/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 241 KB, 860x860, 1476479863365.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Mar 12 23:39:59 2017 No.8743634 [Reply] [Original]

How do "0.999... equals 1" fags can explain the following?

Lets say we divide 10 pies EXACTLY by 3. We now have three pieces of 3.333... of pie. Theoretically that 3.333... equals 4, which means we have 3 pieces of pies that make 4 each. Then say we want to unite them to make 10 again; that is we sum our current slices of pie: 4+4+4

That is 12. Not 10. We magically spawned 2 more pies. How do mathfags explain this?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 12 23:41:18 2017 No.8743636 >>8743634 putting pies back together is hard work in order to have enough energy to do it you need to eat at least 2 of them

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 12 23:44:07 2017 No.8743643 x = 3.333... 3x = 9.999... 3x = 10 x = 10/3 what's wrong

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 12 23:44:55 2017 No.8743645 3.333... doesnt equal 4. It equals 3+1/3. (3+1/3)×3 = 10

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 03:39:58 2017 No.8743999 >>8743634 >Theoretically that 3.333... equals 4 never thought I'd see mathematical dadaism in action.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 17:08:50 2017 No.8745239 x=0.9999999.... 10x=9.99999... 9x=9 x=9/9=1 Therefore 0.999999...=1.

Anonymous Mon Mar 13 17:36:03 2017 No.8745300
File: 194 KB, 500x500, 1458347199514-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8743634
>Theoretically that 3.333... equals 4
OP proves himself a brainlet before we even get to the meat of his argument. And you even wonder why we look down on retards like you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 17:49:46 2017 No.8745321 >>8745239 >Begging the question this hard. You can't just assert 9x=9 then use that to prove x=1.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 17:53:00 2017 No.8745331 >>8743999 >>8745300 >Theoretically that 3.333... equals 4 This was my first thought, but if we remember that .000...1 = 0 then we actually could assume that 3.333...3 = 3.333...4 = 3.333...5 = 4, after adding .000...1 an infinite number of times.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 17:54:27 2017 No.8745334 >>8745300 /thread op is a fag who doesn't deserve any pie

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 17:56:36 2017 No.8745340 0.9999999.... = 0.9 + 0.9 + 0.9 + .... =0.9 (1+1+1.... ) =0.9 (-1/2) =-1/12

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 17:58:28 2017 No.8745343 >>8745331 Except the last step doesn't make sense. It would still be equal to 3.333... repeating.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 17:59:04 2017 No.8745344 >>8745331 >.000...1 That's not a real number so no.

>>	Shitty trigonometry Mon Mar 13 18:00:03 2017 No.8745345 >>8743999 Mathematical Dadaism at its finest kek

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 18:00:25 2017 No.8745346 >>8743634 3.333... = 1/3 is your problem here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 18:02:55 2017 No.8745353 File: 23 KB, 480x480, menacing.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8745331 >add 0 to a number enough times, and the number becomes bigger sounds like you're unclear on the concept of 'zero' senpaialam

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 18:03:50 2017 No.8745354 >>8743634 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDtFBSjNmm0 btw if that was true there would be a smallest positive number equal to 1- 0.(9) which would break some math laws attached to limits soo..

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 18:04:00 2017 No.8745356 >>8745344 Sure it is. It's equal to 1 - .999... :^) More seriously tho, it's just an infinitesimal, which are regularly used in mathematics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 18:06:02 2017 No.8745361 >>8745321 Yes we can. If x=0.999999... 10x=9.99999.... 9x=10x-x which is the same as writing: 9.9999...-0.99999... Therefore 9x=9, and x=1.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 18:06:19 2017 No.8745365 >>8745353 > 0(\inf) = 0 Alright matey.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 18:12:31 2017 No.8745389 >>8743634 >Theoretically that 3.333... equals 4 No.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 18:20:55 2017 No.8745411 >>8745356 >just an infinitesimal I'm not sure you're understanding that well. An infinitesimal is arbitrarily small.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 18:22:44 2017 No.8745419 >>8743634 It doesn't equal, it's approximately 1.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 18:25:05 2017 No.8745424 >>8743634 x = (1/3) (1/3) = 0.3333... x * 3 = 1 Same idea with .999 = 1

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 18:41:29 2017 No.8745480 >>8745361 Obviously 0.999... = 1, but this proof doesn't work because it assumes what it's trying to prove, which makes it circular.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 18:42:08 2017 No.8745483 >>8745356 looool top troll right here

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 18:51:36 2017 No.8745522 >>8743634 You started with an erroneous position and then ended with an erroneous position. Not a mathematician but a debater here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 19:04:43 2017 No.8745560 >>8745522 GIGO, as the /g/men say

Anonymous Mon Mar 13 19:59:25 2017 No.8745926

>>8743634
>How do mathfags explain this?
Easy, you're a brianlet.
See that 0.999... = 1 does not imply that 3.333... = 4. Using the same logic you can get to the first statement you can let
x = 3.333...
<=> 10x = 33.333...
<=> 10x - x = 33.333... - 3.333...
<=> 9x = 30
<=> x = 10/3.
Also note that 4 = 12/3, and 12/3 /= 10/3 therefore 3.333 /= 4

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 20:58:00 2017 No.8746067 U guys r complicating this 1-0.99999...=0.000000...forever which equals 0

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 13 21:10:22 2017 No.8746096 Where are the wild burgers?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 14 12:10:17 2017 No.8747455 >>8743634 These days you can never be certain whether you're dealing with a brainlet or a troll.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 14 14:00:10 2017 No.8747694 >>8743634 I think you are overthinking this. People who say 0.999999... = 1 are just rounding up for simplicity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 14 14:02:51 2017 No.8747699 >>8747694 "No" 0.99999999999999... on and ON up to infinity is precisely 1. It's even the definition of 1.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 14 14:03:32 2017 No.8747702 >>8743634 Daily reminder that nonstandard analysts actually believe 0.999... < 1

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 14 14:39:48 2017 No.8747814 Kys.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 14 14:43:41 2017 No.8747826 >>8747699 No, its not 1. Its 0.0000... ...0001 - 1. Its one infinity smaller unit smaller than 1. If it where really 1, then it would be 1.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 14 14:47:15 2017 No.8747835 >>8745353 This is how integrals work.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 14 14:48:33 2017 No.8747841 >>8743634 Maybe the two additional pies are "imaginary".

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 14 14:51:28 2017 No.8747844 File: 29 KB, 500x375, 2522355-2341141665-tumbl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8745356 >>8747826 top kek, had a good chuckle

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 14 16:00:11 2017 No.8747985 >>8743634 I come to /sci/ sparsely now due to how shitty most if the threads on this board are. I can see that status quo remains true.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]