[ 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: 3 KB, 473x156, 1*DvSQ5Ok_cFxhWwf9u-I4Cg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Obvious bullshit

 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 27 22:19:09 2020 No.11944868 File: 3 KB, 326x72, Mathematicians need to fix this.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] Nah, that one makes sense if you understand how 0.333... = 1/3.It's this "equation" that tells you somebody fucked up mathematics. Probably Godel or Liebniz or something.
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 27 22:20:28 2020 No.11944872 >>11944809"No!"
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 27 22:26:01 2020 No.11944880 >two extra 9s I agree
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 27 22:36:45 2020 No.11944900 File: 13 KB, 473x156, DDF42E80-F6ED-406D-BEAE-995DC2FF24A0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] this machine kills the robinson-lightstoner
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 27 22:43:16 2020 No.11944914 >>11944868>its wrong cuz waahhhh
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 27 23:00:06 2020 No.11944962 >>11944914Tell you what, right now I'll pay you 1/12 of a dollar, rounded up. Hell I'll be generous and make it 10 cents. A whole shiny dime.In exchange I want you to pay me a dollar tomorrow, then two dollars the next day, then three dollars the day after.What do you say?
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 27 23:01:19 2020 No.11944965 >>11944962Oh I forgot the most important part, you have to keep doing that and pay me more and more. Forever.Don't worry, eventually you'll come out ahead!
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 27 23:09:01 2020 No.11944990 >>11944965>extrapolating math into the real world>thinking anything could happen forever here>with our finite fucking lifespans>without the ability to give that much money every day>eventually youll come out aheadway to show off how fucking little you understand about infinite processes
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 27 23:10:12 2020 No.11944995 >>11944990>extrapolating math into the real worldWow, so you guys really are useless then?
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 27 23:40:42 2020 No.11945091 >>11944868>Nah, that one makes sense if you understand how 0.333... = 1/3.bait
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 27 23:47:07 2020 No.11945124 >>11944995Say that to the "useless" math thats explained quantum mechanics which has made it possible to manufacture incredibly tiny chips and fucking 7nm flash memory
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 27 23:51:40 2020 No.11945145 >>11944995>cant into Analytic and Synthetic distinctionok brainlet
 >> Anonymous Mon Jul 27 23:55:52 2020 No.11945158 >>11945124Look, guys, it's OK to admit you fucked up - every field does from time to time. Engineering's had its Challenger disaster, the soft sciences have their reproducibility crisis, and you have some glitches like -1/12 and Banach-Tarski.You just own up to the problem and work on fixing it. That's all.
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 00:04:06 2020 No.11945181 >>11945158>thinking banach is a problemnot getting -1/12 is one thing
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 00:08:00 2020 No.11945196 >>11945181Look, I didn't spend years getting a math PhD but I think we all know a collapsed bridge when we see one, ya know?
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 00:29:45 2020 No.11945234 >>11944809Couldn't rounding be a natural law of order?
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 00:32:19 2020 No.11945243 File: 480 KB, 2048x2048, EG7gJFiU4AE7ueT.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11944962>o pay me a dollar tomorrow, then two dollars the next day, then three dollars the day after.>numbers are a choo-choo train that keeps chugging along over time
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 01:09:02 2020 No.11945317 >>11944868analytic continuation my friend
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 01:13:11 2020 No.11945332 File: 112 KB, 953x613, 1=.999....jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11944809>sighSAGEAGE
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 01:38:42 2020 No.11945385 >>11945317OK, good, we're making progress. You need to fix your analytic continuation because it's throwing out garbage answers.
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 02:01:38 2020 No.11945412 File: 61 KB, 898x790, Deq43xNVAAA_rBR.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11944995thats the dream t.hardy
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 02:04:15 2020 No.11945414 >>11945158the imcompIeteness theorem is the reaI fuck up that every mathematician just pretends to ignore.
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 02:13:08 2020 No.11945426 >>11945196You would think that but it's clear that you don't.
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 04:31:38 2020 No.11945605 >>119448090.3333....*3= (1/3)*30.9999.... = 1
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 04:36:55 2020 No.11945614 >>11945605Okay now do that in base 9 retard
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 04:39:51 2020 No.11945617 >>119456140.3 * 3 = 1where's the problem ?
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 04:55:51 2020 No.11945635 >>11945385No need to fix anything there, since $\zeta(-1)=-\frac{1}{12}$ makes absolute sense in that very context. It's no "garbage answer".The important thing to remember is that doesn't make $\sum_{x \in \mathbb{N}}x$ equal to $\frac{1}{12}$, although it would seem like that, when you look at the definition of $\zeta(x)$, since it's only the analytic continuation.
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 17:21:11 2020 No.11947548 >>11944809Attention.It is important to realize that mathematics exists only to make life easier for us Humans . and is not absolute truthIt's close enough OK?
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 17:25:05 2020 No.11947565 File: 30 KB, 509x371, 1579106332036.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11945614What's 3*3 retard
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 17:27:25 2020 No.11947575 >>11947565the integer three multiplied by the integer three is equal to the integer nine.
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 17:32:21 2020 No.11947593 File: 10 KB, 618x175, Slope Proof .999...≠ 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11945617>0.3 * 3 = 10.3 * 3 = .9
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 17:35:55 2020 No.11947613 >>11944809It follows by the basic construction of the reals via Dedekind cuts or equivalence classes of rational valued Cauchy sequences. All this really says is that rational representation in the reals is not necessarily unique - particularly, any integer $n$ can be written as $(n - 1) + 0.9... [math]. In fact, 0.9... = 1 is essentially equivalent to the Archimedean property of the reals.  >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 17:36:57 2020 No.11947618 >>11947613fuck, meant it as [math] (n - 1) + 0.9...$
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 17:40:04 2020 No.11947634 >>11947613>In fact, 0.9... = 1 is essentially equivalent to the Archimedean property of the reals.In other words, the set of Real numbers was explicitly designed to ignore infinitesimals. It's the same as using the properties of Whole numbers to prove that 1/2 does not exist.
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 17:45:00 2020 No.11947647 >>11947634BUt you fail to realize that there are people called 0.999...=1 Deniers. they areimmune to reality.
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 18:07:42 2020 No.11947732 >>11947634introducing infinitesimals doesn't change the meaning of a symbol already defined.>>In fact, 0.9... = 1 is essentially equivalent to the Archimedean property of the reals.is not true.
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 18:12:55 2020 No.11947741 >>11947593>.9 in base 9
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 19:33:08 2020 No.11947992 >>11947741>.9 in base 9Is meaningless. Like .A in base Ten.
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 19:43:49 2020 No.11948018 >>11947647>they are immune to reality.Proof by insults.>>11947732>the meaning of a symbol already defined.Proof by I say so.Maybe YOU are the reason people disbelieve the equality?
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 19:54:50 2020 No.11948046 >>11948018>Proof by I say so.what proof are you talking about?
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 20:21:58 2020 No.11948131 >>11948046>what proof are you talking about?The thread is about what .999... means and why. You(?) just declared that .999... was "a symbol already defined." I've found that every justification for .999... = 1 is based on circular logic of some kind. They all assume their conclusion in one way or another.
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 20:37:27 2020 No.11948176 >>119448091/9 = 0.111....999/9=0.111...0.000...1=0In real life there's no such thing as "infinite xyz". This is all just a tool of mathematics. The same tools that say a coffee mug is the same as a doughnut.
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 20:38:43 2020 No.11948180 >>11948131>I've found that every justification for .999... = 1 is based on circular logic of some kind.then youre really shit at reading, as if your other posts arent proof enough of thatthe justification of .999... = 1 is done through the definition of the fucking real numbers, theyre the completion of the rationals, its that fucking easy
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 20:40:47 2020 No.11948185 >>11944809ITT /sci/ doesn't understand zenos paradox
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 20:58:38 2020 No.11948229 >>11948176>0.000...1=0no
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 21:48:48 2020 No.11948372 >>11948180>the justification of .999... = 1 is done through the definition of the fucking real numbers,And the justification of 1/2 = 0 is done through the definition of the Whole numbers. Maybe it would help if you spent less time swearing and more time thinking?
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 21:59:05 2020 No.11948392 >>11948372there is no justification of 1/2 = 0 in the whole numbers, maybe in computing, but nowhere elseyou cant define 1/2 in the whole numbers, thats why we made the rationals
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 22:09:24 2020 No.11948420 File: 20 KB, 386x391, 1593017939246.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] 0.999...x= 0.999...1000x = 999.9...999x=9x=9/99x=3/333x=1/111Did I do it right? I started studying math a week ago.
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 22:10:51 2020 No.11948427 >>11948392>you cant define 1/2 in the whole numbers, thats why we made the rationalsYou can't define infinitesimals in the rationals, that's why we made the hyperreals.My point is that insisting on using the Real set to talk about an infinitesimal is like refusing to acknowledge anything but the Wholes when someone is asking you about 1/2.
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 22:25:57 2020 No.11948471 >>11948427what’s an infinitesimal?
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 22:34:54 2020 No.11948498 >>11948427i would agree with you, except there is nothing infinitesimal about 1 - .999...
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 23:27:15 2020 No.11948647 >>11948471>what’s an infinitesimal?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal>>11948498>i would agree with you, except there is nothing infinitesimal about 1 - .999...Prove it. And not using a number system designed not to see infinitesimals.
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 23:37:24 2020 No.11948679 >>11948647>>11948647$x = 1 - .999... \\10x = 10 - 9.999... = 10 - 9 - .999... = 1 - .999... = x\\x = 0$so why is this proof InVaLiD>Prove it. And not using a number system designed not to see infinitesimals.>the reals are designed not to see infinitesimalsyoure a retard btw
 >> Anonymous Tue Jul 28 23:48:57 2020 No.11948711 >>11948647i mean what’s an infinitesimal in the context of your whole number analogy
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 00:17:40 2020 No.11948784 >fuck an 18 year old>ACTUALLY SHES 17.999... YOU SICK FUCKthe state of 1cucks
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 00:22:11 2020 No.11948796 >>11948679>10x=10−9.999...You added a significant digit by multiplying by 10. This would never happen in any finite multiplication, and you have no reason to think it would here. The problem with this is "Infinity only works when we want it to." There is no consistent logic to what can emerge from the endless string of nines and what can't. >>11948711>i mean what’s an infinitesimal in the context of your whole number analogyIt is simply "something that is not a real number" just like 1/2 is not a whole number. You know what else is not a real number? Infinity. And yet you need to invoke it for .999... to have any meaning at all.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 00:34:15 2020 No.11948815 Praise God! At last there is a growing number of enlightened people who will not accept the BLASPHEMY of 0.999...= 1. Brothers and Sisters of the ONE TRUE FINITE AND DISCRETE Universe, soon we shall reclaim Constantinople and Mathematics for GOD! We march! Verily, those GOD CURSED SODOMITES who claim such absurdities to be true shall perish before our swords and be sent into finite DAMNATION where they shall writhe within the discrete flames of HELL! PRAISE GOD!Amen.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 00:49:34 2020 No.11948849 >>11948796>You added a significant digit by multiplying by 10.I did no such thing>Infinity. And yet you need to invoke it for .999... to have any meaning at all.So you just admitted to not knowing how series are defined, why should i take anything you say seriously?
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:09:08 2020 No.11948899 >>11948796>would never happen in any finitelet's pretend finite is infinite
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:12:48 2020 No.11948906 File: 242 KB, 707x1000, prayboy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11948815found the pedo
 >> El Arcón Wed Jul 29 01:28:58 2020 No.11948940 File: 235 KB, 450x450, TIMESAND___99fdffferthff5gvcwxvqqfttt999cb999f33ff333ffpnt06paf2324l85wz378393fg0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] If 0.999... is not equal to 1, then there is a smallest positive real number epsilon such that$1-\varepsilon=0.999...$This is an interesting issue because I have seen a lot of evidence that there is no least positive real number.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:51:39 2020 No.11949002 >>11944809The most intuitive explaination is that 0.333... is one-third. Add that three times and it's exactly equal to one. Not close, exact. 1/3rd +1/3rd +1/3rd = 3/3rds = 10.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... = 0.999... = 1
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 03:06:11 2020 No.11949120 >>11948131>You(?) just declared that .999... was "a symbol already defined."are you saying 0.999... is not a well defined object?
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 03:17:19 2020 No.11949131 >>11948796>There is no consistent logic to what can emerge from the endless string of nines and what can't.there is, you're just too retarded to grasp it>And yet you need to invoke it for .999... to have any meaning at all.lol brainlet. you don't need ∞ at all to talk about limits or suprema.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 05:19:22 2020 No.11949258 >>11944809>.6=1Checks out if you're not a mong who takes it seriously
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 05:48:41 2020 No.11949298 >>11948471>what’s an infinitesimal?1/infinity, which is 0.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 08:07:53 2020 No.11949536 File: 159 KB, 800x200, Cyan to violet spectrum.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11948849>I did no such thingYou have the original exactly plus a nine on the other side of the decimal point. Yet somehow you didn't add a nine. Also, it is exactly nine more than the number before multiplying. But you didn't add nine.>>11948849>So you just admitted to not knowing how series are defined, why should i take anything you say seriously?This is how religion is defined. You don't accept the secret doctrine therefore you don't understand it. And no one can quite explain the secret doctrine, but they sure know to reject anyone who questions it.>>11948940>This is an interesting issue because I have seen a lot of evidence that there is no least positive real number.There is a lot of evidence. Says none of it. Religion again. There is a lot of evidence that the square root of negative one does not exist. >>11949002>The most intuitive explaination is that 0.333... is one-third. Add that three times and it's exactly equal to one. Not close, exact.Yet again, WHY? This is like attending a prayer meeting.>>11949120>are you saying 0.999... is not a well defined object?Well, at some point you carry the one, and all the nines become zeros. But there is no "last digit" so where does the one come from? And if you treat the infinity as a completed step, then why can't you append anything to it? >>11949131>there is, you're just too retarded to grasp itProof by name-calling. This is the closest 4chan gets to an admission of defeat.>>11949298>>what’s an infinitesimal?>1/infinity, which is 0.Countable or uncountable infinity? What happens if you use one of the other infinities?
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 08:35:15 2020 No.11949592 >>11949536$0.999 \dots = \lim_{n \to \infty} \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{9}{10^k} = 1$
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 08:41:33 2020 No.11949602 >>11949536what exactly do you find controversial about the generally accepted definition of real numbers and the decimal expansion?
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 09:28:20 2020 No.11949678 To all the retards using their simple minded, low effort algebraic "proof":If you believe that0.999...=x9.999...=10x9+x=10x9=9x1=xThen by that same logic,...999=y...9990=10yy-9=10y-9=9y-1=yAnd...999.999...=z...999.999...=10zz=10zz=0It works out when you see that ...999+0.999...=...999.999... and (-1)+1=0Sounds fucking ridiculous right? Yet i dare you to disprove that ...999=-1 and ...999.999...=0.>inb4 some lousy cauchy/dedekind cut explanationIts foolish to apply algebra when dealing with infinity, and just goes to show how little you understand about the concept of infinity. If you want to have your way and still think the other 2 equations are incorrect but 0.999...=0 is somehow exempt, as i said before you are free to try to disprove them.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 09:34:38 2020 No.11949691 >>11949678>...999not a real number
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 09:38:15 2020 No.11949696 >>11945145The dumbfuck faggots on this board are not nearly intelligent enough to understand Kant, anon. Don't be mean
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 09:43:15 2020 No.11949709 >>11949691Wrong, it has a place on the number line therefore it is real
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 09:49:20 2020 No.11949721 >>11949709give a natural number larger than or equal to ...999
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 09:54:53 2020 No.11949730 >>11949696>T>>11949696It's irrational but it is real
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 10:16:03 2020 No.11949765 >>11949721...999.9
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 10:20:23 2020 No.11949770 >>11949765Retard.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 10:22:03 2020 No.11949773 >>11949770lrn2math
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 10:25:14 2020 No.11949778 File: 200 KB, 785x731, 1589399498370.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11949770>R-retard!
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 10:37:53 2020 No.11949795 >>11949765very nice. now define ...999.9 using only the successor function, addition, multiplication, and the numbers 0-9.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 10:53:46 2020 No.11949833 >>11949678>Then by that same logic,>...999=ywe have no justification for claiming that ...999 is a number, so no, youve made a huge jump in logic actually, its not the samebut yeah, if you plug in 10 into the geometric series you get -1/9, this isnt news>>11949709no it doesnt
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:11:23 2020 No.11949866 >>11949833>no it doesntYes it does. It is -1. The other anon just proved it. If you can't accept that, then why accept .999...? >>11949721>give a natural number larger than or equal to ...999Zero. It is +1 larger.>>11949602>what exactly do you find controversial about the generally accepted definition of real numbers and the decimal expansion?If you accept a definition you must also accept WHY the idea was defined that way. Real numbers exist precisely to ignore the infinitesimals that kept cropping up from Newton and Leibniz's calculus. You aren't proving anything when you use Real numbers to claim that .999... = 1. You are just blinding yourselves to alternatives.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:22:49 2020 No.11949885 >>11949866>If you accept a definition you must also accept WHY the idea was defined that way.Not true. For example, no Scrabble players know what all the valid letter strings mean. They accept that those strings are defined as words in a common dictionary without accepting why they are so defined.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:24:55 2020 No.11949887 >>11949866>You aren't proving anything when you use Real numbers to claim that .999... = 1.?
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:30:43 2020 No.11949900 >>11949866The sequence 9, 99, 999, ... does not have a cluster point on the real linethe analytic continuation of the geometric series in the unit ball to the rest of the line does map 10 to -1/9, but that is algebraicit does not have a point on the number line, even though it can be consistently algebraically mapped onto -1so the sequence 9, 99, 999, ... does not correspond to a number on the real line to begin with, unlike .999...>Real numbers exist precisely to ignore the infinitesimals that kept cropping up from Newton and Leibniz's calculus.this is totally untruethe real numbers were invented to complete the rational numbers, infinitesimals are not a topological concept, they are algebraicunlike the construction of the reals from the rationals
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:19:21 2020 No.11950006 >>11949900>cluster point >analytic continuation >topological concept >implying he knows what that means
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:22:52 2020 No.11950014 File: 136 KB, 820x791, fuck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11950006i dont know how to explain it any better to himill never be a good professor at this rate
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:24:08 2020 No.11950019 File: 63 KB, 230x179, Screen Shot 2020-07-29 at 11.23.09 AM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11949887>>You aren't proving anything when you use Real numbers to claim that .999... = 1.I've answered this twice already, we are going around in circles. Read the "1/2 in Whole numbers" stuff above.>>11949900https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYijIV5JrKg
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:29:07 2020 No.11950028 >>11949536Look children, a murrikan educated person.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:30:19 2020 No.11950036 >>11950019theres a world of difference between 1/2 and .99...1/2 is not in the whole numbers, but .999... is in the real numbersyou cant just keep saying 1/2 over and over, it doesnt relate>numberphile describes infinitesimals geometrically>therefore ?and? we teach kids numbers by counting shapes, that doesnt mean theyre fundamentally geometricyou cant properly define infinitesimals geometrically, but its insanely easy to do algebraically
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:32:34 2020 No.11950045 >>11948176>1/9 = 0.111...True.>.999/9=0.111...False. That would be 0.111.>0.000...1That's literally not even a real number.>In real life there's no such thing as "infinite xyz".You are probably right about this, though.Any kind of infinity or infinitesimal has ultimately turned out to be the result of a lack of understanding so far.Space may very well be "infinite", but effectively it's finite due to the finite speed of causality.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:34:10 2020 No.11950053 >>11950036>world of differencenah, just 0.4999...
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:35:35 2020 No.11950057 >>11949721-1 is equal to ...999 as proven earlier
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:49:53 2020 No.11950114 >>11950036>1/2 is not in the whole numbers,It is if you insist that 1/2 = 0. That is what happens in the Whole set, therefore it must be true in all other sets. Two goes into one zero times.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:51:33 2020 No.11950118 >>11950057see >>11949900real numbers are cauchy sequences of rational numberssince 9, 99, 999, ... does not have a cluster, it is not a cauchy sequencethe fact we can assign a value to the series as -1 does not mean that the representation is valid>>11950114>That is what happens in the Whole set, therefore it must be true in all other sets.thats not how it works at all you idiot
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:07:21 2020 No.11950168 >>11944809NGMI as a machinist there OP, sorry to break it to ya.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:08:44 2020 No.11950171 >>11950168Oh you said "obvious bullshit". I misread your post, sorry there OP. Your not a faggot today.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:22:49 2020 No.11950208 >>11950118>>That is what happens in the Whole set, therefore it must be true in all other sets.>thats not how it works at all you idiotIt is EXACTLY the same circular logic that you guys are using to assume that .999... = 1. You recognize that it is wrong in this context, but then suddenly accept it when it says what you want it to say. That is why so many people reject your arguments.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:25:42 2020 No.11950212 >>11950208>It is EXACTLY the same circular logic that you guys are using to assume that .999... = 1.explain yourself retard, stop just dropping single sentence shit without justifying it
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:27:19 2020 No.11950215 >>11950168>NGMI as a machinist there OP,Why would a machinist ever use real numbers? Whole numbers correctly describes what happens if you try to cut a proton in half.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:39:32 2020 No.11950244 File: 474 KB, 777x527, Carl Sagan.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11950212>explain yourself retard, stop just dropping single sentence shit without justifying it>>11944868>>11944872>>11944880>>11944900>>11944990>>11944995>>11945145>>11945196>>11945181>>11945317>>11945385>>11945412>>11945426>>11945605>>11947575>>11947647>>11947732>>11948046>>11948176>>11948180>>11948229>>11948392>>11948498>>11948711>>11948849>>11948899>>11948906>>11948940>>11949120>>11949131>>11949298>>11949592>>11949602>>11949691>>11949696>>11949709>>11949721>>11949730>>11949770>>11949773>>11949778>>11949833>>11949885>>11950028>>11950212explain yourself retard, stop just dropping single sentence shit without justifying it>>11949536 (Me)>And no one can quite explain the secret doctrine, but they sure know to reject anyone who questions it.>There is a lot of evidence. Says none of it. Religion again.>Yet again, WHY? This is like attending a prayer meeting.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:43:11 2020 No.11950255 >>11950244>the retard still hasnt justified himself>and used examples of proper single sentence explanations in his rant>and mutliple sentence posts in his rantyoure literally just stupid
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:51:13 2020 No.11950657 It's impossible to calculate any difference between 0.999... and 1
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 17:35:24 2020 No.11951003 >>11950657The difference is 0®1
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 17:49:14 2020 No.11951040 >>11951003how did you calculate that?
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 18:24:49 2020 No.11951132 >>11951040 1-.999..._____= 0®1
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 18:27:08 2020 No.11951137 >>11951132what’s the difference?
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 19:09:42 2020 No.11951233 >>119502081/2 is not zero in whole numbers you sad retard, it doesn't have any meaning in whole numbers
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 20:58:19 2020 No.11951477 >>11949002Most fucking pants on head wearing explanation ever. 0.333... = 1/3 is all its claiming.which is just as retarded as saying 0.999... = 1Honestly if is this is the best you can do then no wonder people think you are full of shit.
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 21:08:22 2020 No.11951495 >>11951477Honestly, if this is as smart as you are then no wonder you think actual smart people are full of shit
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 21:11:23 2020 No.11951505 this fucking thread again?
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 21:44:05 2020 No.11951576 2/3 = .666...7
 >> Anonymous Wed Jul 29 21:53:40 2020 No.11951596 >>11944809That little bar = 0.001
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 01:01:47 2020 No.11951969 >>11951576>...7>...anythingree
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 06:42:16 2020 No.11952553 0.999... + 0.111... = 1.111...therefore0.999... = 1.111... - 0.111... = 1
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 12:15:55 2020 No.11953701 File: 9 KB, 216x144, 0≠0 zero not equal zero.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] In real numbers you still need infinititesimals, because otherwise you have two different zeros:Imagine you have a random number generator. It makes random real numbers between zero and one. Any result as likely as any other result.>Easy: What is the probability of getting a 2?Obviously that can't happen because it contradicts the definition of the device. So it is probability zero.>Problem: What is the probability of .5?You have a finite number divided by infinity, so also zero? You have two different zeros. One possible, the other impossible. It just makes more sense if the probability is .000...1Gets brought up here:https://youtu.be/6_yU9eJ0NxA?t=430
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 12:21:00 2020 No.11953713 >>11953701Later on in the video they ask about the dart hitting the edge of a circle, compared to the bulls eye. Standard math can't calculate that landing on a long line would be more probable than landing on a point. They just say "Don't worry about it." and move on!
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 12:21:56 2020 No.11953718 >>11953701Those are both the same 0, it's their interpretation that is different.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 12:27:37 2020 No.11953738 >>11953713>Standard math can't calculate that landing on a long line would be more probable than landing on a point.>this fucking retard has never heard of measure theory>You have two different zeros. One possible, the other impossible. It just makes more sense if the probability is .000...1no, theyre both just 0 probability of occuringthe proper way to deal with that is to say that the probability density function at .5 is nonzero, its 1but the density function at 2 is 0, then you could look at neighborhoods of .5 and 2adding infinitesimals is the worst way to deal with that
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 12:28:50 2020 No.11953744 >>11953713>landing on a long line would be more probable than landing on a point.no, those are equally unlikely. the conceptual problem comes from the analogy itself: imagining the tip of a dart hitting a line or a point on a dartboard. those are all thick, not thin.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 12:37:25 2020 No.11953778 File: 97 KB, 1654x2339, For 1 tards.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 12:48:54 2020 No.11953810 I have a dysfunctional relationship with e. :(
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 12:53:40 2020 No.11953821 >>11944962You realise 2 = 1 + 1 has no temporality or 'afterness'. It's not that addition is a three stage process of having a object, introducing a second object, and then those combining to produce a third object. 1+1 is just a way of representing 2, as 2 is a way to represent 1+1.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 12:58:53 2020 No.11953835 >>11944809>5/5=1 is obvious bullshit because I don't understand fractions.That's how stupid you sound to someone who understands infinite series or analysis.See >>11953778
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 13:36:03 2020 No.11953988 >>11953778All this stuff is circular logic. Limits are a method of ignoring infinitesimals. That is why they were invented. So naturally when you use them to examine .999... the limit will do what it is intended to do. Every proof of that equality assumes its conclusion somewhere.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 13:37:21 2020 No.11953993 >>11953701P(X = x) = 0 doesn't mean it's impossible.f(x) = 0, where f is the probabilty density function, means it's impossible. apply yourself.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 13:38:22 2020 No.11953996   >>11953718>Those are both the same 0, it's their interpretation that is different.Which is a fancy way of saying that the two zeros mean different things. If I tell you that an even has "zero probability" you can't tell me if it is possible or not.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 13:40:05 2020 No.11953999 >>11953988this guy thinks that the definition of 0.999... magically changes based on what number system you use
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 13:40:23 2020 No.11954001 >>11953718>Those are both the same 0, it's their interpretation that is different.Which is a fancy way of saying that the two zeros mean different things. If I tell you that an event has "zero probability" you can't tell me if it is possible or not.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 13:41:38 2020 No.11954004 >>11953996>If I tell you that an even has "zero probability" you can't tell me if it is possible or not.now you get it
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 13:44:15 2020 No.11954012 >>11953988>Limits are a method of ignoring infinitesimals.no they fucking arentinfinitesimals are not a geometric concept, they do not arise from the real numbers, since the real numbers are a geometric extension of the rationals>Every proof of that equality assumes its conclusion somewhere.call x = .999...then 10x = 9.999... = 9 + .999...so 10x = 9 + xand x = 1
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 13:46:39 2020 No.11954016 >>11953988what is 0.999... + 0.111... ?
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:17:59 2020 No.11954091 File: 107 KB, 795x842, 1593016644581.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] 0.999...9 + 0.000...1 = 1.000.0 = 10.999... + 0.000...1 = 1.000...999... ≠ 1
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:21:33 2020 No.11954099 >>11944809If .999... = 1, would this imply the theoretical next number after 1 also be equal to 1? As in 1.000........1 = 1? Would the number after that one be equal to the number before 1.000......1 = 1.000......2?
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:26:00 2020 No.11954117 >>11954099There is no next number after 1, there are always more numbers in between.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:28:35 2020 No.11954129 >>119540991.000...1 is just a retard way of writing 1.000...
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:40:43 2020 No.11954157 >>11944990>he fell for the -1/12 meme in collegeNigga... You were supposed to learn the tricks for the test and then memory dump the obvious bullshit you just learned. If it's always either 0 or 1, it's never 0.5. You found the "limit" (for lack of better word) to which the two sides never converge on. You wouldn't say cosine(infinite)=0, you'd say it has no value.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:43:44 2020 No.11954164 >>11945158based
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:51:08 2020 No.11954186 >>119448680.333 =/= 1/3 tho. It's just an approximation
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:00:19 2020 No.11954229 >>11954099next as an idea only exists for a set that is countably infinitethe reals are UNcountably infinitetheres too many of them to put them in a linear order like that>>11954157>If it's always either 0 or 1, it's never 0.5.yeah, none of the finite terms are ever .5, theyre only 0 or 1 by definitionthank you einstein, what a fucking wonderful insightthe point of extending 1-1+1-1... to 1/2 is not by saying the limit approaches 1/2, the limit doesnt exist everyone knows thisbut we can still find a sensible definition that agrees with the limiting one (when the limit exists) and that sensible definition gives 1/2in fact, every single sensible definition gives 1/2 to 1-1+1-1...if you think its obvious bullshit, then you didnt learn it properly, did you only ever see the NumberPhile vid on it or some shit?Is that why you're calling it a "limit" in quotes, cuz James Grime called it a pseudo limit?Its got jack shit to do with limits, we arent saying 1 0 1 0 1 ... has a limit at 1/2>>11954164>basedbased on nothing>>11954186.333... = 1/3its exact
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:08:53 2020 No.11954254 >>119542291-1+1-1... = 0
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:11:54 2020 No.11954265 >>11953701Wtf, 1/infinity is undefined, not 0.In fact you just implied 0.000...1 is indeed greater than 0 considering there a chance greater than 0 existsDid you guys not understand limits or something?>>11953718 (you too)
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:18:11 2020 No.11954283 >>11954265>0.000...1 is indeed greater than 0of course it is, all decimals fitting that pattern have a 1 in the nth decimal place such that n is an arbitrarily large finite integer.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:21:16 2020 No.11954292 >>11954265>1/infinity is undefinednoper/inf=0
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:24:07 2020 No.11954301 File: 58 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault (16).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11944809I think that we need to create a unique variable to represent the 0.(insert infinitely repeating zeroes here)1
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:26:23 2020 No.11954309 >>11954301nah it's 0
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:27:55 2020 No.11954314 >>11954301like 0>>11954254G = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ... = 1 - ( 1 - 1 + 1 - ...) = 1 - Gso if G = 0, then G = 1>>11954265>In fact you just implied 0.000...1 is indeed greater than 0 considering there a chance greater than 0 existsno, it does not have a chance greater than 0, it has 0 chance of happening
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:28:51 2020 No.11954320 >>119543091-9.999999... = 0.00000000...1 the 1 is still there. 1 does not equal 0.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:30:14 2020 No.11954329 >>11954301the zeros are place holders, you can't compress an infinite repetition of them into a closed interval.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:31:17 2020 No.11954333 >>11954320no, 1 - 0.999... = 0.000...
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:31:56 2020 No.11954339 >>11954320the 1 is not there, youve just magically added itevery single digit gets subtracted away, since theres infinitely many 9s
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:32:28 2020 No.11954341 >>11954314the capricious bracketing of alternating divergent series is devil's play, anon.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:33:42 2020 No.11954345 >>11954341its fine, i havent rearranged a single thingand im not going to be able to introduce Cesaro or Abel summation to the brainlets here
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:38:54 2020 No.11954370 >>11954345i prefer the oresme bracketing1 + 1/2 + (1/4+1/4) + (1/8+1/8+1/8+1/8) ...1 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 ...and so1 - 1 + (1-1) + (1-1+1-1) ...1 - 1 + 0 + 0 ...
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:40:01 2020 No.11954374 >>119543201/inf=0
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:42:09 2020 No.11954379 >>11954370>1 - 1 + (1-1) + (1-1+1-1) ...>1 - 1 + 0 + 0 ..any proof dependent on the order of adding is bs
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:45:28 2020 No.11954388 >>11954379yes, exactly. that's why this>>11954314>G = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ... = 1 - ( 1 - 1 + 1 - ...) = 1 - G>so if G = 0, then G = 1is devil's play, not a proof.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:57:01 2020 No.11954415 >>11954388>>11954379 is isnt me, hes a new anoni know bracketing is sensitive, but its simpler than actually using Cesaro or Abel, like i said
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 16:13:44 2020 No.11954470 >>11954229>i-i-f w-we just define it as such, i-it all works out!>Traps aren't gay i-if we just redefine gay!I believe this is our disconnect. You believe numbers are whatever we say they are, whereas I believe numbers are supposed to be representatives of the universe we experience, and at the very least if we're gonna play with made up concepts like infinity than they should adhere to the same principles.And again, cosine infinity has no value, it alternates between peaking at 1 and -1. I hope you can picture the parallelism. You can say at some point it does equal zero, but also at any point A either equals 0 or 1, so let's ignore between 0 and infinity. You stretch either out to infinity and neither converges. Defining an answer so our non-infinity brains can make sense of it doesn't make it so., no matter how logical.Also why choose the word "limit"? Cause like your favorite YouTuber, I too could not think of a better word. Also I learned the 1/12 tricks well enough to pass the final exam. You can learn so many things and not agree with any them. I'm sorry if that last sentence is new to you this late in life.>based on nothingWe can go can back on forth on this forever, but why don't we just settle on the middle where we're both half right. Oh wait, that's a not a realistic option is it. But wait, we can just define both of us as neither being wrong nor right! Dude I think we just solved world hunger>It's an exact value0.333... is an approximation. It's literally infinitely converging toward a limit that it never reaches, you monobase simp. There's a (mis)understood 1/3 of a digit you're rounding off to make that work in your head.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 16:17:16 2020 No.11954480 File: 437 KB, 220x179, tenor.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11954314Idk, you said they all have the same chance of appearing. Sounds like there's a chance, however small
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 16:20:06 2020 No.11954488 >>11954470>You believe numbers are whatever we say they are, whereas I believe numbers are supposed to be representatives of the universe we experiencetheyre both>and at the very least if we're gonna play with made up concepts like infinity than they should adhere to the same principles.why the fuck should something unlike all other numbers behave by the same principles?>And again, cosine infinity has no value, it alternates between peaking at 1 and -1. I hope you can picture the parallelism.there actually is not a parallel from taking the limit of cos and defining a more general notion of summation, past taking limits>I'm sorry if that last sentence is new to you this late in life.wow, arent you so fucking enlightened to realize that teachers can talk shitwhat an immense intellect>0.333... is an approximation. It's literally infinitely converging toward a limit that it never reaches, you monobase simp.the finite terms in the limit are an approximationthe final limit itself is not an approximation you fucking dropout
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 16:44:36 2020 No.11954575 >>11944809What is 1/3 in the form of decimal fraction?
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 16:45:58 2020 No.11954581 >>11954470>convergingno, writing out decimal places is converging. the value itself isn't converging, it's converged.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 17:08:19 2020 No.11954665 >>11944809You talk of math as though it is science, when in fact math is quite arbitrary. It is merely a language we've constructed to describe logic. The rules of the language, the axoims, are entirely abitrary and changes from field to field. Whether 0.999... = 1 or not entirely depends on when you define these constructs as and the rules you apply to them.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 17:10:39 2020 No.11954675 >>11954665you can't calculate a difference between 1 and 0.999... it's 0 forever1 - 0.999... = 0.000...
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 17:57:13 2020 No.11954833 Who the fuck is this guy who keeps making these brainlet 0.999... =/= 1 threads
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:09:43 2020 No.11954863 >>11953701>he doesn't understand sigma algebrasoh no no no nohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA4JkHKZM50
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:10:00 2020 No.11954865 >>11945332>>11954675Wow, this makes sense!Wtf?
 >> Anonymous Fri Jul 31 02:49:42 2020 No.11955941 File: 309 KB, 976x549, _112972701_newbodynew-nc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11944809yeah but 1/3 plus 1/3 plus 1/3 = 11/3 equals 0.33333333333333333as such?trust me I share your perhaps inauthentic issues to me dividing by zero just gives you the numerator. divide NO times.so does 0=1 ?not as a function of a denominator.. think of how it would be used in any serious application of calculation.. the pie is not divided.. one pie.. two pies are not divided.. two pies.probably how it is used and operates for every engineering application. if the denominator is zero then you dont dividego figure! one of my problems with arithmetic!
 >> Anonymous Fri Jul 31 05:43:06 2020 No.11956214 >>11954292He is right in that you cannot say $\frac{n}{\infty}=0$.You can't use $\infty$ in conventional arithmetic, since it's quite literally NaN.You need to write $lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} \frac{n}{x}=0$. Which is "the different zero" >>11953701 is talking about.It's the very same zero, though.
 >> Anonymous Fri Jul 31 06:22:14 2020 No.11956264
 >> Anonymous Fri Jul 31 06:39:34 2020 No.11956295 >>11944868You can't give a divergent series a value. tThe sum of all natural numbers doesn't have a value; it diverges. BUT if you were to give it a value *wink* then it would be -1/12. -1/12 gives you information about the nature of the series but it is not actually the sum (more or less the way my professor explained this it to me).
 >> Anonymous Fri Jul 31 07:16:47 2020 No.11956363 >>11956264WA is probably interpreting it as to what you could have reasonably meant by that nonsense, and displays the result.Otherwise WA is quite literally wrong there. $\frac{1}{\infty}$ is undefined in the Reals, since $\infty \notin \mathbb{R}$.
 >> Anonymous Fri Jul 31 07:28:51 2020 No.11956384 >>11956363extended number line is a thing you know
 >> Anonymous Fri Jul 31 07:35:31 2020 No.11956398 >>11956384That's not "conventional arithmetic", though.
 >> Anonymous Fri Jul 31 07:39:40 2020 No.11956404 >>11956398where does wolfram state that it uses only "conventional arithmetic"? what's "conventional arithmetic" anyway?
 >> Anonymous Fri Jul 31 07:45:00 2020 No.11956413 >>11956363random 4chan guy is probably full of shit
 >> Anonymous Fri Jul 31 07:45:33 2020 No.11956414 >>11956404>what's "conventional arithmetic" anyway?How about $(\mathbb{R},+,\cdot)$?
 >> Anonymous Fri Jul 31 08:02:04 2020 No.11956444 >>11944868>>11944900>>11945605using math to prove math is just as invalid as using the bible to prove that the bible is right
 >> Anonymous Fri Jul 31 08:05:14 2020 No.11956447 >>11956444>using math to prove mathlol, what then, dance therapy?
 >> Anonymous Fri Jul 31 08:08:14 2020 No.11956453 >>11956414okay, so who decided that wolfram and this thread must limit itself to conventional arithmetic?
 >> Anonymous Fri Jul 31 08:08:52 2020 No.11956456 >>11956413>t. random 4chan guy
 >> Anonymous Fri Jul 31 10:22:26 2020 No.11956717 >>11956456quoting WA > pulling random crap out of ass
 >> Anonymous Fri Jul 31 13:24:58 2020 No.11957166 >>11944809no its notmakes complete sensewhat's 1/3?it's either 0.333... or something else. if you agree its 0.333... then 0.333... X 3 = 0.999... which is 1/3*3 which is one.so what's the decimal expansion of 1/3 ?
 >> Anonymous Fri Jul 31 13:26:11 2020 No.11957170 >>11944809A thread with a topic such as that is never going to go anywhere useful.
 >> Anonymous Fri Jul 31 15:08:48 2020 No.11957496 0,9999... has been proven to equal 1mayn times now.fine you reject the proofs, prove that 0,999... isnt equal to 1 then, like give me a rational number between 0,999... and 1
 >> Anonymous Fri Jul 31 15:41:19 2020 No.11957596 >>11956444u cant prove math. its why we have axioms
>>