I'm sorry I have to even explain this

[Anonymous No.6123890]

I have seen a lot of trolling about .999= 1 lately

Let me explain for the simpletons

Does .66666=.7?
no? does it equal .67? no?

ok

.999 does not equal 1

/thread

go on about your business

[Anonymous No.6123893]

>>6123890
>low quality bait

Is there a number that you could put in between .999.. and 1?

[Anonymous No.6123895]

>>6123893
you just add another 9 dummy

[Anonymous No.6123894]

Sum of an infinite series.

[Anonymous No.6123897]

>>6123895
>lower quality bait
I thought we were talking an decimal sequence. If you literally meant 0.999FULLSTOP, then I concede that it does not equal 1, but if that's what you meant, than you're really fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.6123900]

>>6123893
>>6123897
>responding to epik trools.

[Anonymous No.6123901]

>>6123897
Hilberts hotel. No matter how many infinity I have, If I want to make space for one more guest.. I just move them down one door, I can add more 9's if I want

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel


Ok sorry I didn't come here to educate just to lay the facts straight.

[Anonymous No.6123914]

f(x)=1/(x-1)

Solve for:
x=0.999...
x=1


QED

[Anonymous No.6123921]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.999......

[Anonymous No.6123928]

>>6123901
But in Hilbert's Hotel you may only add a countably infinite number of new guests.
Thus the cardinality of the set of guests (or in this case the collection of nines) does not change and no matter how many nines you add, you have the exact same amount of nines and therefore the same number.

[Anonymous No.6123932]

>>6123890
Just FYI, 0.6999... = 0.7

[Anonymous No.6123935]

In other words, does 1 minus .999... equal something?

That is the question we are really asking, and obviously there is no answer to that because .999... is merely a concept while 1 is a literal form.

[Anonymous No.6123942]

>>6123890

Bait.

But just to prove you wrong:
(1/3) = 0.333...
3 * (1/3) = (3/3) = 1
3 * 0.333... = 0.999...

1 = 0.999...

[Anonymous No.6123951]

>>6123942
>>6123932
>>6123928
Specifically, the difference 1 − 0.999... must be smaller than any positive rational number, so it must be an infinitesimal; but since the reals do not contain nonzero infinitesimals, the difference is therefore zero, and therefore the two values are the same.

However, there are mathematically coherent ordered algebraic structures, including various alternatives to the real numbers, which are non-Archimedean.

[Anonymous No.6123962]

x = 0.9999.....

10x = 9.99999.....

10x - x = 9.9999.... - 0.999....

9x = 9.000....81

x = 1.000....9

[Anonymous No.6123964]

>>6123893
Their arithmetic mean, you fucktard.

[Anonymous No.6123976]

>>6123964

Spoiler: The arithmetic mean of 0.999... and 1 is 1.

[Anonymous No.6123977]

no it's 0.999....

[Anonymous No.6123983]

>>6123976
>circular reasoning

[Anonymous No.6124012]

>>6123890
taking the bait.

<div class="math"> 0.999\ldots = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}0.9\cdot10^{-k} =
\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}0.9 \cdot 0.1^{k} \underset{Geom. series}{=}\frac{0.9}{1-0.1}=1 </div>

\thread

[Anonymous No.6124014]

>>6123962
holy shit you suck at math

[Anonymous No.6125461]

Very good explanation, OP.

[Anonymous No.6126334]

ITT :
every anon : "ovious b8" !

but you still reply...

You like that in the end, nah ?

[Anonymous No.6126992]

Finally someone who understands the math.

[Anonymous No.6127052]

>>6124012

So... uh... what is the answer

[Anonymous No.6127075]

Is 0.9 = 1? No.
Is 0.99 = 1? No.
Is 0.999 = 1? No.
etc.

[Anonymous No.6127079]

>>6123890
Exactly, they're different strings and hence can't be equal without 1st defining an equivalence relation like we do for the reals.

[Anonymous No.6127083]

Why does this board even exist, this is /b/-tier shit

[Anonymous No.6127090]

>>6127079
exactly finally someone understands

[Anonymous No.6127091]

>>6127052
1

[Anonymous No.6127099]

>>6123890
REKT

[Anonymous No.6127106]

>>6127099
Wolfram|Alpha's as retarded and stupid as Stephen Wolfram.

[Anonymous No.6128121]

Simpleton here. Can you please explain it with more intuition and less math? I was never good with numbers.

[Anonymous No.6129799]

>>6128121
It is a very abstract theorem.

[Anonymous No.6129851]

>>6128121
Solve for the same of an infinite geometric series from n=0 to infinity of .9/10 and you get one. It's the standard method to convert decimals to fractions. Pre-calc. .9 repeating = 1.

[Anonymous No.6129860]

To sum up what I just said, here's a pic of the math for ya. Sorry for the quality, I'm at work right now

[Anonymous No.6129861]

>>6128121
Divide 1 by three. Now multiply the quotient you got by three.

[Anonymous No.6129865]

>>6129860
my friend, I started this troll thread several days ago. And i can't stop, i need help, but i just can;t stop as long as you keep replying, please... pls

[Anonymous No.6129867]

0.9999...+0.000...001=1

[Anonymous No.6129873]

1/3=0.33333...
0.333....*3=0.999....
Therefore 0.999...=1

Why is it so hard to understand.

[Anonymous No.6129874]

>>6123893
So if I can't put a number between two numbers then that means they're the same?
By your logic any number can equal any number at all because 0.9999 = 1 = 1.0000000...etc..1 and so on and so forth until 0.9999 = 6.5^9594678682785328752785 which simply don't work

[Anonymous No.6129886]

>>6129873
Except Fractions are rounded numbers expressed in a simplified form. When you round something you can't then unround it incorrectly and make an argument based off incorrect mathematics.

[Anonymous No.6129905]

>>6123893
0.99910

[Anonymous No.6129911]

[Anonymous No.6130113]

>>6127079
>>6127090

I think a lot of confusion on this matter could be prevented if educators drew a sharp distinction between "the ordered field of real numbers" and "the set of pointed sequences of digits".

[Anonymous No.6130117]

>>6130113
>that brown one
But that's wrong! You can't split one thing into three parts perfectly in decishit. You have 3 x .(3) and a leftover 0.00...1 because of decishit being shit. And that's the only way you can do it.

[Anonymous No.6130123]

>>6123935
0.001

Captcha: transporting alloms

[Anonymous No.6130129]

0.000.../9999...

[Anonymous No.6130132]

1 isn't equal to 0.999...
Here is complete counter-proof and debunking of the "proofs"
http://pastebin.com/0x35eiWn

[Anonymous No.6130142]

>>6123893
.999.... + (1-.999...)/2

[Anonymous No.6130155]

>>6123890
>.66666=.7
Wut.

[Anonymous No.6130736]

[Anonymous No.6130794]

>>6130142
I believe .999...=1 and you believe that it doesn't and that 0.000...1 exists. So lets determine the value of the expression as I believe it and as you believe it.

.999.... + (1-.999...)/2 = 1+(1-1)/2 = 1+0/2 = 1+0 = 1

.999.... + (1-.999...)/2 = .999...+(0.000...1)/2 = .999... + 0.000...5 = 1.000...4

As you can see neither interpretation represents a number between .999... and 1 but not equal to either.

[Anonymous No.6130795]

>>6130113
I lov the convergence theorum

[Anonymous No.6130807]

if .9... isn't 1 then what's the number rational number between them. If there dne such a number then those two numbers are the same. Those who say otherwise lack a basic understanding of the cardinality of rational numbers and cantor diagonalization.

[Anonymous No.6131452]

>>6130807
Their arithmetic mean is between them.

[Anonymous No.6131765]

>>6131452
Their arithmetic mean is .9999...............
Hence, they are the same number

[Anonymous No.6132480]

bump

[Anonymous No.6132502]

>>6123942
Lets try that in base 3.

(1/3) = 0.1
3 * (1/3) = (3/3) = 1
3 * 0.1 = 1

[Anonymous No.6132509]

>>6123914
Ok, with a quick fix, let's see:

f(x)=1/(1-x)

for x=0.999...
the answer is a real number

for x=1
answer is NAN

real number <> NAN

therefore:

0.999... <> 1

I guess that settles it then.

[Anonymous No.6134450]

>>6131765
The arithmetic mean of 0 and 9 is 4.5
Therefore the arithmetic mean of 0.999... and 1.0 has to end in 5.
It is 0.999....5

[Anonymous No.6134455]

all 4chan boards are essentially the same

the subject that people troll and argue over are interchangeable

[Anonymous No.6134473]

>>6130117
God you are fucked. It holds in dozenal too. 0.333... means zero pint fucking three fucking repeating forever until you stop sucking cocks (to say, never). Even in dozenal 0.4 means the same thing. You're confused because you have trouble thinking of conceptual objects, that can be infinitely divisible, rather than quantum objects, like atoms and quarks.

[Anonymous No.6134477]

>>6131765
You can't have infinitely many zeros followed by a number, it doesn't work that way (not in the complex plane anyway.)

[Anonymous No.6135753]

>>6134455
>all 4chan boards are essentially the same

/b/ is different. It is so much more mature.

[Cock-nan The Block-barian No.6136793]

1/3=.333333…
2/3=.666666…
3/3=.999999…=1

"…" Means it goes on and on and on forever. Stop shitting up this board with your retardation.

[Anonymous No.6137176]

>>6136793
But the first line is begging the question.

[Carbon No.6137248]

>>6123890
Why would you make a thinly veiled attempt at one of these threads while "detesting it"
You are getting really creative.
If it is a sequence of nines, the number would be 1, if you understand real numbers

[Anonymous No.6139124]

>>6137248
Repeating false statements will not make them correct.

[Anonymous No.6140664]

>>6139124
Actually it does. Argument by repetition is a very popular proof technique in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6140701]

NSA does philosophy?

[Anonymous No.6140741]

>>6124012
Excellent! Was searching for someone to post this.

[Anonymous No.6141294]

>>6140701
Math is not philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6142491]

>>6123976
The arithmetic mean of a number ending in 9 and a number ending in 0 has to end in 5.

[Anonymous No.6142495]

>>6142491
It doesn't end in 9 though.

[Anonymous No.6142503]

>>6123890
>Does .66666=.7?
>no? does it equal .67? no?

in base 2 :
0.11111111... = 1
(see Cantor set)

in base 3 :
0.22222222... = 1

in base 4 :
0.33333333... = 1

...

in base 10 :
0.999999... = 1
also :
0.66699999... = 0.667

in base 12 :
0.99999999... != 1,
but
0.FFFFFFF... = 1

Some numbers have two decimal writings, deal with it.

[Anonymous No.6142514]

>>6142503
I meant to say (see Cantor set) for the base 3... Sorry.

[Anonymous No.6143318]

>>6142495
In what digit does it end?

[Anonymous No.6144998]

>>6142495
Are you saying that 0.999... ends in a digit not equal to 9?

[Anonymous No.6145022]

>>6143318
>>6144998
of course it doesn't
.99.. doesn't end so it can't have a last digit

[Anonymous No.6145043]

>>6145022
true. as it doesn't have a last digit, the value of the last digit must be zero

[Anonymous No.6145044]

>>6145043
no the value of it does not exist

[Anonymous No.6145047]

>>6145044
>it
how can you use a pronoun about something that doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.6145051]

>>6145047
easy
phlogisten is a poor explanation for combustion as it does not exist.

x^2+1=0 has no real solutions.
They do not exist.

[Anonymous No.6145064]

>>6145051
those sentences are nonsensical

the golden mountain does not sxist

[Anonymous No.6145094]

>>6145051

oh look. this equation is sooooooooooooooo hard. could nevereverever solve it nosiree.

[Anonymous No.6145096]

>>6145094
There are no real solutions.
Do you not understand that?

[Anonymous No.6145164]

>>6145047
There is no real such that the ith decimal is 1 if and only if the ith program halts, and 0 otherwise. Yet, such a real can be narrowed down in R since it's between 0 and 1.

[Anonymous No.6146726]

>>6145096
>There are no real solutions.

Yes, there are. Have you never heard of imaginary numbers?

[Anonymous No.6146966]

https://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8b6966895b6673aa6b6c

here you go a 57 page narcistic proof that 0.999 can not = 1.000...

[Anonymous No.6146968]

>>6146726
so you don't know what a real solution is?

[Anonymous No.6146973]

>>6124012
what the fuck is all this shit

[Anonymous No.6146976]

>>6132502
Lets try that in base 3.

(1/10) = 0.1
10 * (1/10) = (10/10) = 1
10 * 0.1 = 1

You're still right, but it doesn't look as convenient as that.

[Anonymous No.6146982]

>>6129861
You can't divide 1 by 3 in decimal.
You get 3 of 0.(3) and one 0.(0)1
Which is four parts, not three.

[Anonymous No.6146986]

>>6146973
Limit to the sequence.

To make 0.99999... you can make a sequence of 0.9*10^-n from n=1 to infinity.
ie 0.9+0.09+0.009+etc

[Anonymous No.6146990]

>>6146986
this proof >>6146966
shows why It is false.

[Anonymous No.6146992]

>>6146990
No one has time to read that shit u fgt

[Anonymous No.6146999]

>>6146966
That's a fun read, good satire.

Shame is anyone who can understand the content is probably going to know he isn't serious.

[Anonymous No.6147005]

>>6134473
Are you a fucking chimp?
In dozenal it would be 4/10
four out of do
Which is EXACTLY 0.4
0.4 * 3 = 1.2 in decimal
0.4 * 3 = 1 in dozenal

DO YOU NOT HAVE A BRAIN?

[Anonymous No.6147011]

>>6136793
>1/3=.333333…
But that's wrong.
You can't divide 1 by 3 in decimal.

[Anonymous No.6147012]

>>6146999
That guy argues that Eulers formula doesn't work because infinity isn't real, but one of his arguements is that you can subtract 0.00...(infinity zeroes)...1 from 1 to get 0.999... which is hilarious.

Then by skimming i can summarize:
-jacks off with fractions
-real numbers don't exist, compares 0.333... to pi and e
-infinity is a lie again
-simple algebra lies
-i got borded half way

This might as well be a document on 1+1=/=2

[Anonymous No.6147022]

>>6147012
it doesn't it = 5

[Anonymous No.6147075]

>>6123890
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1
1/3 = .333333......
.33333.... + .33333.....+ .33333... = .99999.....
.99999..... = 1

[Anonymous No.6147480]

>>6147075
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 != 1
Take a pie. Try to divide it into three parts. Good job, you did it.

Now give the same pie to a perfectionist, tell him this is a decimal pie.
He won't be able to divide it into three parts. There will be four, but the fourth part will be the one that's impossible to notice because of how infinitely small it is, 0.000...1

[Anonymous No.6147501]

>>6147075
This proves nothing. If anything it would prove that .333… + .333… + .333… = 1, not .999…

[Anonymous No.6147513]

>>6147501
bingo!

[Anonymous No.6147578]

Guys, can't we just say it's close enough?

[Anonymous No.6147586]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999......

[Anonymous No.6147589]

>>6147578
Your mum is close enough

[Anonymous No.6147590]

>>6147586
Simple algebra:
x = 0.999...
10x=0.99...
9x=9
x=1

If you want to get smarter than that just figure it out with euler's formula to find the limit.

[Anonymous No.6147592]

>>6147589

[Anonymous No.6147595]

>>6147592
your mom = 999...9999.6

[Anonymous No.6147593]

>>6147590
whoops
>10x=0.99...
I meant 10x=9.999...

[Anonymous No.6147598]

>>6147590
>10x=9.99...
>9x=9
So from the left you take -1 off and from the right you take -0.999... off?
That's already prejudiced for the answer, which in turn results in the answer

>retards actually believe this

[Anonymous No.6147605]

>>6147598
Did you drop out of highschool or did you live in a backwards country that doesn't teach simultaneous equations?
x=0.999... (eqn 1)
multiply eqn 1 by 10
10x=0.999... (eqn 2)
subtract eqn1 from eqn 2
10x-x=9.999...-0.999...
9x=9
x=1

you can use the same equation for any numbers with repeating numbers in a sequence
eg
x=0.457457...
1000x=457.467467...
999x=457
x=457/999=0.457457...

[Anonymous No.6147619]

>>6147605
>subtract eqn1 from eqn 2
Oh, I forgot about that.

[Anonymous No.6148935]

>>6147075
You have no idea why the second line is true. Protip: The reason is not "because my teacher said so". Please learn how the reals are constructed.

[Anonymous No.6148942]

>>6148935
because
.333....
______
3)1.0000....
-0.9
10
- 9
10
-9....

stop being an elitist ass

[Anonymous No.6148950]

>>6148942
You have no idea why this algorithm works. Please take a babby course on analysis and stop spreading preschool tier ignorance.

[Anonymous No.6148955]

>>6148950
it works because 3*3 =9
are you an idiot?

[Anonymous No.6148959]

>>6148955
You didn't even understand the question.

[Anonymous No.6148963]

>>6148959
And clearly you don't understand the algorithm because you can do it with 3rd grade math.
Can I take whole division? ja
Can I mod? ja
Can I subtract? ja
algorithm complete

[Anonymous No.6148968]

>>6148963
But you don't understand why it works. You do it because your teacher instructed you. Sadly I have to say that given your posts ITT you will probably never understand why it works. Please do us all a favor and do not talk about math. Accept that you are untalented and refrain from letting everyone know of your deficiency.

[Anonymous No.6148974]

>>6148968
no I understand that what's left over after I do whole number division I can continue to divide.

stop pushing your elitism, it's easy to understand without faggoting it up with abstract mathematics

[Anonymous No.6148979]

>>6148968
<span class="math"> \frac{10000}{3} = 3000 +\frac{1000}{3}[/spoiler]
is it really that hard for you?

[Anonymous No.6148981]

>>6148974
Why do you do this? Is it really necessary to run around and tell everyone that you're mentally on the level of a 6 year old? This is a science and math board. When we talk about math, we talk about real math, not about preschool math.

[Anonymous No.6148982]

Does .9999 + .9999= 2?

No.

/thread.

[Anonymous No.6148985]

>>6148981
> When we talk about math, we talk about real math
arithmetic is real math dumbass

[Anonymous No.6148989]

>>6148981
If you want to provide a different solution go ahead
but don't say you can't understand why 1/3=.3333... with basic arithmetic

but the advanced folk never actually post solutions soooo I defend the idiots from elitist fags

[Anonymous No.6148999]

>>6148989
>but don't say you can't understand why 1/3=.3333... with basic arithmetic

Applying a procedure just because your teacher told you to do does not constitute a proof. Please learn how the reals are constructed.

[Anonymous No.6149003]

>>6148999
I did not apply a procedure because a teacher told me to.
It's obvious. If you don't think it is, point out the part of the algorithm you are struggling with and I will help you through it.

[Anonymous No.6149009]

>>6149003
It is not obvious at all and you know that. Please stop pretending to be retarded.

[Anonymous No.6149016]

>>6149009
<span class="math">\frac{1}{3}=\frac{1}{10}\frac{10}{3}=\frac{1}{10}\left(3+\frac{1}{3}\right) [/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.6149019]

>>6149016
<span class="math"> \frac{1}{3}=\frac{1}{10}\frac{10}{3 }
<span class="math">\frac{1}{10} \frac{10}{3 } =\frac{1}{10} \left(3 + \frac{1}{3} \right) [/spoiler][/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.6149022]

>>6149016
<span class="math"> \frac{1}{3} = \frac{1}{10} \frac{10}{3 }= \frac{1}{10} \left(3+ \frac{1}{3} \right) [/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.6149023]

>>6148968
You only know analysis because your book told you/teacher told you. Idiot.

[Anonymous No.6149024]

>>6149016
>>6149022
You blew your cover. If you want to pretend being a 6 year old, you're not supposed to know LaTeX.

[Anonymous No.6149025]

You have one apple

Then take a very small piece from it

Now you have 0.9999 apples, a small peice is missing

Are you telling me that somehow new apple matter pops out of thin air to complete it and make it 1 again?
Conservation of energy, bitch

[Anonymous No.6149033]

>>6148999
These fucking analysisfags. Fuck. I just started working on real analysis, am I gunna turn into a prick like these guys?

>you only know multiplication because your teacher told you so
>hurrr durr learn how the reals are constructed
>implying the reals aren't constructed to allow 1/3=.33333333....

[Anonymous No.6149045]

>>6149025
You didn't take a small part of it. You took a part big enough that the part you took is>0.00000....00001
This obviously isn't going to make the entire apple.

If you took part of the apple that was so small it is zero, then you'd have the whole goddamn apple.

[Anonymous No.6149046]

>>6123890
You guys are posting in a troll thread... For a week!

[Anonymous No.6149051]

>>6148999
I also forgot the other alternative to what I was saying. Maybe a book didn't teach you how to "prove" something or a teacher didn't tell you how the reals were constructed.

Maybe you constructed and proved and learned everything all on your own?

Also go up to a 5th grader and when they tell you 1/3 is .33333 tell them they don't know how the reals are constructed. Jackass.

[Anonymous No.6149052]

>>6149045
OH

I think I understand

So what if it wasn't an apple, but, say, a banana

[Anonymous No.6149053]

>>6149051
5th graders are not supposed to be here. 4chan is an 18+ forum.

[Anonymous No.6149067]

>>6149053
that doesn't mean we all take real analysis dumbass

[Anonymous No.6149077]

>>6149067
If you didn't take it, then don't talk about things you don't understand, you impolite asshole.

[Anonymous No.6149083]

>>6149077
But you can do it without it you autistic asswipe

[Anonymous No.6149096]

>>6149083
No, you can't.

[Anonymous No.6149112]

>>6149096
what part of >>6149022 do you not understand?

[Anonymous No.6149121]

>>6149112
That post doesn't prove anything. You don't even know what a proof is. Stop wasting your time on 4chan and get some education.

[Anonymous No.6149127]

>>6149121
> real analysis = education
lol

[Anonymous No.6149140]

>>6141294
>Math is not philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6149336]

>>6123890
let us assume you are correct, and that .9999....=/=1

given 1/9=.111111....
and 9/9=1
then...
.9999...=/=1
.9999.../9 =/= 1/9
.1111... =/= 1/9
1/9 =/= 1/9

[Anonymous No.6149363]

>>6123890
We know. Well, except for the retards, anyway. But they are irrelevant.

[The Truth No.6149372]

.999... is not a number. It is a limit as the variable approaches infinity [lim(n->infinity)(1-1/n)]. Infinity does not exist. Therefore, .999... does not exist. It exists in theory because we treat infinity as a number. That's fine, because it works. However, when we treat infinity as a number in theoretical applications such as limits, derivation, and integration, we have to remember that we are treating infinity as a number, and can therefore manipulate it as a number with operations such as subtraction and addition. That means we can take a hypothetical number n=1-[1/(infinity-1)], which is equal to .999.... If .999...=1, then 1-[1/(infinity-1)]=1, which means 1/(infinity-1)=0, which means 1=0(infinity-1). This is clearly incorrect, since 0x, with x being a number, is always equal to 0, and infinity is being treated as a number in this situation. Of course infinity is not a number and cannot be manipulated like this in real life, but infinity doesn't exist, so using infinity in limits also doesn't work in real life. It only works in theory when infinity is treated as a number. Claiming that .999...=1 is allowing infinity to be manipulated as a number in some ways that do not work in real life but not in others, all within the same theoretical situation. The difference between .999... and 1 is negligable to the extent that they can be treated as the same number in practical applications, but they are, by definition, not equal.

[The Truth No.6149375]

>>6123893
Two numbers that are infinitely close are not necessarily equal. Put two bricks next to each other so they are touching. There is no space between them but they are not at the same location. More accurately, consider quantum mechanics. Two quantum points can be infinitely close, yet they are still distinct points. Since distance is defined in terms of Planck length, the only thing that can exist between two quantum points is other quantum points. If there is distance between them, it is because there are quantum points between them. If two quantum points with nothing between them are the same point, then all quantum points are the same point, which means that the entire Universe is a single point. The same holds true for number. If we are dealing with concepts of infinity and infinitely small numbers (which we are when dealing with infinite sums/sequences/series such as .999...) then it is irrelevant whether or not there is something between two values. If you disagree, you are a fucking moron and should kill yourself.

[The Truth No.6149377]

>>6123921
>jewipedia
pls
>>6123951
Except infinity doesn't exist either. .999... doesn't exist. It only does in theory, and in theory an infinitely small (infinitesimal) nonzero value does exist. It's a matter of concepts (just like .999... and all infinite sums) and seeing as we are capable of fathoming the possibility, it does exist as a concept.

[The Truth No.6149380]

>>6123962
/thread
>>6142491
Correct. The mean of .999... and 1 is .999...5

[Anonymous No.6149381]

>>6149375
>consider quantum mechanics
Why is it that the best explanations of things always seem to begin with "consider quantum mechanics"?

It's like QM has this inherent ability to make explanations of ordinary things entertaining as hell.

I guess we have pop-scientists to thank for that.

[The Truth No.6149383]

>>6123935
Yes. 1-.999...=.000...1=1/(10^infinity).
>>6123942
>>6136793
1/3 and 2/3 do not have decimal representations, fucktards.

[The Truth No.6149399]

>>6129867
.999...+(.000...1)(10)=1
fix'd

[The Truth No.6149401]

>>6129874
Of course, some people are just retarded and pretend that if no numbers exist between two numbers then those numbers are the same, because those people are too unintelligent to realize that when we are dealing with infinitely small values, infinite sums, limits, etc, there are some things that apply to integers that no longer apply.

[Anonymous No.6149402]

>>6149372
>>6149375

Part of your argument is that math is not theoretical. Beyond that, you are confused about several other concepts. The certainty with which you express them followed by

>If you disagree, you are a fucking moron and should kill yourself.

indicate that you are a childish sciolist. The arrogance required to believe that you somehow have greater insight into mathematics than people who have studied it in depth for years and who have obtained higher degrees in it is astounding. Of course, that does not mean that everyone who gets a degree must necessarily understand the subject (it depends on the courses, the institution, etc.), but to believe that everyone in a field is wrong when you yourself have clearly not studied the subject at a graduate level or above is just unbelievable.

>More accurately, consider quantum mechanics

Incidentally, this whole section screams "I don't know what I'm talking about, but there's a good chance I like pop-sci and occasionally skim wiki articles".

Again, you are conflating physics with math, concepts with materia.

Go look up the Dunning-Kruger effect. Given your belligerence I doubt that you will realize how wrong you are, but perhaps in a few years when you've matured a bit and developed your interests beyond superficial fascination, it will help you to realize what an insufferable adolescent you were.

Until then, create a twitter account and follow in Jaden's footsteps.

[Anonymous No.6149405]

>>6149402
see >>6149383
he's clearly a troll and you have been trolled by him

[The Truth No.6149408]

>>6130117
Actually I can split one thing into three parts perfectly, if each time of quantum present is present in a quantity divisible by 3.

[The Truth No.6149412]

>>6145051
i

[The Truth No.6149419]

>>6147590
>>6147605
I believe you are the one who dropped out of high school and lives in a backwards country.

n=.999...
10n=9.999... - 9*(10^-infinity)
9n=9.999... - 9*(10^-infinity) - .999...
9n=9 - 9*(10^-infinity)
9n=9(1-10^-infinity)
n=1-10^-infinity
n=1-.000...1
n=.999...

ftfy

[Anonymous No.6149420]

test

[The Truth No.6149424]

>>6149381
;)

[The Truth No.6149434]

>>6149402
My argument is that math IS theoretical, hence being able to treat infinity as a number and use infinitely small numbers such as 10^-infinity.

It doesn't matter how long someone has studied math because this is a theoretical thought experiment and requires looking at it from a theoretical, philosophical stance. It does not require knowledge of mathematics. The reason many mathematicians falsely believe that .999...=1 is because the two can be used interchangeably in most if not all practical applications (even theoretical mathematical problems). The reason is because infinitely small values do not exist in reality (and therefore neither do infinite sums nor .999...) so when we deal with such things we are just sort of representing something with something else. So yes .999... represents 1 when it is the solution to certain problems, but it doesn't even exist outside of theory, and in theory it is 10^-infinity less than 1.

I have done more than skim wiki articles. I took a quantum mechanics university course with graduate students (as well as undergrad juniors/seniors) when I was 17.

I was not conflating physics with math, I was giving an example to help readers to understand, because it is a parallel situation of the same concept.

[The Truth No.6149437]

>>6149420
you're not b& ;)

[Anonymous No.6149444]

>>6149419
There is no such thing as infinity zeroes followed by a one, the limit of the series would be a zero if there was anyway.

[Anonymous No.6149488]

>>6149434

Its posts like these that dissuade me from responding. There is so much stupid shit here that I'd feel like I'd be wasting my time as it must be bait.

[Anonymous No.6149730]

>>6149375
This could've been said without
>consider quantum mechanics
And it would've been more credible.
Like anyone on /sci/ has an in depth knowledge of quantum mechanics, gotta love science as religion.

[Anonymous No.6150167]

>>6123890
>I have seen a lot of trolling about .999= 1 lately

That is because mathematicians are not computer scientists.

[Anonymous No.6150169]

>>6123890
>mfw mods dont insta-delete these threads.

there is no mod. athiests -= 1

[Anonymous No.6151292]

>>6149444
You just explained how it can be defined consistently.

[Anonymous No.6152101]

>>6149730
Many of us have a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics. Have you never seen the Schrödinger cat threads?

[Anonymous No.6152124]

If 0.999... = 1 then Pi = 4

[Anonymous No.6152332]

babby's first infinitesimal

[Anonymous No.6152335]

>>6152124
Why does decimal representation even exist? Why do fractions even exist? Why can't we just live with integers?

[Anonymous No.6152391]

This thread is proof /sci/ has no mods.

>>6149375
>Two numbers that are infinitely close are not
necessarily equal. Put two bricks next to each
other so they are touching.

Don't try to put physics in math. The bricks touch without overlapping because the electron clouds in the atoms won't overlap. There's still space between the bricks. It's just smaller than we can see.

[Anonymous No.6152392]

>>6151292
IF there was anyway, it doesn't exist in real numbers, but it can exist in the hyperreals

[Anonymous No.6152428]

Due to quantum mechanics, no objects are truly separate, and the closer objects are the higher the chance particles may be jumping between them. The "electron cloud" model is gone. Physics is fully in line with .99=1.

[Anonymous No.6153450]

>>6152428
Why does this post make so much sense?

[Anonymous No.6153489]

>>6146726

Is this bait?

[Anonymous No.6153493]

>Does .66666=.7?

Nope, but .66666.... = 2/3
And 0.99999.... = 3/3 = 1

[Anonymous No.6154637]

We know they are not equal. It's just a useful approximation. I mean, come on, in what real life application would you want to have infinite digits?

[Anonymous No.6154642]

>>6154637
Whenever you measure an integer value

[Anonymous No.6154664]

How can you compare a number with only one significant digit to a number with an infinite number of significant differences, and conclude that the infinite number somehow controls the single digit?

1 is not 1.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ad infinitum; it's just 1.

Somewhere between .95 and 1.04.

[Anonymous No.6154666]

>>6152428
So, in other words, the "electron cloud model" that was shoved down everyone's throat as obviously the TRUTH was in fact WRONG.

stay classy /sci/

[Anonymous No.6154691]

>>6123890
One divided by three is what?

Okay. Now that you've come that far, multiply it by three.

What is the result?

If you don't get it now, kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.6154693]

>>6123928
One extra digit is countable

There's only one

[Anonymous No.6155595]

>>6154691
>One divided by three is what?

One divided by three is 1/3.

[Anonymous No.6156209]

>>6154691
What does this have to do with the OP?

[Anonymous No.6157445]

> go on about your business

Thank you, I will.

[Anonymous No.6158545]

>>6154691
I know what you're trying to say and I have to tell you that you're retarded and don't know what a proof is.

[Anonymous No.6160006]

>>6123893
Is there a global smooth solution to the Navier-Stokes equation? You can't name one? Yeah, that's what I thought.

[Anonymous No.6161529]

How about 0.999... with an uncountable number of 9's? What would change?

[Anonymous No.6161738]

Do you even math faggot? Just use geometric series you fucktard.

.6666666 is 6/10 + 6/100 + 6/1000...

Therefore: 6(1/10)^n

D/1-R --------> (1/10)/(1-(1/10))= 1/9.

6(1/9) = 6/9 or 2/3.

You understand now idiot.

Let's use this same concept for 0.9999...

You get 9(1/9). What does that equal idiot? Oh yes. Of course.

1.


You see, the progression of math suggests the ignoring in consistently smaller values. Such values become negligible. Calculus for example is heavily based on this- just look at limits.

0.9999.... mathematically is 1, even if intuitively we don't view it as such.

[Anonymous No.6161750]

>>6134450
except 0.9... doesn't terminate. so you can't have a mean that terminates as well.
the arithmatic mean of 0.9... and 1.0 is 0.99...

[RabiesPanda No.6161834]

>>6123962
>>6149380
/thread? what no not even close. let's start over
x=.9999...
10x=9.999....
10x-x=9.999...-.999...
9x=9
x=1

[RabiesPanda No.6161840]

>>6148982
you're right .9999+.9999 doesn't equal 2 but .999...+.999.... does equal 2

[Anonymous No.6161841]

>>6161529
>0.999... with an uncountable number of 9's
This doesn't even make any sense.

Every 9 is by definition at the nth digit after the decimal point.
n is a natural number, and thus there are only countably many nines because each nine has a unique natural number assigned.

[Anonymous No.6161851]

>>6161834
>let's start over
y.pls no

[Anonymous No.6161860]

>>6130132
Wow, someone wasted a tremendous amount of time on that.

[Anonymous No.6161873]

>>6149375
read the first line

here is the axiom used for continuous numbers

for any two real distinct real numbers a and b such that b>a there is a real and distinct number between them z such that z = (a+b)/2 where a<z<b.

this is also recursive

[Anonymous No.6161897]

>>6161873
This isn't really an axiom.

It follows from accepting some basic ordered field axioms.

If a<b

then a+a<a+b
2a<a+b
a<(a+b)/2

and
a<b
a+b<b+b
a+b<2b
(a+b)/2<b

therefore
a<(a+b)/2<b

[Anonymous No.6163222]

>>6161897
>If a<b

But this is what we want to prove. You cannot assume it.

[Anonymous No.6163300]

>>6123962
>x = 0.9999.....
>10x = 9.99999.....
>10x - x = 9.9999.... - 0.999....
>9x = 9.000....81
>x = 1.000....9
x = 0.9999.....

10x = 9.99999.....

10x - x = 9.9999.... - 0.999....

9x = 8.9999....81

x = 0.9999.....9 = 1

[Anonymous No.6163305]

Isn't the whole 0.999... = 1 thing based on the fact that you have taken the axiom of choice on faith?

[Anonymous No.6163310]

>>6146973
jesus christ, how young people visit this board?

[Anonymous No.6163315]

> if I mention trolling in my post, /sci/ won't know I'm a troll

[Anonymous No.6163360]

>>6163300
x = 0.9999...
10x = 99.9999...
10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999...
9x = 9
x = 1

[Anonymous No.6163385]

>There are no intelligent people on this board
That was already obvious.

[Anonymous No.6164497]

>>6163385
I am intelligent.

[Anonymous No.6165303]

>>6164497
yeah it shows


lel

[Anonymous No.6166458]

>>6123890
and you had to bring this shit up again

[Anonymous No.6166879]

>>6165303
Indeed, it does.

[Anonymous No.6167965]

>>6123893
Yes, there is.

[Anonymous No.6169467]

I have seen a lot of trolling about IQ lately.

[Anonymous No.6170137]

>>6123890
Why does /sci/ always have threads about this dumbass topic?

[Anonymous No.6170162]

0.666...(infinite 6s)...666 = 0.666...67 = 0.666...7 = etc. = 0.7
therefore, 2/3 = 0.7

[Anonymous No.6170191]

>>6170162
0.666... =/= 0.6667

[Anonymous No.6170270]

>>6123890
.999... is an irrational number that repeats infinitely, meaning that it is smaller than 1 by an infinitesimally small quantity. The thing to understand is that infinity is NOT a number, nor does it behave like one, so the INFINITELY small difference between the two is gone.

[Anonymous No.6170416]

>>6170270
>.999... is an irrational number
mfw

[Anonymous No.6170461]

>>6163360
>10*0.9 = 99
>99 - 9 = 9
uwotm8

[Anonymous No.6171812]

>>6170461
Do you even algebra?

[Anonymous No.6171883]

0.9999.... isn't a number

[Anonymous No.6172808]

>>6171883
Can we define it as a number?

[Anonymous No.6172822]

>>6149375
>Put two bricks next to each other so they are touching. There is no space between them but they are not at the same location. More accurately, consider quantum mechanics
And this is where I realised you have no idea that physics models reality, whereas in mathematics you work within axiomatic systems. Also, please don't use "consider quantum mechanics" unless it's absolutely required.

[Anonymous No.6174184]

>>6172822
Quantum mechanics can be treated axiomatically as well.

[Anonymous No.6175000]

>>6170416
You cannot represent it as a finite fraction.

[Anonymous No.6176221]

>>6170137
Because it is an open conjecture.

[Anonymous No.6177688]

Very good explanation.

[Anonymous No.6179267]

>>6123893
Yes, there is but I can't represent it in decimals.

[Anonymous No.6179277]

>>6175000
Yes you can, 1/1.

[Anonymous No.6179283]

Why is 90% who doesn't do pure maths clinically retarded when it comes to being rigorous?

[Anonymous No.6179285]

>>6179267
Represent it any way you like... I'll wait

[Anonymous No.6179286]

>>6179267
Describe is some other way then. Or at least prove it exists.

[Anonymous No.6179291]

>>6179277
it's the EXACT ratio of x:x where x!=0

[Anonymous No.6179293]

>>6179291
>x!=0
Wut

[Anonymous No.6179299]

>>6123890

.6999..=.7

[Anonymous No.6179317]

..99999 = -1

[Anonymous No.6179320]

>>6179293
I mean x is not zero since 0:0 is undefined

[Anonymous No.6180561]

>>6179320
It is not undefined.

[noko No.6181000]

>intuition argument

<span class="math">.999... = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{9}{10^n}=1[/spoiler]

[nokosage No.6181004]

>>6176221
Actually it's because people on /sci/ want everything in math and science to be completely based on cutesy little thought experiments (a la Aristotle). Whip out an infinite sum and they just go on their way

[Anonymous No.6181012]

>>6181000
Nice trips. By the way, bringing up trips on /sci/ doesn't lower the quality of THIS thread.

[Anonymous No.6181048]

>>6181000
That series converges to 10.

See theorem 3.26 in Babby Rudin

[Anonymous No.6181053]

>>6181000
>>6181048
Sorry, didn't see n=1. Nevermind.

[Anonymous No.6181343]

>>6154691
1 divided by 3 is 1/3. Multiplying that by 3 gives us 1.

>1 divided by 3 is .333...
But its not.

[Anonymous No.6181389]

0.999 = 1.000
/thread

[Anonymous No.6181394]

>>6130736
>Not using the PLUS
Cis scum. Upgrade.

[Anonymous No.6181413]

but does .00[repeating forever]1= 0?

[Anonymous No.6181415]

ITS A TRIK QUESTION.

.999 does not equal 1
.999 is the same as 999/1000

op never specified that the nines are infinitely repeating.

[Anonymous No.6182283]

>>6181413
yes

[Anonymous No.6182737]

>>6130117
Have you ever considered that perhaps the problem isn't that when 3 thirds are combined they create 0.999..., but instead, the problem lies within the original operation of 1 thing being divided into 3, creating 0.333...?

[Anonymous No.6183499]

.999 may not equal 1, but does 3x^2 + 24x + 45 over 3x + 15 simplify to (x + 3)(x + 5)?

Answer: no

[Anonymous No.6183525]

>>6181413
If the 0's repeat forever, then there's no 1 at the end. "0.00[repeating forever]1" is nonsense.

[Anonymous No.6183529]

>>6129874

1.00000.....1? As an, a one followed by an infinite number of 0's, you put a 1?

Do you realize how the phrase "after an infinite number of 0's" might be more than slightly full of shit?

[Anonymous No.6183533]

>>6183499
Pretty sure it is 3(x+5)...

[Anonymous No.6185202]

>>6183499
You didn't tell us the value of x.

[Anonymous No.6187448]

I am a simpleton and I thank OP for the good explanation.

[Anonymous No.6189063]

>>6185202
You have to solve for x.

[Anonymous No.6189095]

>>6123890
There are very simple proofs quit being a fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.6189876]

>>6130113
>You might think infinitely small number exist. They don't

>What is hyperreal number system

[Anonymous No.6189915]

WHY IS THIS FUCKING SHITPOST TROLL THREAD STILL GOING????

THERE IS NO MOD. THERE IS NO MOD. THERE IS NO MOD. THERE IS NO MOD. THERE IS NO MOD. THERE IS NO MOD. THERE IS NO MOD.THERE IS NO MOD. THERE IS NO MOD.THERE IS NO MOD. THERE IS NO MOD.THERE IS NO MOD. THERE IS NO MOD.THERE IS NO MOD. THERE IS NO MOD.THERE IS NO MOD. THERE IS NO MOD.THERE IS NO MOD. THERE IS NO MOD.

[Anonymous No.6191205]

>>6189915
Complaining about 4chan is against the rules.

[Anonymous No.6192837]

>>6189876
Hyperreal are made up and don't exist in reality.

[Anonymous No.6192842]

>>6189915
Post ponies if you want to get rid of it.

[Anonymous No.6193770]

>>6192842
That would get him banned.

[Anonymous No.6193782]

>>6189915
>thinking theres no mods
Then whos posting these you faggot?

[Anonymous No.6195040]

>>6189915
Looks like you're right.

[Anonymous No.6195364]

s 0.999... exactly equal to 1? This is in a fact a central problem in math(despite what you assume as insignificant) connected to existence of infinitesimals and foundations of modern math.

1:: 1=0.999...
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999......
academic consensus: nearly all academics agree
proofs: Many
field of math:real numbers , real analysis, any field which denies infinitesimals(practically all modern math)
Some selected Wikipedia quotes:
<The equality 0.999... = 1 has long been accepted by mathematicians and is part of general mathematical education.>
<Although the real numbers form an extremely useful number system, the decision to interpret the notation "0.999..." as naming a real number is ultimately a convention, and Timothy Gowers argues in Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction that the resulting identity 0.999... = 1 is a convention as well:

However, it is by no means an arbitrary convention, because not adopting it forces one either to invent strange new objects or to abandon some of the familiar rules of arithmetic.[47]

One can define other number systems using different rules or new objects; in some such number systems, the above proofs would need to be reinterpreted and one might find that, in a given number system, 0.999... and 1 might not be identical. However, many number systems are extensions of —rather than independent alternatives to— the real number system, so 0.999... = 1 continues to hold. Even in such number systems, though, it is worthwhile to examine alternative number systems, not only for how 0.999... behaves (if, indeed, a number expressed as "0.999..." is both meaningful and unambiguous), but also for the behavior of related phenomena. If such phenomena differ from those in the real number system, then at least one of the assumptions built into the system must break down.
Infinitesimals

[Anonymous No.6195436]

>>6172808
Sure.
0.999... (n.): 1

[Anonymous No.6195468]

Why won't this thread die? Do you people really thing this stupid problem is so interesting? It's a logical consequence of the way we typically define real numbers and how to represent them as decimals that 0.999... = 1.

Can you make a number system where the above inequality is not true? Yes. Does that mean you broke mathematics or even did something worth mentioning? No.

[Anonymous No.6196486]

>>6195468
In what number system is it not true?

[Anonymous No.6196663]

>>6176221
No, it's fucking not. 0.999...=1. Goddamn, I hate /sci/.

[Anonymous No.6196761]

>>6195468
Because /sci/ is for /sci/tposting.

[Anonymous No.6196770]

>>6196486
None.

[Anonymous No.6196781]

>People complaining about a troll thread lasting over a month
>Those said people not saging

It's there for a reason. That said:
>A troll thread lasting over a month

[Anonymous No.6196785]

saging, because it's the thought that counts

[Anonymous No.6196800]

>>6196785
For some reason sage isn't working. IDK why, I tried it earlier and am trying it now.

[Anonymous No.6196805]

>>6196800
sage has been disabled for all boards, I think. still saging.
because it's the thought that counts

[Anonymous No.6196808]

>>6196805
>>6196800
Sage is invisible.

[Anonymous No.6198670]

>>6196761
/sci/ is for science and math. If you want to shitpost, you can do it on /b/.

[Anonymous No.6198681]

>>6196800
Sage is working it's just invisible nowadays. This thread just gets bumped twice a day.
Mods not doing their job so there is nothing that can be done.

[Anonymous No.6198716]

>>6198681
>Mods not doing their job so there is nothing that can be done.
>implying the mods job is to remove threads that you don't like

[Anonymous No.6198722]

>>6198681
>Mods not doing their job so there is nothing that can be done.

But it is a science thread and no rules have been broken.

When you don't like a thread, hit the damn minus button and be done with it. Why do you torture yourself by replying to it? How old are you? Just fucking deal with it… and get back on you Aspergers meds.

[Anonymous No.6198729]

>>6198716
>implying this thread and the fact that is last-page-bumped every week isnt an example of the worst shitposting on all of /sci

muh IQ thread poster, detected... plz go back to /b/ and kill yourself on livecam. k thx

[Anonymous No.6198734]

>>6198722
there is a general rule about shitposting on 4chan, moron.

[Anonymous No.6198739]

>>6198734
>>6198729
don't feed the trolls plox

[Anonymous No.6198741]

isnt the post limit only 300? 15 to go...

[Anonymous No.6198747]

>>6198741
Not like a new one won't pop up instatly
Or just pick one of the other 2 0.999=1 threads on the front page.

[Anonymous No.6198748]

>>6198741
13 to go..

[Anonymous No.6198750]

>>6198747
yes. but i want to kill THIS one.

[Anonymous No.6198756]

>>6198750
Good point

[Anonymous No.6198757]

you guys are childish as fuck. seriously, how hard is it to just fucking hide a thread you dont like??

but instead, you autistic spergs prefer to post IN THE FUCKING THREAD ITSELF complaining about its existence.
which, by the way, is EXACTLY WHAT THE TROLL WANT! YOU RETARDS!!

[Anonymous No.6198755]

>>6198750
because...

[Anonymous No.6198760]

>>6198755
that..

[Anonymous No.6198762]

>>6198760
would...

[Anonymous No.6198763]

>>6161834
>10x-x=9.999...-.999...
>9x=9
i'm afraid you can't do that, anon.
you're proving that 1 is equal to 1. think about it logically.

[Anonymous No.6198761]

>>6198757
Hello EK. Haven't seen you for a while. How's it going?

[Anonymous No.6198766]

>>6198757
im meta trolling you into bumping the thread out of existance right now. hows that feel, retard?

[Anonymous No.6198767]

>>6198762
be....

[Anonymous No.6198768]

>>6198766
We're just gonna start a new one. Problem, shitposter?

[Anonymous No.6198770]

>>6198766
>3 posts left

[Anonymous No.6198772]

>>6198767
awesome.

[Anonymous No.6198773]

>>6198761
i drop the trip half a fucking year ago and still with the whole th-

- i mean im fine, thanks, how are you. :D

[Anonymous No.6198774]

>>6198768
>calling me the shitposter

lol. eat a dick.

[Anonymous No.6198777]

>>6198773
I'm apathetic and empty as always. Unlike you I have no meds I could take to make my problems go away.

[Anonymous No.6198778]

>>6198768
I'm just gonna buy a 4chan pass and make a script that will auto-bump your shit threads into nowhere land every time you make one.

This is /sci/ after all...

[Anonymous No.6198779]

>>6198766
i aint the OP you fucking retard, and i dont give a shit about this thread.
also, you're a complete cumguzzling fuckhead who doesnt understand that whoever IS the actual OP, will just remake this fucking thread again, because imbeciles like you are such easy bait, so you give them a reason to.

eat shit

[Anonymous No.6198782]

>>6198757
>ipmlying
hes more than happy to sihtpost wether people post or not.
The point is just to take space in the board.

>>6198773
It's your legacy, not like your posts are difficult to spot.

[Anonymous No.6198784]

>>6198779
why the fuck would I think you were OP? You are just some buttmad faggot who gets so mad that people are bumping a troll thread, you jump in and bump it yourself.

Which pretty much makes you a hypocritical retard, doesnt it?

[Anonymous No.6198785]

>>6198777
nice trips. and cant you just get meds? ..or something? theres always something that can be done to fix the state of 'feeling like shit'
emotional states can be extremely variable hun.

[Anonymous No.6198788]

>>6198782
>shitposting because I am pushing a troll thread off the board

no, i just have borderline OCD and am very sick of seeing this specific thread every day.

[Anonymous No.6198792]

>>6198785
>admiring random and common number alignments on /sci/

wow. talk about shitposting.

[Anonymous No.6198793]

>>6198782
>The point is just to take space in the board.
only if you let them. you can just hide the thread, ya-know?
which by the way, i will fucking be doing as soon as im done here, because this thread is ass.

>>6198784
i wasn't even bumping it you thick cunt. i sage.

[Anonymous No.6198797]

>>6198792
deal with it
<<<

[Anonymous No.6198800]

>>6198788
I was talking about the OP, whos willing to reply to himself for days if have to just to take space on the board.

>>6198793
Well it reserves one spot from the board, more with more shit threads. It's not like your regular troll that disapears in 1 day.

Besides I don't like hiding threads (exepct sticky) since you never know what gets posted. I just don't normally post in them more than I have to.

[Anonymous No.6198805]

>>6198797

>hurrdurr dubs ar speshul
>thinks im the one who needs to deal with it
lol, im not the one with a special problem here.

[Anonymous No.6198815]

>>6198805
lel, i dont actually give a shit about dubs. but it's funny how worked up you're getting about it
cry more

[Anonymous No.6198836]

>>6123890
>.6666...
>.6666 +.0001(effect of rounding)
>.6667

>.9999
>.9999+.0001(effect of rounding)
>1.0

No matter how far out you calculate 0.99999... the effect of rounding the final computed digit will always result in an even 1.0

[Anonymous No.6199909]

hey mods, can we just sticky this thread so that everybody can always see how bad /sci/ is `right on the front page and then you wont have to pretend to do your jobs anymore.

[Anonymous No.6199912]

>>6198815
>admires somebodies trips
>gets called out on it because lets face it, it is behavior suitable for 12 year old /b/tards
>does about face and claims not to care about dubs/trips

Who are you fooling again, faggot?

[Anonymous No.6200472]

>>6199912
i aint fooling anyone. i really dont care. so find something else to obsess over, you autistic little cunt