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

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 29 KB, 300x260, 1366443590257.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5698669 No.5698669[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

the concept of limit in calculus.

Why is approaching X the same as X itself?
This is also an issue with 0.999... = 1.

Nothing in life works like this. Approaching the act of murder isn't the same as committing murder.

>> No.5698674

>This is also an issue with 0.999... = 1.
Stopped reading there

>> No.5698706

>limits boggle your mind
>Drop calculus

>> No.5698727

> Why is approaching X the same as X itself?

It's not.

>> No.5698728

>>5698669
Yes, but what happens once you get infinity close to murder?

>> No.5698729

Either you, your teacher, your parents, or all of you are absolutely retareded. Consult the definition of limits or remove yourself from calculus :-)

>> No.5698730

Read the definition of limits you retarded fuck.

>> No.5698744

>>5698728
>Yes, but what happens once you get infinity close to murder?

it's like getting very close to losing your virginity, but then she declines.

>> No.5698752
File: 21 KB, 1397x649, 66.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5698752

>> No.5698773

>>5698744
You're dense. Get INFINATELY close.
.9 you pulled out the knife.
.99 the knife is almost touching the victims skin
.9999999the atoms at the tip of the knife makes contact with the membrane of the dermal cells
.99999999999999 the atoms in the knife repel the atoms in the skin.
.99.......bitch is dead (Assuming you just have to break the skin, replace skin with artery)

>> No.5698783

>>5698773
>Get INFINATELY close.

This is no different than being infinitely far away from it.

1 is as close to 100 as 99.9999.... is

(an infinite amount of numbers exists between them)

>> No.5698785

Zeno's paradox is a good example of why limits work. Ff you shoot an arrow, it will approach its target in infinitely small increments, and it will eventually get there.

>> No.5698794

>>5698744
i don't think you really grasp how very close you are to something when you are infinitely close.
obviously it doesn't work on "did it happen or not" cases like murder but seriously.

at first i thought it was just a dirty trick to bend numbers so they act like you want them to but it's really not that weird.

see it like this:
if you fire a bullet at a guys head
it won't be murder until the bullet hits his head, right?
the bullet travels at 1 meter per second because fuck everything
the guy is 1 meter away too, coincidentally
also you're a real hard nigga for shooting him in the face from one meter, such is life in lynwood.

anyway, it takes half a second for the bullet to pass half the distance, then it takes half of that time to further half the distance before it's murder

if we keep doing this there will always be some time ( and thus distance ) until it's murder, right?
so if we do it an infinite amount of times?
we keep halving the distance until the bullet hits his face and you committed murder but there will always be just a little tiny bit of distance left, so you haven't reeaaally committed murder yet.

fast forward to the courtroom:
did you commit murder or not?
of course you did nigger

welcome to limits

>> No.5698790

>>5698785
zeno's paradox is an example of how many times you will suck dick

>> No.5698791

>>5698744
She never declines. Your dick keeps getting closer and closer. In the limit where your dick enters her pussy, you are not a virgin.

>> No.5698798

>>5698794
>obviously it doesn't work on "did it happen or not" cases like murder but seriousl

it shouldn't happen in mathematical cases at all, since math is supposed to be rigorous.

>> No.5698802

>>5698783
forgive my language.
get infintesimaly close

>> No.5698805

>>5698798
Did you ever loop up the definition of a limit?

>> No.5698808

>>5698798
it is rigorous you just don't get it

>> No.5698809

[infinity intensifies]

>> No.5698811

>>5698783
Wut
"Becomes arbitrarily small" is not equivalent to "becomes arbitrarily large"

>> No.5698824

life/death is discontinous, so you cant semimurder someone.

>> No.5698833

>>5698824
You shouldn't have said that.

>> No.5698868

0.999... approaches 2, but obviously isn't.

>> No.5698880

>>5698868
but it doesn't
it approaches 1, not 2
it's like 1 is the bottom of gigantic funnel and you're falling into it, there's no way you'll ever get to 2, that's not even down the funnel to begin with

>> No.5698886

>>5698811
except it is.

X -> 0 <=> 1/x -> infinity

they're often treated in parallel

>> No.5698889

>>5698868
It's an abstract concept dude, you're thinking to hard.
>0.99999999.........
>+
>0.0000000000...........1
= 1
and
>1
>+
>0.000......1
=1
Get it?

>> No.5698894

>>5698880
It does not "approach" 1, it is 1.
And it does not "approach" anything, as a matter of fact, because it's a fucking number.

People, just because you've read Spivak's Calculus (or even Baby Rudin) in one week does not mean you know shit about mathematics. It doesn't work like that, just because you get the definitions and can kinda grasp the proofs of the theorems it doesn't mean you can "do math".

>> No.5698897

>>5698894
Fuck off with your grammar, we all know what is meant.
"As n approaches infinity, the sum of all 9/10^n approaches 1"

>> No.5698916

>>5698880
It does approach 2.
At every step, at every 9 added to the decimal expansion, its closer to 2.
That's what it means to approach.
Perhaps you mean converging.
Convergence and approach are completely different concepts.
If you had any education in undergraduate mathematics you would no doubt have seen examples of the like.
>>5698889
I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

>> No.5698921

>>5698897
>we all know what is meant
You're overestimating /sci/.
It's like you don't even know what kind of thread you're in.

>> No.5698924

>>5698897
>we all know what is meant
>at every 9 added to the decimal expansion, its closer to 2.

See?

>> No.5698931

>>5698916
>what is adaptive language
i just assumed the person i replied to had troubles understanding why 1 is the right answer and not 2, and he used "approach", so i used approach too.
you're right i used the wrong word but seriously.


>>5698924
>hey no wait i can make this guys wrong be right!
>even though he probably doesn't even know or care because it's not in the way he meant at all


I might still be wrong though, it might very well be what he meant but i just made an assumption that it wasn't

>> No.5698938

>>5698931
It's useful to be pedantic in math.
If someone is using a term incorrectly,
tell them what the term they're using means,
tell them the term for what you think they mean,
and continue.

>> No.5698982

>>5698916
> It does approach 2.

Hey buddy, I don't want to break your bubble, but some words have formal mathematical meaning, and when they are used in a mathematical context, it is that meaning that you are supposed to use. "Approaches" doesn't mean "gets somewhat closer or smth like that I dunno?". The informal explanation of the formal definition of "approaches" would be "gets infinitely close to".

>> No.5698991

The major difference that nobody bothers to really examine is the exact processing involved for further calculations.

The issue at hand is that when we state that something is a specific number mathematically; we do not delineate what kind of number it really is from a set of proposition.

(x]
[x)
[x]
(x)

Each of these fills the requirement for specifically being the mathematical number x. When we use the definition to derive the number from a mathematical process, we can however decide which x we refer to.

Given two values a,b. ; we can specify that a and b are mathematical numbers; but we cannot quite claim which of the 4 types they are when we add them together to make proposition of a mathematical number X.


The limit barrier states that our specific numbers add up in such a way that our proposition to the specific mathematical number is supposed to look like:

](x

The argument for "approaching 1" however claims that the proposition to the argument is

)x]

The argument is told such that our set isn't properly propositioned to make said point.

Now due to how we create our numbering system; we end up with an even more problematic system. Sometimes our n value for getting closer to infinity will actually supply the correct proposition to our mathematical number.

As we are making use of mathematics; we end up in an axiom of choice such that our propositions for the mathematical numbers that make up X can be any of the first 4 values. Given that we aren't going to matrice our numbers to provide the odds that a number is mathematically consistent within the function of the set; we automatically perform a correctness value such that only the matrix that provides the correct propositional value will be counted as being True. In this regard we no longer have the problem of having to correct an infinite value sequence.

Ie: We call the mathematical number ([x)] and performing the equations that make two numbers a, b become X, works out the problem.

>> No.5699006

>>5698982
As I've alluded to, approaches does NOT have a rigorous mathematical meaning.
You cannot open a mathematics text and find something like
DEFINITION 1.2.2: We say a blah blah approaches blah blah gets infinitely close to blah blah...

No, we will use the term convergence, or more basic, in terms of epsilon-delta.
In this case approach has the same meaning it always does.

So stop thinking yourself to be math savvy, and read some more of the literature.

>> No.5699004

>>5698794
>the bullet travels at 1 meter per second because fuck everything
lol'd