[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 26 KB, 640x480, sddefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16575505 No.16575505 [Reply] [Original]

0.33 continued (one third) plus 0.33 continued plus 0.33 continued (1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3) equals one. But if each 0.33 is an infinite string of 3's...is it possible to truly calculate the equation since an equation with infinitely long numbers would take infinite time to calculate? What's actually going on here?

>> No.16575533

>>16575505
> What's going on here?

You have autism. Case closed.

>> No.16575633

1/3 = 3/10 + 1/30
= 0.3 + 1/30
= 0.33 + 1/300
= 0.333 + 1/3000
:
= 0.333... + 1/inf
= 0.333... + 0
= 0.333...

>> No.16575636

[math] \displaystyle
1= \dfrac{3}{3}=3 \cdot \dfrac{1}{3}=3 \cdot 0. \bar{3}=0. \bar{9}
[/math]

>> No.16575640

1/9 = 0.111...
+
8/9 = 0.888...
=
9/9 = 0.999...

>> No.16575642

ITT: a 95-IQ moron who doesn't understand infinitesimals so never passed calculus

>> No.16576108

Infinite sequences and series are not real. You cannot take the limit of 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999 etc. because that sequence does not exist. 0.9999.... is a meaningless abuse of notation.

>> No.16576114

>>16576108
philosophers belong in /phil/
not in /math/

>> No.16576116

>>16575640

1/3 = 0.333...
+
2/3 = 0.666...
=
3/3 = 0.999...

>> No.16576119

>>16576116
1 - 0.99999 = 0.00000 ... 00001

>> No.16576120

>>16575505
You can perform a mapping from an infinite sequence to another infinite sequence instantly.
In this particular case, you map every digit at the corresponding index of one 1/3 to the other 1/3, and add them.
This post doesn’t use any math concepts, just logic.

>> No.16576122

You lost.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=G0l6yRyNN5A

>> No.16576145

>>16576119
omg
this again?

>> No.16576224

>>16575505
= 1

>> No.16576226

1/3 ≥ 0.333...
2/3 ≥ 0.666...
3/3 = 1

>> No.16576231

>>16576119
The 1 is at the end of an endless sequence?

>> No.16576245

>>16576231
Yes. Now you see that math is a sham.

>> No.16576247

Most math in the modern era is a hoax meant to boost corps and other evil.

>> No.16576248

>>16575505
thats not how that works

>> No.16576250

>>16576248
It's gobbeldygook

>> No.16576252

1/3 =/= 0.33

>> No.16576303

>>16575505
Work in trinary. A rose by any other name and whatnot.
1/3 (base 10) = 0.1 (trinary)
0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 = 1
QED

>> No.16576351

>>16575505
You're a fucking retard, and you need to kill yourself.

>> No.16576371

>>16576226
>2/3 ≥ 0.666...
2/3 ≤ 0.666...
is also true

>> No.16576373

what do you mean? just change the numeral system and it all adds up perfectly

>> No.16576389

>>16575505
>is it possible to truly calculate the equation since an equation with infinitely long numbers would take infinite time to calculate
1.00 continued (one) plus 1.00 continued (one) equals two. You have just calculated a sum of two infinitely long numbers.
I'm a finitist btw, but you're giving us a bad name.

>> No.16576395

>>16576119
[math] \displaystyle
\frac{1}{3} = 0.\overline{3}= 0.1_3
[/math]
[math] \displaystyle
3 \cdot 0.\overline{3} = 0.\overline{9} = 0.1_3 + 0.1_3 + 0.1_3 = 1_3 = 1
[/math]

>> No.16576397

>>16576252
nooooo really,
say something funny again

>> No.16576399

>>16576371
>2/3 ≤ 0.666...
0.666... ≤ 2/3
Fixed it

>> No.16576405

>>16575505
we will never know, it's a mystery of nature

>> No.16576415

>>16576399
>0.666... ≤ 2/3
>Fixed it
it wasn't broken or wrong

you merely repeated another it, or this:
>>16576226
>2/3 ≥ 0.666...

>> No.16576420

>>16576415
>it wasn't broken or wrong
Then show us

>> No.16576436

>>16576420
>Then show us
gladly:

each of, the following three statements, is true
x ≤ x
x = x
x ≥ x

>> No.16576443

>>16576436
kek, only x=x is true

>> No.16576450

>>16576443
>only x=x is true
since you dispute,
that "5 ≤ 5"
and "7 ≥ 7"
are true statements,
you're a waste of time

>> No.16576454

>>16576450
>5 ≤ 5
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=5+%E2%89%A4+5

>> No.16576461

>>16576450
>that "5 ≤ 5"
>and "7 ≥ 7"
Yes those are not true statements, 5 is not lesser equal to 5 but equal

>> No.16576778

>>16576303
Why use the virgin qed instead of the chad ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι from euclids elements, qed is the Latin of ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι anyway

>> No.16577399

>>16576778
Quod studui linguae Latinae, non lingua cuius dictors irrumant pueros.
(you can prove I didn't use google translate too, because google translate gets this sentence wrong in two ways)

>> No.16577592

>>16575505
If you have two points in space and halve the distance between them, and then halve the remaining distance, and you do this infinitely, when do they become the same point?

>> No.16577772

>>16576231
No. The 1 was always there. The "infinite sequence" presents itself due to a formatting error.

>> No.16577849
File: 39 KB, 657x527, 1732750811787147.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16577849

>>16577399
How would you know Google translate gets it wrong 2 ways without using Google translate

>> No.16577850

>>16575505
do we have confirmed infinities in nature?

>> No.16578107

>>16576119
you know that the value of that 1 is 1*10^-inf, and as such it equals 0, right?

>> No.16578111

>>16577850
putting aside the argument that our theories are rooted in ideas that derive from physical i.e. natural brains, equations that describe whirlpools contain singularities. wanna guess where you see the singularity at?

>> No.16578116
File: 52 KB, 675x499, 9j85ft.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16578116

>>16575505
this is high school shit, man

1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = (1 + 1 + 1)/3 = 3/3 = 1

>> No.16578171

>>16578107
inf is not a number (at least in the sets of numbers usually used for analysis)

>> No.16578201

>>16575505
Converting fractions into decimal notation has ruined mathematics. Don't @ me

>> No.16578203

>>16578111
so you can't prove there's infinities in nature, you can only guess they are.

>> No.16578290

>>16577849
Because others will just chuck it into goog-tranny, so I check to make sure it will make sense. Goog tranny puts it as "What I studied was the Latin language, not the language whose speakers attack children"
Two errors: "Quod" should be "because", not "what" (and this is why google invents an "is" and sticks "studui" in an imaginary subordinate clause; there is no "est" and "studui" is the main verb)
Also "Irrumant" means "defile", not "attack"

>> No.16578293

>>16576116
If 0.(9) and 0.(6) are numbers, what is 0.(9)+0.(6)?

>> No.16578294

>>16578293
(1).(5)

>> No.16578295
File: 87 KB, 1024x682, unreal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16578295

>>16576108
>Infinite sequences and series are not real.

>> No.16578298

>>16578295
0.33' where " ' " stands for directly a third.

>> No.16578299
File: 845 KB, 200x178, 200w (1).gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16578299

Retards.

>> No.16578303

The IQ of this board has altered incredibly over the last 5 years
I will not elaborate

>> No.16578304

>>16578303
You believe in an infinite series of 3 to symbolise something as simple as a third. You are horribly retarded.

>> No.16578377

>>16578293
1.(6)

>> No.16578537

>>16578304
That is not my position

>> No.16578543

>>16578537
Don't lie. It is your position. You need to introduce infinity to describe a third using your math system. Educated stupid academic.

>> No.16578778

>>16576461
as he said, a waste of time

>> No.16578782

>>16576461
is x = 5 a solution of x ≤ 5?

>> No.16578784

>>16575505
It's not even a question in base six, there are no infinite series:
[math]\dfrac{1}{3} + \dfrac{1}{3} + \dfrac{1}{3} = 0.2 + 0.2 + 0.2 = 1[/math]

OP is confusing a value to its representation.