/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12037265]

Did we ever reach a conclusion to this?

[Anonymous No.12037268]

>>12037265

Yes. A /pol/ack proved that this isn’t 1, and people only think it’s 1 because Jews brainwash people into thinking this is 1.

[Anonymous No.12037336]

>>12037268
Imagine bitching and whining about /pol/ 24/7.

[Anonymous No.12037347]

no, it's actually one of the great unsolved problems in Mathematics

[Anonymous No.12037403]

>Did we ever reach a conclusion to this?

We can only infinitely approach the conclusion, but never reach it.

[Anonymous No.12037455]

1/inf=0

[Anonymous No.12037457]

>>12037455
This is true in the Riemann sphere.

[Anonymous No.12037480]

>>12037265
Yes, if 1 is not 0.999... then there must be a number between the two. State that number, please.

[Anonymous No.12037488]

>>12037480
[math]0.999...\frac{1}{2}[/math]
next question?

[Anonymous No.12037502]

>>12037457
it's true anywhere
[math] \displaystyle
\lim_{x \to \infty} \dfrac{x+1}{x} =
\lim_{x \to \infty} 1+ 1/x = 1+0 = 1
[/math]

[Anonymous No.12037515]

>>12037265

.9 to the power of infinity equals zero using the limit method.

Libs pretend otherwise to prevent math from breaking. The limit method is not rigorous

[Anonymous No.12037523]

>>12037515
>.9 to the power of infinity
is undefined

[math] \displaystyle
\lim_{x \to \infty} 1^x = 1 \\
1^ {\infty} ~~ undefined
[/math]

[Anonymous No.12037531]

>>12037488
1/2^-inf=0

[Anonymous No.12037540]

>>12037455
oh, so then 0*inf=1

[Anonymous No.12037559]

>>12037540
0*inf is undefined

[Anonymous No.12037581]

>>12037265
1/3 = 0.333...
0.333... x 2 = 0.666...
0.333... x 3 = 0.999...
0.333... x 3 = 1

Need I say more?

[Anonymous No.12037593]

>>12037581
[math]\frac{3}{3}\neq 1[/math]

[Anonymous No.12037602]

>>12037265
People who think .999...=/=1 are gibbering retards or trolls. Period.

[Anonymous No.12037604]

>>12037593
retard

[El Arcón No.12037605]

The conclusion is that "dot dot dot" is not a very useful notation for mathematics.

[Anonymous No.12037610]

>>12037604
I think you're the retard for falling for the world's most obvious troll and posting a basedjack to boot.

[Anonymous No.12037613]

>>12037605
[math] \displaystyle
0. \bar{0}1
= \lim_{n \to \infty} 0. \underbrace{0 \dots 0}_{n ~ \text{times}}1
= \lim_{n \to \infty}
\left [
\left (
\sum_{k=1}^n \dfrac{0}{10^k}
\right )
+ \dfrac{1}{10^{n+1}}
\right ]
=0
[/math]

[Anonymous No.12037618]

>>12037605
Correct.
.9... is clunky, so we write 1 instead.

[Anonymous No.12037621]

>>12037610
>I think
lolno

[Anonymous No.12037622]

>>12037613
what's the command for the lower bracket?

[El Arcón No.12037626]

>>12037602
I would like to see a little more about how you get from Eq (2) to Eq (3) in the sense that I would like to a further formalization of the steps without a word blurb "Obvious it follows because it seems like it ought to." You should make that tex again with more steps. Seems like a jump from (2) to (3) if we're talking about rigor.

[Anonymous No.12037638]

>>12037622
>what's the command
sit down, shut up, and learn

[El Arcón No.12037641]

>>12037613
I think it lacks rigor to the rely on the number "n+1" when the "n->inf" notation is shorthand for "as n increases without bound." The way you have it written, "n+1" is the bound your saying doesn't exist.

[El Arcón No.12037645]

>>12037622
it\s \underbrace{}

[El Arcón No.12037647]

>>12037622
maybe \underbrace{} with \substack{}

[Anonymous No.12037651]

>>12037638
[math]\underbrace{\text{kill}}_{\text{yourself}}[/math]

[Anonymous No.12037655]

>>12037641
>>12037621

[Anonymous No.12037663]

>>12037622
ever heard of right-clicking?

[Anonymous No.12037678]

>>12037663
yeah I figured it out retard. I know most commands so I have never needed to do that
>>12037651 applies to you as well

[Anonymous No.12037708]

>>12037678
>triggered

[Anonymous No.12037874]

>>12037626
it's the summation of a finite geometric series, literally just apply the formula

[Anonymous No.12037896]

>>12037455
I dont understand the problem, as 0.999...9 is not a number that actually exists, and cannot actually be used. It is not 1 but is infinitely close to it.

[Anonymous No.12037900]

so is this

[Anonymous No.12037908]

>>12037480
>then there must be a number between the two. State that number, please.
So if i have a counting system based on integers then no numbers exist because 1 and 2 is the same because there's no number between them
Same with 1 and 3 since 1 is the same as 2 and since there's no number in between 2 and 3 et cetera

[El Arcón No.12037927]

>>12037874
>"Obvious it follows because it seems like it ought to."

>>12037896
it is better to say "dot dot dot" is not a useful notation

[Anonymous No.12038005]

>>12037896
>infinitely close
so that's exactly 1 then

[Anonymous No.12038034]

>>12038005
Practically yes but theoretically no

[Anonymous No.12038038]

>>12038034
theoretically yes, that's the whole point

[El Arcón No.12038063]

>>12038038
the whole point is that "dot dot dot" is not a useful notation.

[Anonymous No.12038068]

>>12038063
you don't get it.
your problem, stick to legos

[Anonymous No.12038088]

Wait, nelp me understand here...
Apparently a sequence is a series of approximations, and one can choose an "arbitrarily good" approximation to the number in question by taking a sufficiently large n for which the nth element is "close enough" to the number required.
Which is engineering.
Then, we can also bring up the idea of a "limit" and perhaps prove that these approximations approach the number uniquely; even if there is no n for which the numbers are equal, we can just say the limit equals one, not that any of the elements of the sequence actually does.
Which is exactly what is meant by 0.999...
So there is no number of the form 0.9999+ which actually equals 1, but the limit of such numbers can be defined to be the intersection of all neighbourhoods containing every number in the sequence.
So what? I'm increasingly open to doubt the equality, but in the end is simply a matter of considering we're not talking about 0.999... as a number, but as a limit.
I keep trying to understand WHY there is a debate at all, but I can't for the life of me. There is a number, a sequence of approximations, and the notion of a limit, that a number n is uniquely approached by the elements of the sequence. Am I missing something? Is there /another/ number so approached?

[Anonymous No.12038102]

>>12038088
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. Embarrassing even.

[Anonymous No.12038134]

>>12037336
Hey zoomer, while you're here, could ya help me? I'm trying to get good at this video game called "rocket league" so I could win a bet with my grandson. If I win, he has to opt in to the in-person schooling this fall.

[Anonymous No.12038181]

>>12038102
Well there is a method of proof that's exactly this. Proves something for every natural number by going one number after another recursively.
0.999... is not that different from induction. For any arbitrarily large n, the sequence 0.999(n) (forgive the shitty notation) lies in an open neighbourhood of 1, and no other number. Given a number x between 0.999(n) and 1, there s some m>n such that 0.999(m) > x > 1.
So the limit uniquely approaches 1.
Never to reach it I get it. It's but the intersection of all such neighbourhoods.
Where does it say it's length is static? Aleph_0 is not a real number. It's a spook of some weird manipulation of set theory.

[Anonymous No.12038186]

>>12038181
Ah shit 0.999(m) < x < 1 is what I meant

[Anonymous No.12038211]

>>12038181
0.999... isn't a limit dance, it just is.
If you want the waltz, type "lim" instead of hand waving wall-of-text retarded bs.

[Anonymous No.12038243]

>>12038211
>it just is.
Sure thing.
0.999... is literally the infinite sum (lim n->inf Sigma 1/10^n im sorry I don't care to lookup latex syntax rn). Anyw y it's the same thing. What the fuck does "it just is" is supposed to mean anyway? Are you actually fighting a ghost of ill-defined "it just is" and pretending you're doing rigurous math?

[El Arcón No.12038250]

>>12038088
If you compute that limit, it is equal to one due to the epsilon-delta Cauchy definition of a limit. Once the limit is provably equal to one, there is no reason to invent the "dot dot dot" notation which makes things unnecessarily complicated.

If you can compute the limit expression and prove it is equal to one, why set it equal to some other stupid dot dot dot expression?

And what about 0.888...? When you do this limit, does it even converge? No one asks what this limit is equal to.

[El Arcón No.12038254]

>>12038134
>could ya help me?
The reason no one helps me is because they are all my enemies' servants. I don't to taste my enemies' servants. I tasted that enough already. It tastes bad.

[Anonymous No.12038284]

>>12038250
>what this limit is equal to
8/9
>facepalm

[Anonymous No.12038286]

>>12038243
>supposed to mean
infinite amount of digits
duh

[El Arcón No.12038290]

>>12038284
lol. In any case, 8/9 is a useful notation. What is the purpose in trying to squeeze it into Stevin's 16th century decimal notation?

[Anonymous No.12038332]

Anyone using limits to prove this doesn't know the definition. The number approaches one, it never actually reaches it.

[Anonymous No.12038339]

>>12038332
>The number
0.9... is just as static as 1 is, retard

[Anonymous No.12038547]

I find it funny that the mathematical issue only exists if you apply 1/3 * 3 as strict calculation of 0.333... * 3, resulting in 0.999... while 3/3 is automatically 1.>>12037347

>no, it's actually one of the great unsolved problems in Mathematics
Where, how and what's it called ?

[Anonymous No.12039279]

>>12037265
Yeah, in Calc 2.

[Anonymous No.12039291]

>>12037540
>>12037559
0*inf = 1/inf * inf, use lhopital rule and solve

[Anonymous No.12039302]

>>12039291
>use lhopital rule
no can do, isn't a 0/0 situation

[Anonymous No.12039306]

>>12039302
it has to either be 0/0 or inf/inf, any f(x) that converges, 1/f(x) diverges

[Anonymous No.12039313]

>>12039306
>any f(x) that converges
*to 0

[Anonymous No.12039314]

>>12039306
where's the x

[Anonymous No.12039319]

>>12039314
if you follow the comment chain you'll see that we're talking about limits of functions

[Anonymous No.12039354]

>>12037581
Wow, that's a great proof! Why won't you prove Fermat's Theorem this way?

[Anonymous No.12039357]

>>12039319
>follow the comment chain
lol

[Anonymous No.12039363]

>>12037602
People who believe otherwise are essentially religious scholasticists with their angels on the pin question (except that scholasticists actually thought about that question a bit).

[Anonymous No.12039368]

>>12038181
>Aleph_0 is not a real number. It's a spook of some weird manipulation of set theory.
When you use "for every" construct while defining the limit, you actually go full spook.

[Anonymous No.12039379]

>>12037602
Never liked this proof for the retards because it has all its power in the first definition. Morons will just deny that numbers can be defined as limits of series

[Anonymous No.12039381]

>>12039357
limits only make sense for functions

[Anonymous No.12039386]

>>12037265
>if I zoom into the Mandelbrot set far enough I'll reach the end

[Anonymous No.12039390]

>>12037602
>by definition
You can prove anything by definition.

[Anonymous No.12039509]

>>12038339
the limit never reaches one, even approaching infinity

[El Arcón No.12039529]

>>12039509
The limit identically equal to one. If 0.999... is defined to be equal to this limit, then it is equal to one.

[Anonymous No.12039539]

>this definition involves actual infinity
>another definition involves taking every member of the actual infinity
>but actual infinity is totally nonsense and you can't invoke it!

[Anonymous No.12039566]

>>12039509
Nobody is talking about the sequence of numbers {0.9, 0.99, 0.999,...}
0.999... represents a number with infinite nines after the decimal place, not a class of numbers. Such a number can only be formally constructed with a limit, and is equal to its limit.

[Anonymous No.12039568]

>>12037626
how's the riemann proof going for ya?

[El Arcón No.12039572]

>>12039539
The notation [math]n\to\infty[/math] means "as n increases without bound and doesn't necessarily invoke any specific definition for the infinity symbol. These MIT notes make a nice survey of the cases. It works if you do define infinity but simply reading it as "as n increases without bound" is sufficient.

[El Arcón No.12039574]

>>12039568
The internet still says it's the most important unsolved problem in mathematics.

[Anonymous No.12039610]

0.999... equals 1

1 minus 0.000...1 equals 0.999...8

0.999...8 plus 0.000...2 equals 1

therefore

0.000...1 equals 0.000...2

[Anonymous No.12039612]

>>12039610
>0.000...1 equals 0.000...2
Yes this is correct

[Anonymous No.12039624]

>>12039612
Also 2+2=5

[Anonymous No.12039634]

>>12039572
Increases without bound [in the infinite set which we accept implicitly and intuitively]

[Anonymous No.12039635]

>>12039610
>>12039612
0.000...1 equals 0.000...2

0.000...1 multiplied by 1,000... equals 1

0.000...2 multiplied by 1,000... equals 2

therefore

1 equals 2

[Anonymous No.12039647]

>>12039635
1,000... is undefined.

[Anonymous No.12039727]

>>12039635
>0.000...1 equals 0.000...2
Y
>0.000...1 multiplied by 1,000... equals 1
0*1=0
>0.000...2 multiplied by 1,000... equals 2
0*1=0
>therefore
>1 equals 2
0=0

[Anonymous No.12039740]

>>12039509
no limit there retard
protip: look for the text "lim"

[Anonymous No.12039742]

>>12039727
If you have may 0's, then some of them may not equal another ones.

[Anonymous No.12039760]

>>12039566
see pic related for your confusion
>>12039566
the limit uses the series, and would only be equal to the number if infinity were reached, which it can't be.

[Anonymous No.12039795]

If .999... = 1 than why doesn't .888... = 1?

Try plugging in (1/3) * 2 into a calculator

[Anonymous No.12039817]

>>12039566
>0.999... represents a number with infinite nines after the decimal place
0.000...1 represents a number with infinite zeros after the decimal place and before the last 1.

[Anonymous No.12039821]

>>12039727
>Y
>>12039610

[Anonymous No.12039829]

>>12039795
because 0.888...9 is greater than 0.888... and both are less than 1

[Anonymous No.12039850]

>>12039829
How about 1 is greater than .999...?

Why don't you find me a number between .888...9 & .888... unless you believe they're the same of course.

[Anonymous No.12039859]

>>12039647
if 1000... is define as 1 divided by 0.1, then 1000... * 0.2 equals 2

so it goes that if 1000... is equal to 1/0.0001, then 1000... * 0.0002 = 2

therefore

if 1000... is define as 1 divided by 0.000...1, then 1000... * 0.000...2 = 2

if 0.000...1 equals 0.000...2 then 1 = 2

[Anonymous No.12039867]

>>12039850
0.888... == 0.888...8
0.888...8, 0.888...85, 0.888...9

[Anonymous No.12039893]

What about 0.101010... where 10 isn't just 1 and then 0, but 10?

[Anonymous No.12039903]

>>12039867
.999... == .999..9
.999...9, .999...95, .999...99

[Anonymous No.12039906]

>>12039903
.999...99 = 1

[Anonymous No.12039929]

>>12039906
nuh un there's something between them
.999...995

[Anonymous No.12039932]

>>12039929
0.999...995 < 0.999...999

[Anonymous No.12039937]

>>12039932
.999...999 < .999.9995

[Anonymous No.12039942]

>>12039932
.999...999 < .999...9995

[Anonymous No.12039952]

>>12039942
0.999...9995 < 0.999...

[Anonymous No.12039956]

>>12037265
Did we ever reach a conclusion... = conclusion

[Anonymous No.12039957]

What about 0.ABCDEFG...?

[Anonymous No.12039961]

>>12039390
>You can prove anything by definition.
I can prove that wrong by definition.

[Anonymous No.12039969]

>>12037602
The arrogant stupid motherfucker has landed.

[Anonymous No.12039972]

>>12039952
.999... < .999...95

[Anonymous No.12039977]

>>12037265
999... = ???

[Anonymous No.12039979]

>>12039972
.999... == 0.999...99
0.999...99 !< .999...95

[Anonymous No.12039980]

>>12037605
It isn't any better than "infinite set", "natural numbers", "for any", "unbounded" and others.

[Anonymous No.12040029]

>>12039610
>0.999... equals 1
Y
>1 minus 0.000...1 equals 0.999...8
1-0=1
>0.999...8 plus 0.000...2 equals 1
1+0=1
>therefore
>0.000...1 equals 0.000...2
0=0

[Anonymous No.12040034]

>>12039972
>.999... < .999...95
1=1

[Anonymous No.12040129]

>>12040029
>Y
because 1 /3 = 0.333... and 0.333... * 3 = 0.999...
ergo 0.999... = 1

[Anonymous No.12040132]

>>12040034
.999...95 != .999...

[Anonymous No.12040151]

>>12040129
Sure, and a^n+b^n=c^n does not have natural solutions for n>2 because 3a^n+3b^n=2c^n does not have them! Truly a marvelous proof!

[Anonymous No.12040160]

>>12040151
*3c^n

[Anonymous No.12040170]

>>12040029
>0=0
why does it feel so wrong

[Anonymous No.12040213]

>>12039817
>0.000...1
Such a number doesn't exist, as there'd be a finite but arbitrarily large amount of 0's before the 1.

[Anonymous No.12040222]

>>12040213
why?

[Anonymous No.12040258]

>>12037908
shit bait, lern density

[Anonymous No.12040289]

>>12040222
you cant specify at which digit 1 shows up
every digit place of a number is only a finite number of steps away from the decimal point
so .000...1 isnt a number

[Anonymous No.12040316]

>>12040289
>you cant specify at which digit 1 shows up
after infinite zeroes

[Anonymous No.12040322]

>>12039979
>>12039867

[Anonymous No.12040323]

>>12040289
At ω+1

[Anonymous No.12040330]

>>12037265
It's fucking 1

[Anonymous No.12040331]

>>12040322
0.8, 0.888...8, 0.888...85, 0.888...88, 0.888...9, 0.9, 999...95, 0.999...99

[Anonymous No.12040334]

>>12040331
0.8, 0.888...8, 0.888...85, 0.888...88, 0.888...9, 0.9, 999...95, 0.999...99, 0.999...991, 0.999...993, 0.999...995, 0.999...997, 0.999...999

[Anonymous No.12040337]

>>12040330
Hopefully with protection.

[Anonymous No.12040339]

Its not 1 they are 2 diferent numbers thats why they are represented differently 1 cant be 9 or any other number

[Anonymous No.12040343]

>>12040334
>>12039850
0.888...85, 0.888...88, 0.888...89, 0.888...99

[Anonymous No.12040348]

>>12038254
>I don't to taste my enemies' servants
What?

[Anonymous No.12040365]

>>12040316
>t. retard

[Anonymous No.12040368]

ITT, one can easily classify high iq autists and low iq autists.

[Anonymous No.12040393]

>>12040365
that's merely an insult; it does not refute what I said

[Anonymous No.12040415]

>>12040393
Correct because you don't understand your own statement. When you say 'after something', that something is finite. There's nothing called after infinity because there's already something after infinity.
In this sense, there's no after infinite zeros because there's still an infinite zeros. You can never reach the end of this line whatever you do.

[Anonymous No.12040423]

>>12040393
>>12040415
In mathematical terms, if a number is written as
0.ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt.................
You cannot say after infinite t because in that case you can assign infinity to say a number n. Then you say place 1 after the nth t. But there's already t after the nth t.

[Anonymous No.12040449]

>>12040415
>>12040423
I understood what you were saying the first time, but it's an assertion posited without proof
I don't have to reach the end of the line, nor define n as anything but infinity, because I know that after the infinite zeroes there is a 1

[Anonymous No.12040457]

>>12040449
There's no 'after infinity'. You automatically defined (here) that infinity is finite.

[Anonymous No.12040463]

>>12040449
>because I know that after the infinite zeroes there is a 1
But in that case you're proving that your described number is terminating. But a non terminating number never terminates.

[Anonymous No.12040482]

>>12040457
I wouldn't say our ...1 is 'after infinity', I would say it was part of an infinite mantissa we happen to know ends in 1
it is very much part of the infinity

[Anonymous No.12040486]

>>12040449
>>12040457
>>12040463
Ok I have a physical example for this.

Imagine a long cylinder that has a base. The base can be any shape that you wish it to be. The cylinder has walls and also has an identical cover as it's base. For now let's assume the height of this cylinder is not constrained be the size of the universe.

When you say that there's 1 after infinity, you're essentially asserting that you can add the lid after infinite height. When you do this, you automatically make the height of the cylinder finite because you have capped it's height at infinity.

When I say that you cannot place this cap, the cylinder becomes truly infinity because it never ends. You keep going on and on.

Now do you understand this analogy?

[Anonymous No.12040488]

>>12040463
no because
>>12040415
>You can never reach the end of this line whatever you do.

No matter what, there is always an infinitesimally smaller number, which always happens to end in 1. 0.000...1 does not terminate in the same way that 0.333...3 does not terminate

[Anonymous No.12040491]

>>12040482
>infinite
>ends
There's your problem. You can say that there's endless zeros, that it's an incredibly small number, but it eventually WILL terminate at that 1 after an arbitrarily long string of 0's.

It could be an unfathomably long string of 0's, the length of which makes every other large number we've meaningfully defined look infinitesimal, but it's still finite.

[Anonymous No.12040493]

god this thread is a dumpster fire
and yet we have the same exact dumpster fire every single week

[Anonymous No.12040497]

>>12040482
>ends
Infinity never ends. You can still have infinitly many zeros after your infinity points an d that number will still be infinitely larger than zero.
Meaning
0.000000...........1........000000>0.00000000000....

[Anonymous No.12040498]

>>12040488
>0.333...3 does not terminate
0.333...3 also terminates after some arbitrarily long string of 3's.

0.333... != 0.333...3

[Anonymous No.12040512]

>>12040491
>but it eventually WILL terminate at that 1 after an arbitrarily long string of 0's.
the one can never be reached, because there are infinite zeroes preceding it

[Anonymous No.12040525]

>>12040512
But your number is still not equal to 0.

[Anonymous No.12040526]

>>12040512
There aren't infinite zeroes preceding it, because it terminates at a digit.

Go ahead and define 0.000...01 as a limit.

[Anonymous No.12040540]

>>12040491
[0,1] interval is infinite, yet it has an end.

[Anonymous No.12040542]

>>12040526
>There aren't infinite zeroes preceding it
yes, there are
why is that so hard for you to accept?

[Anonymous No.12040554]

>>12040540
>[0,1] interval is infinite, yet it has an end.
Because there are infinite numbers between 0 and 1. Also you just confirmed what he said. There can be infinite 0s between 0.0 and 1 yet it still ends aka terminates.

[Anonymous No.12040557]

>>12040540
[0,1] is not infinite, anon.

>>12040542
Because it is self-contradictory, anon. You cannot have infinite digits in a terminating number.

Again; attempt to define your number as a limit and see that it's impossible.

[Anonymous No.12040561]

>>12040554
Yes, I agree.

[Anonymous No.12040565]

>>12040554
>0.0 and 1
0.0 and .........1

[Anonymous No.12040642]

All you fags making "proofs" with limes are utterly retarded since limes only tells you " as this value approaches infinity the result approaches this number. You cant tale that as an equality and prove 0.999... = 1 bc its fucking not. Its still missing the 0.0.....1

[Anonymous No.12040651]

>>12040642
>t. uses ad hominem

[Anonymous No.12040658]

>>12040642
You still haven't show a limit for 0.00....1

You keep making worthless arguments but when told to do actual math, you become a coward.

[Anonymous No.12040672]

>>12040557
>You cannot have infinite digits in a terminating number.
sure, but it's not a terminating number

[Anonymous No.12040673]

>>12040658
the limit of whatever monstrosity you typed is 0, as shown way above >>12037613

[Anonymous No.12040678]

>>12040658
that was a different anon
please don't stoop to his level and resort to insults, you're better than that

[Anonymous No.12040682]

>>12040658
I just came here what the fuck are you talking about. Just came here to say that these bois are retarded af

[Anonymous No.12040692]

>>12037678
>I know most commands so I have never needed to do that
clearly you are riding high on dunning kruger and have barely scratched the surface of tex

[Anonymous No.12040694]

>>12040673
So if the limit is zero then 0.999.... = 1 because there cannot exist number between 0.999... and 1.

[Anonymous No.12040719]

>>12040694
yes

[Anonymous No.12040730]

>>12040719
So why don't retards understand this?

[Anonymous No.12040748]

>>12040682
Sorry anon, I did not understand your post.

[Anonymous No.12040752]

>>12037265
It never ends

[Anonymous No.12040757]

What is common between the real number and our world?

[Anonymous No.12040760]

>>12040730
because 50% of the dissenting opinion are trolls and the other 50% have no understanding of math and don't want to try and learn what's wrong with their line of thinking

[Anonymous No.12040774]

>>12040760
Because you are a scholastic philosopher who thinks that his understanding of angels dancing on the pin of the needle is correct because the Bible says so.

[Anonymous No.12040777]

>>12040557
Oh, so what is the finite amount of numbers in [0,1] rational (or real) numbers interval?

[Anonymous No.12040780]

>>12037265
This problem only occures, because the jews made us use arabic numbers. If we used roman numbers, it wouldn't be a problem: as >>12038547 pointed out.
Same as Pi. In roman letters its, well π but in arabic its 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993... same as 0.33333 is 1/3 thus 0.9999 is o

[Anonymous No.12040785]

>>12040780
1/3 is I/III in roman, sorry

[Anonymous No.12040787]

>>12040780
M.VVV...X

[Anonymous No.12040789]

>>12040774
funny, you misunderstand both math and philosophy. must be a shitty life

[Anonymous No.12040798]

>>12037540
yes.

[Anonymous No.12040801]

>>12040789
At least I know how to use capital letters.

[Anonymous No.12040812]

>>12040801
you really think you did something with this response? this is your grand slam out of the park that you wanted to go with?

[Anonymous No.12040826]

>>12040812
Feel the keen sting of my majuscule grammatic burn!

[Anonymous No.12040833]

>>12040812
Of course. You may write the most clever and wise posts (which isn't true in your case) and still be destroyed every time solely because you are too lazy to hit shift. Typos and grammatical errors are excusable, but not this.

[Anonymous No.12040844]

>>12040833
seethe harder. you're too stupid to make any logical argument against the math so you're grasping at straws. embarrassing

[Anonymous No.12040862]

>>12040844
I can, but you still being unable to hit shift allows me to throw away everything you say without any explanations. Is the lack of shift the part of your religion? Do you think that you look more sincere this way?

[Anonymous No.12040864]

>>12040862
>I can but I won't
aka I can't but don't want to admit it. stop responding

[Anonymous No.12040868]

>>12037265
The difference between it and 1 is arbitrarily small to a point of infinity

[Anonymous No.12040877]

>>12040868
>comes into the thread to offer a matter-of-fact answer that's not even correct
absolutely based

[Anonymous No.12040880]

>>12040864
Of course. Your letters are small, therefore your math is wrong.

[Anonymous No.12040898]

>>12040877
Oh no my anonymous credibility

[Anonymous No.12041215]

>>12040642
no, that is not what limes tell us
take a fucking horticulture class you retard

[Anonymous No.12041509]

>>12037265

[Anonymous No.12041609]

>>12041215
Did you know that limes are green because they’re not ripe?

[Anonymous No.12041697]

>>12041509
3*a^n+3*b^n=3*c^n does not have natural solutions for natural n>2
Therefore
a^n+b^n=c^n does not have natural solutions for natural n>2

Fermat's last theorem proved in a couple of lines! That's what Fermat intended!

[Anonymous No.12041799]

>>12037265
Is this numerical flat earth?

[Anonymous No.12041997]

>>12041697
no matter how many times you post this, its still dumb as shit
since if you argue against 1/3 = .333... then theres no helping you

[Anonymous No.12042062]

>>12041799
No it's the apocalypse.