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

# /sci/ - Science & Math

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 7 KB, 500x500, 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Why is the current tactic for 0.999...=1 fags to spread their garbage to call everyone who disagrees a retard and just pretend it's an accepted fact? Is someone orchestrating this?

 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 09:39:57 2020 No.11866236 1/3 = 0.3333333333...2/3 = 0.6666666666...3/3 = 0.9999999999...3/3 = 10.9999999999...=1
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 09:41:07 2020 No.11866237 >>11866224>pretend it's an accepted factIt is, retard. You can't find 1 published mathematician who disagrees.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 09:41:54 2020 No.11866240 >>11866236All of those numbers are imaginary. Imaginary numbers cannot equal real numbers.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 09:42:35 2020 No.11866242 >>11866237Appeal to auhority, but I agree.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 09:42:44 2020 No.11866244 $\displaystyle1 = \frac {3}{3} = 3 \cdot \frac {1}{3} = 3 \cdot 0. \bar{3} = 0. \bar{9}$
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 09:43:47 2020 No.11866245 >>11866240>source: my ass
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 09:44:13 2020 No.11866247 >>11866237Published mathematicians are retards.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 09:45:21 2020 No.11866249 >>11866245source: basic logic
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 09:45:36 2020 No.11866252 >>11866237>Imaginary numbers cannot equal real numbers.Theb explain to me the result of, let's say, 3/2. I'll wait.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 09:46:06 2020 No.11866253 >>118662474chan shitposters are retard's diarrhea
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 09:46:40 2020 No.11866254 >>11866240>Imaginary numbers cannot equal real numbers.Then explain to me the result of, let's say, 3/2. I'll wait.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 09:47:08 2020 No.11866256 >>11866249...and I'm sitting on it
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 09:48:01 2020 No.11866259 >>118662541.5 dumbass
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 09:50:30 2020 No.11866262 >>11866259Shit, I meant to say 2/3.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 09:50:42 2020 No.11866264 >>11866259Then explain to me the result of, let's say, 2.9.../1.9.... I'll wait.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 10:07:24 2020 No.11866292 >>11866264Tu quoque.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 10:44:24 2020 No.11866360 >>11866236You can't do math with infinite numbers
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 10:45:55 2020 No.11866363 >>11866264Undefined, because long division can only be done with finite numbers
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 10:50:25 2020 No.11866379 >>11866363nah it's 1.5read a book
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 10:51:28 2020 No.11866382 >>118663600.3... isn't any more infinite than 1.000... is
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 10:51:42 2020 No.11866383 >>11866379holy shit you're dumb
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 10:52:48 2020 No.11866389 >>11866382idiot
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 10:53:41 2020 No.11866391 >>11866379>>11866382Have you never been to school? If you want to divide or multiply decimal numbers you have to start with their last digit. Can't do that when there are infinitely many digits. Like give me a general formula for the nth digit of pi*e? You can't.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 10:54:07 2020 No.11866396 >>11866379No, it's not. You can't do math with infinite numbers.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 10:54:33 2020 No.11866398 >>11866383>>11866389cool math arguments, boi
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 10:55:11 2020 No.11866403 >>11866398You can't do math with infinite numbers, boi
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 10:56:17 2020 No.11866407 >>11866391so you can't divide or multiply with 1.000...ok,lol
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 10:57:20 2020 No.11866410 >>11866403>>11866382slow learner, eh?
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 10:57:32 2020 No.11866411 >>11866396Those are very finite numbers.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 10:57:34 2020 No.11866412 >>11866407>1.000...this is the dumbest shit I've ever read. that's not a thing.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 10:57:49 2020 No.11866415   >>11866224da juice
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 10:58:04 2020 No.11866417 >>118664070.000... makes just as much sense as 0000....You have to resort to nonsense to argue your point
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 10:58:45 2020 No.11866421 >>11866391>general formula for the nth digit of pihttps://mathworld.wolfram.com/PiDigits.html
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 10:59:15 2020 No.11866424 >>11866407>1.000...really anon?
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 10:59:47 2020 No.11866426 >>11866412topkek
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:00:37 2020 No.11866430 >>11866421>0.999...fag reading comprehension
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:00:50 2020 No.11866432 >>11866417neither are infinite
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:01:17 2020 No.11866434 >>11866407That's just 1 because 0 isn't a number. In fact 0 is the absence of any number.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:01:41 2020 No.11866437 >>11866432the ... literally implies it's infinite dumbass
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:02:12 2020 No.11866438 >>11866424Impressive, did you quote that from your PhD?
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:03:01 2020 No.11866442 >>11866438Yep, I got my PhD in 2017. Cope.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:03:15 2020 No.11866444 >>11866429>multiplying with a constant is impossible
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:04:17 2020 No.11866449 >>11866444You literally proved his point.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:04:39 2020 No.11866450 >>11866437both are zero>confusing zero with inflol
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:05:45 2020 No.11866453 >>11866450Zero is not a number. It's the absence of a number.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:05:49 2020 No.11866455 >>11866442lol some wipeass "school" you came from
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:06:51 2020 No.11866460 >>11866455Not an argument.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:06:53 2020 No.11866461 >>11866453found the virgin
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:07:17 2020 No.11866462 >>11866444Numbers like pi aren't constant. They are dynamic numbers since whenever you think you reached their end, new digits are discovered. Our knowledge of pi is growing every year. In 2020 we know more about pi than ever before. Pi in 1900 was not the same pi as today.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:07:55 2020 No.11866466 >>11866449your "proofs" are laughable as ever
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:09:04 2020 No.11866472 >>11866460not a PhD
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:09:40 2020 No.11866475 >>11866472Where's your PhD?
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:10:07 2020 No.11866477 >>11866462>Numbers like pi aren't constant.my sides
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:10:45 2020 No.11866482 >>11866477Okay, tell me the last digit of pi.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:11:09 2020 No.11866484 >>11866475Hidden inside yours
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:11:50 2020 No.11866486 >>11866484Really? I just looked at mine and I didn't see any sign of yours. Sorry anon.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:12:24 2020 No.11866490 >>11866482no such thing.tell us the difference between cardinals and ordinals
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:13:27 2020 No.11866498 >>11866486>looked at minesure you did
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:13:58 2020 No.11866499 >>11866498Yeah, I did.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:16:38 2020 No.11866506 >>11866490I obviously know the difference. What's the point of these off-topic questions? This has nothing to do with 0.999... not equaling 1.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:19:50 2020 No.11866519 >>11866506>off-topicfound the retard
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:23:31 2020 No.11866534 >>11866519Read what I said again.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:28:14 2020 No.11866552 What's the distance between $\frac{1}{3}$ and $\frac{0.\overline{9}}{3}$?If they're separate numbers then the distance between them must be non-zero
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:29:26 2020 No.11866559 >>11866552You can't do math with infinite numbers.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:39:07 2020 No.11866591 >>11866559Both of them are bounded by 0 below and by 1 above. They're in no way infinite.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:39:20 2020 No.11866593 >>11866242appeals to authority are not always fallacious
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:50:11 2020 No.11866631 >>11866593{{}} = {} is by far the most common rhetorical fallacy on /sci/
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 12:20:55 2020 No.11866709 >>11866631Why are you using the vagina emoji?
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 12:26:37 2020 No.11866717 File: 27 KB, 720x669, 0vsnull.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 12:45:43 2020 No.11866773 i seriously hope that 0,999...=/=1 fags are just trolling, you cant be that retarded right?
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 12:49:58 2020 No.11866790 File: 4 KB, 364x102, please stop.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] refute this, but make sure to take your meds first
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 12:51:59 2020 No.11866795 >>11866790Has already been refuted in this ITT. Please read the proofs first, before you repost disproved claims.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 12:57:24 2020 No.11866814
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 13:07:04 2020 No.11866845 >>11866795people have tried sure. if theres something of value i missed please remind me
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:10:16 2020 No.11867071 >>11866795>Has already been refutednope, not even close
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:11:45 2020 No.11867076 >>11866814>arxiv.org>"Materials on this site are not peer-reviewed by arXiv"kek
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:13:10 2020 No.11867082 >>11866224>Why is the current tactic for 0.999...=1 fags to spread their garbage to call everyone who disagrees a retard and just pretend it's an accepted fact?>an accepted fact>factnumbers are not real, you can't have facts about things that are not real lmao, it's meaningless
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:15:43 2020 No.11867096 >>11867082are dollars real?
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:16:13 2020 No.11867102 It's pretty easy.0.999...=1 by definition, if you're simping the 𝛿,ε-thots.If you don't want to be a simp, you can always start your own conversation.None of that changes the fact that 0.999... is defined as 1.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:17:26 2020 No.11867109 >>11867076I gave you the free pdf link so you didn't have to sci-hub it, faggot.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:17:27 2020 No.11867110 >>11866814The authors say the proofs for 0.999... = 1 are correct on the first page. You'll have to try harder than that.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:17:30 2020 No.11867111 File: 196 KB, 773x1000, dollars.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11867096they are numbers on a screen, so no, but paper dollars and coins are real
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:18:57 2020 No.11867115 Refute these proofsVia Cauchy sequences:0.999... = (0.9, 0.99, 0.999,...) = lim as n-> inf of 1-1/10^n = 1Via Dedekind cuts:Assume to contradiction that x is a rational number such that0.999... < x < 10.999... is greater than any finite string of 9s so for any natural number n1-1/10^n < 0.999... < x < 11-x < 1/10^n10^n < 1/(1-x)n < log(1/(1-x))Let n = ceiling(log(1/(1-x)))+1ceiling(log(1/(1-x)))+1 < log(1/(1-x))This is a contradiction, so x does not exist and 0.999... = 1.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:21:17 2020 No.11867121 >>11867110Did I say they weren't? I replied to a post with a disproof of the post. Now dance some more for me, retard.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:23:00 2020 No.11867128 >>11867115Begs the Archimedean property. It's true because of the axioms you chose.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:23:09 2020 No.11867129 >>11867115>Cauchy sequencesnot real>Dedekind cutsnot real
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:23:15 2020 No.11867130 $x= \frac{1}{10} \\0. \overline{9}=9x+9x^2+9x^3+9x^4+ \cdots \\0. \overline{9}=9x \left (1+x+x^2+x^3+ \cdots \right ) \\0. \overline{9}=(1-x) \left (1+\mathbf{x}+x^2+\mathbf{x^3}+x^4+ \cdots \right ) \\0. \overline{9}=1-x+ \mathbf{x-x^2}+x^2-x^3+ \mathbf{x^3-x^4}+x^4-x^5+ \cdots \\0. \overline{9}=1$
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:27:00 2020 No.11867143 >>11867130but if the subtraction is infinite, would you ever finish subtracting? would there always be more terms as much as you subtract?
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:27:01 2020 No.11867144 >>11866224>0.999...=1 fagsoh boy this site can turn anything into tribalist garbage
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:30:08 2020 No.11867152 >>11867143you can just supertask it.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:30:41 2020 No.11867154 >>11866391>>11866429Multiplying from left to right is very easy.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:33:23 2020 No.11867163 >>11867152>In philosophy, a supertask is a countably infinite sequence of operations that occur sequentially within a finite interval of time.[1] Supertasks are called "hypertasks" when the number of operations becomes uncountably infinite. A hypertask that includes one task for each ordinal number is called an "ultratask".[2] The term supertask was coined by the philosopher James F. Thomson, who devised Thomson's lamp. The term hypertask derives from Clark and Read in their paper of that name.[3]wtf is this nerd shit?
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:38:06 2020 No.11867180 >>11867143>infinite, would you ever finishIt's static, the length is aleph_0 from the get go.Your naive cartoon vision of a diesel engine chugging along is ridiculous. Embarrassing even.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:39:12 2020 No.11867184 >>11867180it's never going to end either way
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:41:38 2020 No.11867190 >>11867128I didn't choose the Archimedean property, it's a property of real numbers.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:41:48 2020 No.11867192 >>11867184yeah, infinite isn't finite>mindblown.gif
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:42:40 2020 No.11867195 >>11867129Not an argument.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:45:24 2020 No.11867205 >>118662240.999... isn't a number, it's a decimal expansion. Its limit is 1 (as the number of digits approaches infinity)Claiming they're not equal amounts to claiming they COULD be equal but aren't. But that's not true, because 1 is a number and 0.999... isn't.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:45:25 2020 No.11867206 >>11867190No shit, and real numbers chose it as a property. Are you historically illiterate?
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:46:45 2020 No.11867211 File: 40 KB, 688x555, 0.111...x0.111....png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11867154Not really, it's actually quite beautiful and complex.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:50:35 2020 No.11867216 File: 7 KB, 352x425, 1589785580127.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >via cauchy sequence>via dedekind cuts
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:51:55 2020 No.11867222 >>11866224Prove requires math for 10 year old.Adults are expected to know limits to understand.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:52:44 2020 No.11867225 >>118671150.999... is not a Cauchy sequence
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:52:49 2020 No.11867226 >>11867216What's it like being obsessed with a website?
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:54:01 2020 No.11867228 >>11867225it literally is tho
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:54:38 2020 No.11867230 >>11867216>i have no argument
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:58:09 2020 No.11867241 >>11866224classic bait. if not bait, you are mentally ill please seek help
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:20:51 2020 No.11867310 >>11866236You write 1/3 as an infinite decimal because you never truly reached the real value, you have an approximate value with tiny 1/3 of a digit rounded off.So 0.33333....1/3+0.33333....1/3+0.33333...1/3=1But you rounded off those thirds in that base 10 approximation, so you're left with 0.99999....Or did you really think 3+3+3=10?
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:26:23 2020 No.11867323 File: 97 KB, 1654x2339, For 1 tards.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>118662241) It IS an accepted fact, because we can actually do math.2) We call you retards because rigorous mathematical proofs like pic related are too much for retards like you to handle.You are the one spreading garbage because you don't understand how Real numbers work.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:29:13 2020 No.11867330 >>11866240Real numbers ARE Imaginary. Imaginary numbers are all numbers, Z, such that Z=a+bi where a,b are Real numbers and i is sqrt(-1). The Reals are just the case where b=0.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:31:15 2020 No.11867336 >>118662642.9.../1.9...=3/2=1.5Stuff like this is trivial to someone who knows math.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:33:24 2020 No.11867342 >>11866482Knowing or not knowing the last digit of Pi has NOTHING to do with whether it's a constant, and you are a retard for not knowing this.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:34:25 2020 No.11867344 >>11866559lol wut?
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:36:18 2020 No.11867352 >>11867225Yes it is, retard.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:36:24 2020 No.11867354 >>11867342can't be constant if it's changing all the time
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:36:41 2020 No.11867355 >>118667900.333... isn't the equivalent value, it's an approximation in base 10. You wouldn't have to go to the infinith decimal place if you had an exact equivalent value
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:38:15 2020 No.11867357 >>11867354They aren't changing the number you fucking retard. They are revealing more digits of the number. Stop using terms you don't understand.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:39:00 2020 No.11867359 >>11867336Why not 1.5000....1? Are you saying 0.000....1 isn't a number?
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:41:08 2020 No.11867367 >>11867357revealing, changing, it's the same, the numbers didn't exist until they were revealed
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:42:33 2020 No.11867370 summary of thread>it's not equal because I'm a fucking autist who thinks definitions aren't social>it's equal because I'm a fucking fascist who thinks axioms are divine
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:46:56 2020 No.11867383 >>11866224I had someone try to argue with me that perfection is just "as good as something can get" and that you and I are already perfect because we are the sum of every decision we've made that we thought was best for us, and then he used 0.999...=1 as proof that perfection doesn't require precise perfection.I assume this is either jew or chinese propaganda to make a populous accept themselves just the way they are and not try to improve.The saying used to go "step 1 is identify the problem, step 2 is fix it". Now it's "step 1 identify the problem, step 2 accept yourself for who you are". Kind of a comfy way to let people accept mediocrity and fear if you ask me.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:47:45 2020 No.11867389 >>11867359Case 1: I'm right and you're wrong.Then I already showed why 2.9.../1.9...=1.5Case 2: I'm wrong and you're right.Then 2.9.../1.9...<3/2=1.5<1.50...1 which implies that 2.9.../1.9...<1.50...1Stop being a contrarian retard.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:48:19 2020 No.11867392 >>11867370fuck off you autistic fascist
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:49:25 2020 No.11867394 >>11867383This was schizo nonsense.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:54:38 2020 No.11867412 >>11867367You are staring into a half open closet, and see a suit. Then you open the same closet so that it's fully open, and now you see a suit and rain jacket. Did the contents of the closet CHANGE, or were the contents REVEALED?
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:54:47 2020 No.11867413 File: 185 KB, 480x895, Screenshot_20200704-145119~2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11867389Pretty sure smaller denominators mean larger answers, and considering the denominator changed more than the numerator (%-wise) we can reasonably expect more than 1.5Pic relatedEither way you're super smart and should've just corrected me to 1.4999.... if you were so certain. It honestly doesn't change the main question: what happened to the 0.000...1?
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:56:11 2020 No.11867415 >>11867370Fascists are the ones who typically change and muddy definitions to sow doubt where none existed or was needed.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:57:33 2020 No.11867421 >>11867413Pic unrelated because you didn't use ...
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:59:23 2020 No.11867426 >>11867394>countries and organizations don't exercise espionage for monetary gainGet off the CNN and Fox train
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 16:01:17 2020 No.11867433 >>11867421kek, don't be a faggot anon
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 16:02:25 2020 No.11867437 >>11867412there's no Pi closet anywhere lmao
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 16:43:37 2020 No.11867593 >>11867392I'm right tho
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 17:07:45 2020 No.11867685 >>11867415>fascists do xtrue and irrelevantthey also drink water
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 18:13:56 2020 No.11867993 What do anons think of this silly proof:S = 0.9999...,10S = 9.9999...,9S = 9,S = 1,0.9999... = 1
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 19:34:13 2020 No.11868329 >>11867993It’s axiomatic if you’re a hitler youth, or muh can’t into infinity if you’re an autist.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 19:37:37 2020 No.11868339 >>11867359>Are you saying 0.000....1 isn't a number?correct
 >> El Arcón Sat Jul 4 19:53:50 2020 No.11868377 >Is someone orchestrating this?No, the powers that be are letting everything around them unfold as it will in a giant clusterfuck free from their manipulations.
 >> Anonymous Sat Jul 4 20:01:34 2020 No.11868402 >>11868339Lol okay then describe the phrase “as close as you can get to 0 without getting there” in terms of R. I’ll wait.
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 00:00:38 2020 No.11868979 >>118673590.1=10^-10.01=10^-20.001=10^-3:0.0...1=10^-inf=0
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 00:01:38 2020 No.11868986 >>11868402that isnt a thing in R you retardwe work in the reals not the hyperreals
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 00:06:11 2020 No.11868999 >>11868986lmao i just fucking owned youR is the reals not the hyerreals
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 02:33:03 2020 No.11869244 File: 145 KB, 742x663, VUK9TNT.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11866236Incorrect
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 02:35:50 2020 No.11869253 >DUDE ITS NOT 2020 ITS ACTUALLY 2019.999999...this is what you sound like
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 02:42:57 2020 No.11869264 >>11869244incorrect what?
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 02:44:00 2020 No.11869266 1/9 = 0.111...+8/9 = 0.888...=9/9 = 0.999...
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 03:37:06 2020 No.11869388 >>11869244you divided by 0
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 04:43:31 2020 No.11869490 >>11869253is there supposed to be something wrong with it?
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 04:55:26 2020 No.11869512 >>11866240>>11866245>>11866360>>11866363>>11866391>>11866396>>11866403>>11866434>>11866437>>11866453>>11866462>>11866482>>11866559>>11867082>>11867129>>11867206>>11867310>>11867354>>11869244THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF /SCI/THIS BOARD IS AN EMBARASSMENT
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 04:56:53 2020 No.11869514 File: 134 KB, 1654x2339, 1.000.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] refute this, 1.000...=1tards
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 10:46:18 2020 No.11870048 >>11869514nobody was able to refute this because it is true
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 10:50:44 2020 No.11870055 >>11869514>Algebraic manipulation does not work for infinities. To claim otherwise would be absurd.based
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 10:58:57 2020 No.11870066 >>11870048>this piece of shit in the street is chocolate since nobody tasted it
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 11:06:56 2020 No.11870082 >>11869514Via Cauchy sequences:1.000... = (1.0, 1.00, 1.000,...) = lim as n-> inf of 1 = 1Via Dedekind cuts:Assume to contradiction that x is a rational number such that1 < x < 1.000...1.000... is less than 1 followed by any finite string of 0s followed by a 1 so for any natural number n1 < x < 1.000... < 1+1/10^nx < 1+1/10^n10^n < 1/(x-1)n < log(1/(x-1))Let n = ceiling(log(1/(x-1)))+1ceiling(log(1/(x-1)))+1 < log(1/(x-1))This is a contradiction, so x does not exist and 1.000... = 1.>(1+1.000...)/2 is between 1 and 1.000...Prove it.>There is no number between 1 and 2Wrong. 1 < 1.5 < 2>0 does not equal 0.000... eitherWrong. The above proofs can easily be modified to prove that as well.
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 11:11:52 2020 No.11870097 >>118700821.5 is not a number lmao
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 11:12:50 2020 No.11870101 >>11870097based, non-natural numbers are an abomination
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 12:11:24 2020 No.11870248 >>11870097Wrong, try again.
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 12:11:54 2020 No.11870249 >>11870248he's right though
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 12:12:25 2020 No.11870250 >>11867330Those are complex numbers, real and imaginary part
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 14:01:20 2020 No.11870532
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 14:04:58 2020 No.11870539 >>11870532what's even a 1.5 number, there's no such a thing
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 16:41:29 2020 No.11871008 >>118662241/3 = 0.3 + (0.1/3)1/3 = 0.33 + (0.01/3)1/3 = 0.3... + (0.0...1/3)
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 16:49:32 2020 No.11871035 >>11870055it does, only for convergent infinities.0.333... is the limit of the sum of 3*(0.1^n)that sum is clearly convergent. If you disagree on this, you are a nigger and you should be shot
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 16:50:03 2020 No.11871037 >>11871035>it does, only for convergent infinities.well, that's convenient...
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 16:59:40 2020 No.11871075 >>11869244>a= b^2>ab=b^2Immediately incorrect, ab=b^3.
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 17:31:03 2020 No.11871167 >>11868979That last one sounds like more of an approximation cause you got lazy. Obviously something is greater than nothing, no matter how infinitesimally small
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 17:33:19 2020 No.11871174 >>11869512seethe harder cause you accepted laziness as doctrine without thinking about it
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 17:34:54 2020 No.11871183 >>11867593Kek I know, but I couldn't let you get away with it that easy
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 17:37:50 2020 No.11871195 >>11867144welcome to life
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 17:47:43 2020 No.11871213 >>11867102We get for all real world intents and purposes 0.999... might as well =1, but in the pure vacuum of mathematics (where things like infinite exist) many of us argue it does not. I'm saying you're being lazy and confusing an approximation with a hard value. You have to go to infinity decimal places with 1/3=0.333... because you never reach the exact value in base 10 mathematics.And by playing with infinite decimal places, you're playing by the rules of pure vacuum mathematics.
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 18:34:51 2020 No.11871320 >>11871213No, I'm saying it's literally defined as 1.
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 19:15:52 2020 No.11871399 >>11871037That's not convenient, it's just semantics. Convergent infinities are actually not infinities but finite quantities. In a nutshell, they're just an extremely inefficient notation of a finite number. 0.5 + 0.25 + 0.125 ... to infinity converges to 1. Does that mean that you can't add up 1 to any other number because "you can't add infinities ?"That's retarded.
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 19:19:42 2020 No.11871408 >>11871213In the "pure vacuum" of mathematics, should there be an infinity of nines in 0.999, you'd be writing the sum of 0.9*10^n going from 0 to n (n going to infinity). But we all know what that means do we now ?
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 19:27:57 2020 No.11871430 If the mods don’t delete this thread I’m going to DOS this site.
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 19:49:34 2020 No.11871484 >>11866224Completion is not possible within this material universe. A universe that includes the potential for fear and suffering is incomplete. If there is something to overcomes within this material universe, then completion is not a possibility. Something cannot be complete which sprung from incompletion. The creator is flawed and so are its creations.
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 19:56:38 2020 No.11871503 >>11871430I'm gonna DOS your mom right in the pussy, geek squad
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 19:58:06 2020 No.11871509 >>11871503Does geek squad even exist anymore? Don't most of the technologically retarded just have their millennial crotch-fruit resolve their issue?
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 20:02:49 2020 No.11871523 >>11866453>guys im trolling
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 20:07:50 2020 No.11871542 >>11871509apple paid \$4B cash for the franchise and rebranded it as genius bar
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 20:11:26 2020 No.11871556 >>11868979and that limit is 0 not 0.0...1
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 20:36:16 2020 No.11871613 >>11870066kek
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 20:39:28 2020 No.11871620 File: 225 KB, 464x450, D61C10ED-31F8-4BAC-A419-1F2FE4FF1EE9.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11866240Numbers arent real in the first place
 >> Anonymous Sun Jul 5 23:32:40 2020 No.11871997 >>11866236>infinite numberswrong
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 00:22:48 2020 No.11872130 File: 42 KB, 562x437, hahaha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11871997>2/3 is infinite
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 00:37:39 2020 No.11872170 0.999... + 0.111... =0.9 + 0.1 + 0.09 + 0.01 + 0.009 + 0.001 ... =1 + 0.1 + 0.01 ... =1.111...0.999... + 0.111... - 0.111... = 10.999... = 10.999... = 1 - xmultiply both sides by 109.999... = 10 - 10xsubtract 9 from both sides0.999... = 1 - 10x1 - x = 0.999... = 1 - 10x(1 - x) - (1 - 10x) = 09x = 0x = 00.999... = 1 - xmultiply both sides by 109.999... = 10 - 10xsubtract (1 - x) from both sides9 = 9 - 9xdivide both sides by 91 = 1 - xx = 0
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 00:41:21 2020 No.11872185 File: 112 KB, 953x613, stop.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11866224>FFS NOT AGAINSAGE AND HIDE
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 03:24:01 2020 No.11872610 >>11871399>Convergent infinities are actually not infinities but finite quantities.you can never know unless you add all the numbers, which is impossible
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 03:25:03 2020 No.11872612 >>11871408i think if it's more than 100 nines it's already pretty much 1
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 03:26:05 2020 No.11872614 >>11871523his right doe
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 03:27:06 2020 No.11872615 >>118721302/3 is a ratio, not a number
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 03:28:07 2020 No.11872618 >>11872185you are just defining the problem away, that's not allowed in maths
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 04:43:35 2020 No.11872795 >>11872610What is the result of $\sum_{n=1}^436255638 1 [\math] ?  >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 04:45:22 2020 No.11872798 >>11872610What is the result of [math] \sum_{n=1}^436255638 1$ ?
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 04:46:12 2020 No.11872800 >>1187279595159491061521341, why?
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 04:47:15 2020 No.11872803 >>11872798a number, why?
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 05:06:52 2020 No.11872851 >>118662521.5
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 05:09:29 2020 No.11872854 File: 114 KB, 710x318, 111111111.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 05:13:43 2020 No.11872859 >>11872854that's not meds, it's a dumb book
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 05:51:53 2020 No.11872926 >>11872610last try. what is the result of $\sum_{n=1}^{436255638} 1$ ?
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 11:55:46 2020 No.11873668 >>11871167>Obviouslynice maths you got there bro>>11871075the original starts with a=b leading to a division by zero>>11871213why does this post reek of dunning-krueger?>>11871320This. Decimal representations aren't what numbers actually are. For actually defining numbers, you will need things like set theory or lambda calculus and then you can start converting between the definition and the representation. And if you do that, you will come to the conclusion that 0.999... = 1.>>11871430based>>11871484god I hate this board>>11871503DoS is rape, DDoS is gangbang>>11872612based engineer>>11872615my sides are in orbit, this bait is pretty good>>11872618how is he doing that?>>11872800>>11872803He was trying to get you to realize that you don't need to add up all the numbers. Maths is about finding patterns to be able to deduce results more easily. That's why we invented formulae.See >>11872926>>11872854First of all, he should really prove that the representation is unique now, but I guess he's correct. Anyways if we accept this notion, 0.999... doesn't exist anymore so there's no problem at all.
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 12:04:48 2020 No.11873689 >>11872615no, it is a number.
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 13:10:25 2020 No.11873840 >>11873689Define the number 2/3 without using ratios.
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 13:18:13 2020 No.11873851 The problem is that 1/3 doesn't equal .33333333333332/3 != .6666666666666666666Slice something perfect 3 times and it has a very well defined edge and size. It's like that arrow problem that never reaches the target because it keeps closing "half the distance." It's bullshit. Using infinitely repeating decimals is the same as a 3 year old saying unicorns are real to justify why the living room looks like it was ran through by a horse.
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 13:19:24 2020 No.11873854 >>11873851this
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 13:28:12 2020 No.11873874 >>11873851Psst. Get this shit.>0.1 = 1/3>0.2 = 2/3>1 = 3/3Your whole argument begs the base.
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 13:30:07 2020 No.11873879 >>11873874>.1 = 1/3Nobody said that though Something divided by 0 has no good answer so it is undefined. Dividing numbers into infinite decimals should also be undefined because it is not a real thing.
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 13:31:43 2020 No.11873885 >>11873874>>0.1 = 1/3>>0.2 = 2/3What the fuck are you talking about?
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 13:33:12 2020 No.11873888 >>11873840the equivalence class of (2,3) in Z×N/~ where (a,b) ~ (c,d) if and only if ad = bc
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 13:34:24 2020 No.11873892 >>11873888You used like 4 ratios in that sentence alone lmao.
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 13:35:02 2020 No.11873895 >>11873892can you name all 4 ?
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 13:36:41 2020 No.11873900 >>11873879>>11873885Just choose a better base to describe 1/3 and 2/3Choosing base ten just makes you look stupid.
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 13:38:50 2020 No.11873906 >>11873895>Z:N/~>N:~>(2,3):(a,b)~(c,d)>ad:bc
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 13:42:01 2020 No.11873922 >>11873906and not a single ratio was named that day
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 6 13:43:21 2020 No.11873928 >>11873922Holy fuck you're stupid
>>