[ 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: 15 KB, 577x506, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7183856 No.7183856 [Reply] [Original]

Prove me wrong.

>> No.7183860

Nothing to disprove here...

>> No.7183865

>>7183856

I agree .99999999999~ = 1

>> No.7183885

That would equal 10.

>> No.7183887

you forgot a 1/10 on the bottom left.

>> No.7183895

>>7183856
circular logic

You can't prove that formula converges without first proving decimals construct the real field which requires you to DEFINE 1=0.999...

>> No.7183904

>>7183895
hows school?

>> No.7183907

Philosopher here. Your premises are flawed because you didn't prove that reality exists. And this is why mathematicians should take mandatory philosophy classes. You can only plug and chug but you're lacking critical thinking.

>> No.7183909

<span class="math"> \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} 9 \left ( \frac{1}{10} \right ) ^n= \frac{9}{1-1/10}=\frac{9}{\frac{9}{10}}=10 [/spoiler]

>> No.7183994

>>7183856
If your first term is n=0, then you have 9*(1/10)^0 = 9*1. if n went from 1 to infinity you would be fine, but your conditions make it so your summation is = 10

>> No.7184019

>>7183856
the bottom one is 10

>> No.7184026

>>7183885
>>7183909
>>7183994
>>7184019
Learn your shit first OP. If this is troll, good job.

>> No.7184030

>>7183895
Prove that you have to define it first.

I doubt you have to do that with dedekind cuts.

>> No.7184153

actually in stats the A on top refers to the first term, and since n=0, then that means that the numerator should be 9 and not 9/10, since (1/10)^0=1

>> No.7184627

>>7183907
>this is why mathematicians should take mandatory philosophy classes

>> No.7184739

>>7184627
>this is why everybody should take mandatory philosophy classes
FTFY, he is troll but philosophy really forms the mind.

>> No.7184760
File: 30 KB, 675x1127, geometric convergence.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7184760

>> No.7184864

>>7183895
You can axiomatize R and prove that geometric series formula hold. Then use OP's proof. Nothing circular.

>> No.7185043

I can't. That is a sound proof.

>> No.7185187

>>7184739
philosophy major trying to justify poor life choices spotted.

Jk, they're not poor but forcing them on people would be as dumb as forcing math or biology. We should just get everyone to study engineering.

>> No.7185204

>>7183907
But mathematicians don't care if reality exists. I'd rather know how to prove the Riemann hypothesis than know the answer to any metamathematical question. We just care that, if we accept some logical rules, and we define things in a certain way, we can prove things that we find interesting. Whether the objects "actually exist" or whether what we're doing is "actualy correct" doesn't really concern any mathematicians I know. And many of us have taken plenty of philosophy courses (I was a math/philosophy double major and got into PhD programs for math and philosophy, but I don't think philsophy is useful to mathematicians because most think of math in the way I've described). "But then why do math?" some may ask. Because we find it inherently interesting.

Scientists, on the other hand, I think should be required to take some philosophy of science courses, because I actually do know many scientists (professors) who don't really understand what the scientific method is (even if you don't know what they are, you should at least be able to give a coherent logical argument for empirical studies a la Bacon or Popper. Though I don't really consider Bacon's empiricism coherent).