * 3 = 1

It's a matter of convention.

>> No.11584792

>>11584690
Fantastic.

>> No.11584809

>>11582343
Search up what a limit is

>> No.11584813

>>11579640
>and schizophrenia is correlated with low intelligence.
thats not true, most genuine geniuses where schizos

>> No.11584840

>>11579645
but thats the point anon. its only true IFF the 9's go on forever.

>> No.11584850

>>11580422
its actually 1 because 0.0000000....1 cant exist

>> No.11584856

>>11579629
It requires more data space to store 0.999... than 1.

It is more pixels, so it is bigger.

I am not wrong.

>> No.11584859

1/9 = 0.11111...
9/9 = 1

whats the problem?

>> No.11584868

>>11584856
just call 0.999... = x or something

>> No.11584963

>>11584690
You can't numerically enumerate pi, retard.

pi(incomplete)<pi

>> No.11584975

>>11584963
that was my point, retard
lrn2read

>> No.11584977

>>11584975
shut up idiot, it's not my fault I read your comment wrong

>> No.11584982

>>11583083
Nope, it's the exact opposite. It teaches that people are born and then die and go to heaven or hell. Why are you so mentally handicapped?

>> No.11584988

>>11580517
>Native European culture is "lmao"
Jew detected. Go choke to death on some baby foreskin, Goldblatt.

>> No.11584996

>>11584977
Yes it is, retard.

>> No.11585040

>>11584996
Wrong

>> No.11585280

>>11579629
1/3=0.333...
(1/3)*3=1

>> No.11585299
File: 25 KB, 256x256, brainlet.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11585299

>>11582814
>by induction
>0.999...<1
Obviously you don't know what induction is. Induction works because of the well-ordering principle, which works on natural numbers. Infinity is not a natural number...

I can't believe you have not heard the phrase "just because all the elements of the sequence satisfy a property does not mean the limit of the sequence satisfies the property." Let's take a simple example. Consider the sequence of regular polygons with increasing number of sides, starting at the equilateral triangle. Every element of the sequence can be deconstructed into a finite number of triangles. The limit of the sequence is a circle, which obviously cannot be deconstructed into a finite number of triangles.

>> No.11585326

>>11585040
Correct.

>> No.11585330

>>11579629
>>11584695
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTVRopTVjpQ

>> No.11585370

>>11579629
Get enough IQ to understand Dedekind cuts, then come back here (or don't, this is a fucking cesspool)

>> No.11585379

There are such things as indetermibable finite numbers and these are so big they might as well be infinite because no process exists to double check them.

I understand your eagerness to try to want to compartmentalize and confine infinity into an Idea you pretend to understand, cause infinity is clearly your enemy so you obviously need to desperately slander it and try underselling it; but the fact of the matter is you're too stupid to count to 2,000 so anything much bigger than a photo probably has infinite characteristics to examine from your mongoloid retard perspective.

You need to take a step back and try to wrap your head around the concepts of indeterminability and unknowable knowledge. Einstein laid the framework of the idea out for you with black holes.

>> No.11585425
File: 5 KB, 224x225, chadberger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11585425

>>11584785
> 0.999... is static, the length is aleph-0 from the get go.
> "my infinite thing is a completed object because it is infinite, QED (and also it is totally a thing and not a process although I can't explain why to you because I'm dumb)"
Infinitards can't help but chase their own tails. Hey look, I made a symbol for leprechauns-- now they exist!
>Your naive cartoon vision of a diesel engine chugging along is ridiculous. Even embarrassing.
"I-I-I can't even!"
The only things embarrassing are your complete ignorance of foundations and your feeble attempts at argument. You're not cut out for this, but if you insist on being a pitiful moron, please continue.

>> No.11585459
File: 181 KB, 640x590, 1586725999969.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11585459

NOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST DISTINGUISH A SEQUENCE OF CONVERGING SUMS FROM A FIXED NUMBER NOOOOOOOOOOO

>> No.11585504

>>11585425
how come he gets so salty about infinity, but he doesn't mind klein bottles and projective spaces? what is the difference, all of these things "don't exist".

>> No.11585505

>>11585425
Vileburger actually isn't even quite as nice or intelligent as your parody suggests.

>> No.11585506

>>11585425
>proof: observe

>> No.11585511

>>11585504
It is definitely a religious thing.

>> No.11585704

>>11579645
>>11582343
It isn't a limit you utter idiot. Only functions have limits. You know, a mapping between a domain and codomain. 0.99... is ONE single number. It doesn't "evolve", it's constant. It's 1.

>> No.11585712

>>11579629
desu this is the perfect parody of race science baiting

>> No.11586632

>>11585506
>>11585505
>>11585504
Seething infinitards BTFO'd

>> No.11586685

>>11579629

Neither u brainlet!!

>> No.11586717

>>11585425
>just a symbol
definition: a value larger than any real number
1/inf=0

>> No.11587116

>>11584467
[math]1.7 \times 10^{308} \neq \infty[/math]

>> No.11587118
File: 616 KB, 2518x1024, finitists.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11587118

>>11586632

>> No.11587348

>>11579974
>My stupid false example is just a thought experiment to validate a stupid false statement
Kys

>> No.11587506

>>11580529
Can somebody explain to me why this should not be a possible truth? It works to get the original fraction from a repeating decimal so why can't it work for 0.999... =1 , too?

>> No.11587564

>>11587506
it does work and it is the truth. the 0.999... != 1 posters are schizos.

>> No.11587614

>>11579629
[math]0.999... \in [0,1[[/math]?

>> No.11587623

>>11579629
>your side. Of course 0.99...=1
>What I'm doing with these posts is like chess:
if 0.999...<1, then please solve 0.999..+x=1

>> No.11587624

>>11587623
>>your side. Of course 0.99...=1
>>What I'm doing with these posts is like chess:
didn't mean to cite that

>> No.11588089

>>11579732
Indeed

>> No.11588094

>>11581995
>B grade scale
You must be result of american ed
I feel sorry for you and your family