[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

# /sci/ - Science & Math

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 616 KB, 2518x1024, finitism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Lately I've been seeing a lot of anti-infinity autism on this board. Why is this happening? Is this the state of our education system? Will they grow out of it? How can we eradicate the wildburger disease? Discuss.

 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 00:59:08 2017 No.9395926 File: 50 KB, 488x398, Religion math.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 01:04:28 2017 No.9395934 >>9395918My theory is that finitist thought is more attractive to those with a computation background, since computers can only compute up to finite precision, and can only deal with a finite amount of objects, both in memory and in principle. As such, like the physicist or applied mathematician who sees mathematics as a mere language to describe the "real" reality, the computationally-minded person sees in mathematics their own philosophy. This is also the same reason why actual computer scientists are more likely to favour set-theory skepticism, and a denial of classical logic in favour of intuitionistic formulations of formal logic. As such, since it is more likely that on the internet you will find "computationally-minded people" (whether they are legitimately involved with the theory or are just fanboys of a new edgy kind of mathematics), it is more likely that you will find a finitist than not.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 01:05:19 2017 No.9395935 File: 5 KB, 211x239, 92d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9395926>These are roughly analogous to religion, atheism, and agnosticism.That is the most retarded analogy I've heard all year.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 01:13:14 2017 No.9395940 In my opinion consciousness is infinite, but it experiences this reality finitely.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 01:16:58 2017 No.9395942 >>9395935No, it's perfectly fine.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 01:19:55 2017 No.9395947 >>9395940What a bullshit
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 01:25:30 2017 No.9395951 >>9395942no it's not >>9395940faggot
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 01:30:00 2017 No.9395956 >>9395942lmao
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 02:01:04 2017 No.9395994 File: 23 KB, 600x450, 0bb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 02:03:37 2017 No.9395998 >>9395926>platonism = religion>finitism = atheism>formalism = agnosticism
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 02:04:59 2017 No.9396002 File: 38 KB, 640x628, eyeroll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9395926>platonism = religion>finitism = atheism>formalism = agnosticismWhat the fuck.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 02:15:56 2017 No.9396019 >>9395926>>9395935True its a bad analog. I'm religious yet believe in finitism when it comes to math that produces real results. The issue here is that it's sorely implying "believing" infinite sets to work means is similar to "believing" religion to work, when in reality religion produces working results regardless if you "believe" while atheism aka lazy brainletism doesn't give enough shit to actually figure anything out towards the effect of either contradicting believe or supporting it.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 02:24:05 2017 No.9396026 >>9395926The fact that, for example, certain weak solutions to the Navier-Stokes equation are unphysical implies that the continuum is in some sense physically real. If the continuum is physically real, then $\mathbb{R}$ exists beyond mere formalism. The universe does not obey finitistic mathematics.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 02:25:25 2017 No.9396027 >>9395934> finitist thought is more attractive to those with a computation background/thread, it's comp """sci""" brainlets.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 02:27:28 2017 No.9396032 Comparing stuff to religion, atheism, etc. is dumb. >>9395940Your full of shit, maybe you got lost on your way to humanities department>>9395935Totally agree retarded>>9395942Get the fuck away from me you dumb finitist, you probably don't actually know what these words mean. Your brainlet mind can't handle words bigger than 2 syllables.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 02:32:47 2017 No.9396037 >>9396032Damn, truth hurts, you sticken it to them.So many people here believe that there opinion has some sort of value when they know nothing of the subject. Don't talk unless you know what your talking about, dont just sprout "math words" in strings without meaning to justify your (meaningless) opinion. Instead maybe read a book. I'm lookin at the finitists here and people like>>9396026>>9396019>>9395934
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 03:04:22 2017 No.9396073 >>9395940a literally meaningless string of words
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 03:08:35 2017 No.9396076 >>9396037> there opinion> your talking about,> sprout "math words"
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 03:15:57 2017 No.9396088 >>9396076What are you trying to say? My grammar is bad?This is 4chan, a part of the internet, no one care. You are exactly the kind of people I was talking about, you go on /sci/ to a math topic and correct people on their english instead of maybe learning some math.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 03:24:10 2017 No.9396099   File: 7 KB, 420x420, b36.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] $\infty$ is not a number$n \rightarrow \infty$ cannot evaluate to a finite answer in finite time$0.\bar{9} < 1.0$ $0 \neq 0.\bar{0}1 \ngeq 0.\bar{1}_{base2} \ngeq 0.\bar{9}_{base10} \ngeq 0.\bar{F}_{base16} \neq 1.0$$N \geq 2 \rightarrow \infty; (0.\overline{N-1}_{baseN} < 0.\overline{N}_{base(N+1)})$$X = \sum{N%3=0}^{/infty} 0.(\frac{N}{3})_{baseN} × 3_{base10} = 1.0 \neq 0.\bar{9}$$0.\overline{N-1}_{baseN} =$ NaN
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 03:28:29 2017 No.9396102   File: 7 KB, 420x420, b36.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] $\infty$ is not a number$n \rightarrow \infty$ cannot evaluate to a finite answer in finite time$0.\bar{9} < 1.0$ $0 \neq 0.\bar{0}1 \ngeq 0.\bar{1}_{base2} \ngeq 0.\bar{9}_{base10} \ngeq 0.\bar{F}_{base16} \neq 1.0$$N \geq 2 \rightarrow \infty; (0.\overline{N-1}_{baseN} < 0.\overline{N}_{base(N+1)})$$X = \sum{N/3=1}^{/infty} 0.(\frac{N}{3})_{baseN} × 3_{base10} = 1.0 \neq 0.\bar{9}$$0.\overline{N-1}_{baseN} =$ NaN
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 03:32:40 2017 No.9396108   File: 214 KB, 400x399, 1365111121911.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] $\infty$ is not a number$n \rightarrow \infty$ cannot evaluate to a finite answer in finite time$0.\bar{9} < 1.0$ $0 \neq 0.\bar{0}1 \ngeq 0.\bar{1}_{base2} \ngeq 0.\bar{9}_{base10} \ngeq 0.\bar{F}_{base16} \neq 1.0$$N \geq 2 \rightarrow \infty; (0.\overline{N-1}_{baseN} < 0.\overline{N}_{base(N+1)})$$X = \sum_{N/3=1}^{\infty} 0.(\frac{N}{3})_{baseN} × 3_{base10} = 1.0 \neq 0.\bar{9}$$0.\overline{N-1}_{baseN} =$ NaN
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 03:35:40 2017 No.9396110 >>9396088Keep going anon. The irony of your posts is delicious.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 03:39:48 2017 No.9396113 $\mod$
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 03:42:34 2017 No.9396117 File: 214 KB, 400x399, 1365111121911.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] $\infty$ is not a number$n \rightarrow \infty$ cannot evaluate to a finite answer in finite time$0.\bar{9} < 1.0$ $0 \neq 0.\bar{0}1 \ngeq 0.\bar{1}_{base2} \ngeq 0.\bar{9}_{base10} \ngeq 0.\bar{F}_{base16} \neq 1.0$$N \geq 2 \rightarrow \infty; (0.\overline{N-1}_{baseN} < 0.\overline{N}_{base(N+1)})$$X = \sum_{N mod 3 = 0}^{\infty} 0.(\frac{N}{3})_{baseN} × 3_{base10} = 1.0 \neq 0.\bar{9}$$0.\overline{N-1}_{baseN} =$ NaN
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 04:00:47 2017 No.9396146 File: 232 KB, 300x300, 1307889832001.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9396026So you're saying the universe has infinite energy?
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 04:14:10 2017 No.9396174 >>9395934>computers can only deal with a finite amount of thingsThis isn't really true. If you believe that then humans can't either.Lazy lists are one kind of way computers deal with the infinite.A slightly better example is that most theorem proving languages will have a non-finite set construct.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 04:15:12 2017 No.9396178 >>9396117Are you making fun of the finitists or actually believe this, thanks for proving my point exactly. You write down a bunch of nonsense to make it seem like you know shit, but you are really just a brainlet. Listen up, heres the key:0.999... represents the number after "finishing" the sum 0.9+0.09+0.009... (and we can find a scheme for computing this in finite time, though this is not the point: first sum 0.9+0.09 in 1/2 second, then add on 0.009 in the next quarter, then add on 0.0009 in the next eigth etc.). 0.999...9 is always less than 1 if there are a finite amount of 9s but thats not what .999... denotes, it denotes the number that is the limit of that sum, which is 1.Trying to make sense of the gibberish that is written about 0.999... in different bases:First note that 0.0...1 is not a thing (unless we are talking about surreals but your brainlet doesn't understand what those are, even then no one defines it as 0.0...1).While any 2 different bases converge at different "speeds" to 1, that does not mean they can't converge to the same thing, your argument can be used to show that the sequence 1,1,1,1,.. and 3,2,1,1,1,1,... don't converge to the same thing (which is absurd because they both converge to 1 because they both are 1).As for the other lines of mess, I have no idea what they are supposed to mean.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 04:25:40 2017 No.9396196 >>9396178$0.\bar{8}[math] must converge towards 0.89 if [math]0.\bar{9}$ converges to 1.The fact of the matter is $0.\bar{9}$ is simply not a natural number. It can only be crafted using elements of infinite sets of directions, like $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{9}{10^n}$And doesnt otherwise naturally occur during normal arithmetic. $0.\bar{3} × 3 = 1.0$$0.\bar{1} × 9 = 1.0$$0.\bar{n}_{base(n+1)} is simply not a real number. QED  >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 04:31:41 2017 No.9396208 [math]0.\bar{8}$ must converge to 0.89 if $0.\bar{9}$ converges to 1.0. Theres no greater number above $0.\bar{8}$ and less than 0.89 after all.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 04:46:09 2017 No.9396232 >>93962080.889 is less than 0.89and 0.8889 , 0.88889, 0.888889so what is the next biggest number past $0.\bar{8}$?$0.\bar{8}9$?0.9 repeating really doesnt equal 1.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 05:24:10 2017 No.9396278 >>9396232Seriously how can we define the next biggest number for any repeating decimal, much less $0.\bar{9}$? 0.8 0.81 is bigger but0.801 is smaller than 0.810.8001 is smaller still0.80001 is smaller still0.800001 is even smaller0.8000001 is there a pattern here?cause to me it looks like$0.8\bar{0}1$ would be the smallest number bigger than 0.8 and less than 0.81, but i guess notation of a significand after the repetition isn't allowed? so how would it be possible to know that $0.\bar{9}$ should equal 1? rather, why should it equal 1 in all circumstances, when it is just as easy to say it doesn't even exist at all?$0.\bar{1} + 0.\bar{8} = 1.0$>this is how the equation actually evaluates$0.\bar{1} + 0.\bar{8} = 0.\bar{9} = 1.0$>this is how turdburglars evaluate it$0.\bar{1} - 0.\bar{1} = 0$>this is how everyone evaluates it$0.\bar{1} - 0.\bar{1} = 0.\bar{0}1 = 0$>but this is somehow too confusing for turdburglars even though its exactly what they do with $0.\bar{9} = 1$ in bridging a gap with an infinitesimalconvergence is just rounding and dont deny it, so c'mon put away the elementary school math and put on your thinking hat.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 05:25:18 2017 No.9396280 >>9396174That is true, and when I first was writing my post I was going to mention this but I forgot. I would say that this is not a true handling of the infinite, it is analogous to the finitist in mathematics, using algebra to conceal infinite objects. For instance, considering the ring Q[sqrt(2)], which can be described in a purely finitist framework, despite what it "really involving" an infinitely precise notion of the "square root of 2", in this way, it is like lazy evaluation.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 05:25:52 2017 No.9396281 >>9396032>implying I'm a finitistno.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 05:38:50 2017 No.9396295 >>9395940Your opinion is worth less than the pixels it's written with. This is /sci, not /x, and your vaguely worded mysticism doesn't wash.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 05:52:10 2017 No.9396311 >>9396280But all humans do with maths is find finite ways of dealing with the infinite. That's why we use things like limits. I don't see what you want from a "true handling of the infinite" unless you're arguing that it is never really possible.In the same way a finite human is able to reason about non-finite things such as "the set of natural numbers satisfying predicate p", finite computers can be used to reason about non-finite things. There's nothing we can do with maths that couldn't (theoretically) be done on a computer.Pretty funny to use Q as your example field since I don't think ultra finitists would believe in it.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 08:34:56 2017 No.9396443 File: 10 KB, 280x272, 1514376870217.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9396196>QEDkek
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 08:36:32 2017 No.9396444 File: 53 KB, 720x529, 1469915634067.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 08:40:33 2017 No.9396447 >>9396232>>9396278With the usual ordering of $\mathbb{R}$there is no such thing as "the next biggest number"Your arguments make no sense whatsoever.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 08:48:47 2017 No.9396453 >>9395935>>9395994 >>9395998 >>9396002 >>9396019>>9396032>t. butt blasted atheists
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 08:58:47 2017 No.9396462 finity works better with real world measurements where precision is arbitrarily limited by the tools at hand. Beyond that precision, acknowledging that something approaches infinity adds no information so it tends to be as frustratingly useless as things like intelligent design. This seems more of an engineering complaint versus an autistic one.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 09:16:21 2017 No.9396474 >>9396073If you suffer from brainletism, then yes. Meaning requires room for thought.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 09:21:48 2017 No.9396482 File: 21 KB, 208x225, 1514330948833.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9396196It is a real number, because we sense it as a 1 in the physical world.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 09:24:08 2017 No.9396485 >>9396232Define the difference between 0.0...1 and 0 pls
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 09:26:25 2017 No.9396487 File: 68 KB, 800x600, 1513733938675.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9396482I guess 0.999.... is its own universe, that expands itself to the untangible border 1.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 11:54:23 2017 No.9396707 >>93961170.999... is just a different notation for $\lim\limits_{n \to \infty} \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n} \frac{9}{10^i}$. This thing makes sense if and only if the limit actually exists. The limit actually exists and it is 1. 0.999... is not its own thing. It's denoting the limit of that series/sequence. If you want the definition of a limit, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(%CE%B5,_%CE%B4)-definition_of_limit#Precise_statement_and_related_statements.Now back to the main topic.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 12:16:01 2017 No.9396744 *looses zeno's arrow*
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 12:27:59 2017 No.9396768 File: 31 KB, 480x531, 6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9395934I've been seeing this on the same finitist threads. How sad that the CS fags don't realize that Math extends far beyond their puny CPUs.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 12:30:29 2017 No.9396774 >>9396117>cannot evaluate to a finite answer in finite timeBut it can retard. This is basic Calc 1 shit, look up "Limits at Infinity" it'll be in one of the earlier chapters bc of how easy it is to understand.>assuming $0.\bar{0}1$ existsfucking disgusting
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 12:36:54 2017 No.9396787 The easiest way to prove that 0.(9) = 1 is to use base 3 you brainlets. In fact the method is pretty general, in that for any rational number with an infinite periodic representation in base x there exists base y in which its representation is finite.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 13:04:56 2017 No.9396838 >>9396787Uh no.>>9396117For every N modulo 3 limit to infinity, 1/3 in that baseN × 3 easily equates to 1.0.In base3, 1/3 = 0.10.1 + 0.1 = 0.20.2 + 0.1 = 1.0$0.\bar{9}$ is not a number in base 10, and truthfully $0.\overline{N}_{base(N+1)}$ is not a valid number in any base. Brainlets think $0.\bar{9}$ must exist though because $0.\bar{3} × 3$ seems to evaluate to it, but only cause brainlets dont understand that a number $\bar{N}$ is not related to a number $N$.They incorrectly evaluate $0.\bar{3} × 3 = 0.\bar{9}$ cause they treat $\bar{3}$ to mean the same as 3, but with using that logic $0.\bar{3} × 4 = 1.\bar{3}2$, which having used the same exact logic to get $0.\bar{9}$, now returns the incorrect answer.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 13:21:00 2017 No.9396886 >>9395934>My theory is that finitist thought is more attractive to those with a computation background, since computers can only compute up to finite precision, and can only deal with a finite amount of objects, both in memory and in principle.Nah.A) Most programmers don't know or care much about hardware issues like that. A minority are deeply familiar with both, but everyone else is either hardware or software, and software people are all about abstraction free from physical concerns.B) Object oriented programming is literally applied Platonism e.g. you instantiate objects that participate in abstract blueprint classes.C) The limiting factors you brought up aren't unique to computers, they apply to everything else too e.g. human thinking isn't any less limited than artificial computation, both are classically physical cause and effect based functional processes.So if anything, I would bet the average programmer is way more sympathetic to a framework that uses infinities than one which tries to avoid them.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 13:24:08 2017 No.9396891 File: 60 KB, 825x1201, 1514175887996 (1).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9396838actually that example was a little wrong too$0.\bar{33} × 4$ might evaluate to $1.\bar{3}2$a megabrainlette might see $0.\bar{3} × 4 = 1.\bar{2}$either way, treating $\bar{n}$ like it's natural number n results in the wrong answer, so $0.\bar{9}$ as a result from $\frac{1}{3}×3$ is a wrong answer too.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 14:09:41 2017 No.9396981 >>9396174>Lazy lists are one kind of way computers deal with the infinite.You can't represent an uncountable set as a lazy list.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 14:16:07 2017 No.9396997 >>9396981>You can't represent an uncountable set as a lazy list.natnums = [1..]You now have the natural numbers in a Haskell list. It'll give you however many elements you need in a give operation through lazy evaluation. And no, it does still count, there are many examples of infinitie set manipulation handled this way in Haskell. It works no matter how much you don't like it.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 14:18:25 2017 No.9397003 >>9396997Uncountable, not infinite.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 14:31:19 2017 No.9397033 File: 44 KB, 383x499, cs math.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9396997>uncountable set>natnumscslets, everyone
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 14:49:24 2017 No.9397070 >>9396981But there are other ways to represent uncountable sets.Lean for example let's you use a set membership predicate to define a set.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 14:54:48 2017 No.9397076 >>9397070Doesn't that constrain you to constructible sets?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructible_universe
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 14:56:37 2017 No.9397082 File: 713 KB, 512x768, 1514317516287.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9396997>haskelloh boy the one language designed literally just to do abstract math and reinforce the concept that you're totally not doing something that is worthless.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 14:57:43 2017 No.9397085 >>9397082This is why I love Haskell. Its higher barrier to entry helps keep the brainlets out.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 15:20:17 2017 No.9397129 >>9397076I'm not sure (haven't done much set theory).Can you give an example of a non-constructible set?
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 16:51:37 2017 No.9397273 >>9395918It doesn't matter if infinity is real or not- it isn't useful. Nothing humans have to deal with is infinite. It's just a concept that useless number pushers mess around with all day to no purpose.And even if it is real, humans- who are finite beings- can't ever comprehend it. People pretend to comprehend infinity but no one can. So once again, it is useless to even talk about infinity.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 16:54:42 2017 No.9397281 File: 91 KB, 645x729, b90.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9397273>It doesn't matter if infinity is real or not- it isn't useful.>it is useless to even talk about infinity.>calculus is useless>analysis is useless>I'm retarded
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 16:59:24 2017 No.9397288 >>9397273>People pretend to comprehend infinity but no one can.Are you fucking autistic? Are you stuck in the 19th century? Mathematicians deal with infinities and prove theorems about them all the time, you worthless sack of shit. Just because YOU are too braindead to understand these concepts doesn't mean everyone else is.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:00:19 2017 No.9397291 >>9397281Name me one example of a practical usage of the concept of infinity. >>9397288A brain with a few billion cells can't comprehend infinity.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:02:08 2017 No.9397295 File: 14 KB, 478x523, d04.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9397273>People pretend to comprehend infinity but no one can.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:04:58 2017 No.9397306 >>9397291>Name me one example of a practical usage of the concept of infinity.anything involving limits
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:05:33 2017 No.9397308 >>9397291>Name me one example of a practical usage of the concept of infinity.>Foundation of caculus and analysis>A brain with a few billion cells can't comprehend infinity.Holy shit, you're even dumber than I thought.There are ~100 billion neurons in the human brain. Are you claiming mathematics can't be done with numbers greater than 100 billion, you fucking retard?
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:07:38 2017 No.9397312 >>9397295All of those reside completely in theory and have no practical value. Those don't apply to the physical world.>>9397308>There are ~100 billion neurons in the human brain. Are you claiming mathematics can't be done with numbers greater than 100 billion, you fucking retard?The human mind can't truly comprehend any numbers above 100
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:09:29 2017 No.9397315 File: 77 KB, 645x729, 80c.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9397312>calculus>no practical value>The human mind can't truly comprehend any numbers above 100>said unironically
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:09:38 2017 No.9397316 >>9397273>humans- who are finite beings- can't ever comprehend it.What kind of retarded logic is that?>humans- who are carbon based beings- can't even comprehend silicon>humans- who are meat based beings- can't even comprehend plants>humans- who are bipedal based beings- can't even comprehend wheels>People pretend to comprehend infinity but no one can.You don't comprehend what comprehension is.primes = sieve [2..] where sieve (p:xs) = p : sieve [x | x <- xs, x mod p /= 0]Ooooooo I'm using a SPOOKY infinite list, who knows what it means? Surely not us poor finite humans, it must only coincidentally produce the expected results because there's no way any of us could ever actually UNDERSTAND infinity, it just like, goes on forever, man *bong toke*, you can't count to forever, mannnnnnn
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:10:52 2017 No.9397321 >>9397312>The human mind can't truly comprehend any numbers above 100We are reaching levels of retardation that shouldn't be possible.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:11:50 2017 No.9397323 >>9397321>We are reaching levels of retardation that shouldn't be possible.So > Level 100?
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:12:20 2017 No.9397326 File: 20 KB, 534x534, laugh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9397312>The human mind can't truly comprehend any numbers above 100lmfao, you can't count to 101?
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:15:13 2017 No.9397331 >>9397326You only think you counted to 101, your mind skips one of the numbers to make it work without you consciously noticing, usually somewhere around the 80-90 range.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:15:42 2017 No.9397335 >>9397315>>9397321>>9397323>>9397326>lmfao, you can't count to 101?I can count to it but then I forget the numbers I counted before it as I'm going along- finite memory.Just think about it, if I try to picture roughly 100 fajitas, for example, I can, but if I go over that it goes all fuzzy and they disappear.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:18:33 2017 No.9397345 >>9397335>You only think you counted to 101, your mind skips one of the numbers to make it work without you consciously noticing, usually somewhere around the 80-90 range.Simple question: What is 100 + 100?
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:19:50 2017 No.9397348 >>9397345200, obviously. But I didn't do the sum in my head. I did 2+2 and just added in the zero's
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:22:18 2017 No.9397356 >>9397335You're claiming we can't do mathematics and prove stuff about quantities that are larger than what we can immediately visualize.So pretty much all of science, physics, chemistry, and biology is useless. OK.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:24:33 2017 No.9397362 >>9397348Can you not conceive of a situation where it is useful to deal with quantities >100?If so, you're autistic.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:25:25 2017 No.9397366 >>9397335If you could easily visualize everything expressible via mathematics there would be no point in having mathematics.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:28:39 2017 No.9397376 >>9397362Yeah I can see the use, that's where maths comes in I guess. But infinity is different. Not only can't we comprehend it, but it doesn't exist in the finite world of matter we inhabit. Nothing can be done with infinity. It's not just that we can't visualise it, we can't conceive of it at all. We can use maths to conceive of massive numbers, but not infinity, which is a vacuous and nonsensical concept.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:34:55 2017 No.9397395 >>9397376Let me guess: You're still doing arithmetic and haven't started calculus?
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:36:30 2017 No.9397402 >>9397376>infinity, which is a vacuous and nonsensical concept.Stop.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:43:31 2017 No.9397426 >>9397376>what is a limit
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:48:26 2017 No.9397433 >>9397426It's a load of bullshit that doesn't apply to reality is what it is
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:50:34 2017 No.9397435 File: 34 KB, 800x638, 1512828607369.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9397433>apply to reality
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:50:34 2017 No.9397436 >>9397433>what is a derivative
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:55:15 2017 No.9397445 >>9397433lol ok
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 18:50:29 2017 No.9397547 finitism triggers math autists because it reminds them that their entire field is based on arbitrary axioms that have unintuitive and nonsensical conclusions as a result
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 18:51:59 2017 No.9397550 File: 44 KB, 500x500, 1513584407617.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9397312Its true i just tried counting to 100 but for some reason i counted 86, 87, 88, 89, 80, which made me go like woah. Took a second to say "90" then start counting again.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 18:56:36 2017 No.9397558 >>9395940Calm down Xavier.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 19:03:42 2017 No.9397573 >>9396278fucking read a book on the hyper reals in in thepin kys
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 19:06:23 2017 No.9397582 >>9397547It's way more autistic to feel the need to introduce a bunch of new axioms just to reinvent the mathematics we already have in a way that doesn't use an idea you dislike.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 19:20:47 2017 No.9397607   >>9397573[math[0.\bar{9}$is a hyperreal  >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 19:22:45 2017 No.9397612 >>9397573[math]0.\bar{9}$ is a hyperreal
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 19:32:06 2017 No.9397624 >>9397612No, it's not. Not in the standard notation.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 20:08:50 2017 No.9397702 >>9397433>what is the last 100 years of physics
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 20:37:51 2017 No.9397742 >>9397624Its afflicted with the same problem as the infitesimal though. If one is, so must also the other. You might be beginning to realize how retarded math is and how much needs to change to produce real results.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 20:38:58 2017 No.9397745 Either all of mathematics is wrong because a bunch of brainless retards on 4chan "proved it".Or the brainless retards are just brainless retards that get triggered when they come across stuff they don't understand properly/don't like.Sorry but I am siding with my boys Tao, Gauss, Erdos, Hardy, Fermat, Lagrange, Einstein, Euler, Galois, Abel, Russel, Godel, Klein, etc. and not the NJ Wildberger + retarded fags team.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 20:52:00 2017 No.9397760 >>9397745ad hominem, you have no proof and anything you can put forth is just an unfalsifiable theory
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 20:56:00 2017 No.9397768 >>9395926get the fucking jewish doodles out of my math pls i literally exchange the aleph with capital N and bet with capital V whenever i have to write that shit out.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 21:03:19 2017 No.9397773 >>9397760Well we have developed an axiomatic system that works and have proven its validity, and the fact that 0.999... = 1 many different ways. The fact that you don't understand why the proof works is your problem, not mine.If you wat to invent a "finitist axiomatic system" where 0.999... is not 1 go ahead, people like NJ Wildberger are trying to do that but it's not complex enough for any use to come from it. With finitism, we cannot do any sort of physics or even just prove interesting theorems (that are provable otherwise).The correct side of the arguments has many many proofs, which is why most people know a name like Einstein but not Wildberger. You come in here with your brainlet shit and try to say all of math is wrong, well why don't you have a proof?And I mean a real proof, not the kind of B.S. that I previously invalidated like>>9396117You want to make a theory of math where only numbers up to 100 exist, fine go ahead. But don't disturb a math class when a professor writes the number 101 on the board.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 21:16:29 2017 No.9397781 >>9397773Every proof for $0.\bar{9}$ is literally false and easily contradicted. So far there is only 1 way to artificially construct the number via$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \stackrel{+}{=} \frac{9}{10^n}$It really isn't a number and any other problem that might seem to result $0.\bar{9}$ actually just returns $1.0$ where $0.\bar{9}$ is actually the objectively wrong result earned by misinterpreting the question.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 21:16:32 2017 No.9397782 >>9397760>An "unfalsifiable theory"Brainlet, that's what math is, its proven as in: Not possible to prove false. We aren't experimentally testing numbers to see if they are equal.You idiots just put together words that sound like they are what smart people use but you don't know what math is, what a limit is, etc.Read a book.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 21:18:33 2017 No.9397783 >>9397781Meant to say any proof for $0.\bar{9} = 1$ but it works either way considering it isnt a number
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 21:21:13 2017 No.9397787 >>9397781What the fuck? How would you define 0.9 ...then? If 0.9... is not the given sum of $\frac{9}{10^n}$? Go ahead, give me a good definition of what the symbol 0.9... denotes.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 21:35:00 2017 No.9397799 >>9397787Thats just it though.$0.\bar{9} = /sum_{n=1}{\infty} \stackrel{+}{=} \frac{9}{10^n}$9/9 = 3/3 = 1.0$0.\bar{8} + 0.\bar{1} = 1.0$the problem of thinking it exists betond that sum is based on misinterpretation of numbers and thinking $0.\bar{9}$ occurs more often than it actually does.For example, $0.\bar{3} × 3 = 0.\bar{9}$ is a wrong answer, because it misinterprets what $\bar{3}$ is and the misinterpretations stems from the fact it looks like a normal 3. If the above solution is supposed to be valid, the same logic applied to the problems and answers of $0.\bar{3} × 4 = 1.\bar{2}$ or $0.\bar{33} × 4 = 1.\bar{3}2$ would also be considered valid, even though these answers are plainly wrong. In all three examples, the repeating 3 is treated as a substitute for 3 and presumptiously contatenated. In the old days before anyone knew better, they'd do 1/3 × 3 = 0.999... and think "this makes sense" even though they already know deep down that three thirds is nothing but 1 whole, and I don't think these dingdongs really understood the ramifications of infinite repetition so they just let this shit slide.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 21:42:34 2017 No.9397813 >>9397799But the sum exists, it is convergent, and basic grade 10 textbook will tell you how to sum geometric series like this. 0.9... is defined as the given sum, which when evaluated is equal to 1. So we agree?Using stuff like 0.3...*4 = 1.2.... is clearly incorrect, rather it should be computed as the sum of 0.3...*4 = $\frac{4*3}{10^n}$ which is 4/3
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 21:47:05 2017 No.9397815 >>9396073this
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 21:47:13 2017 No.9397817 >>9397813If $0.\bar{9}$ converges to 1 in the same exact way an infinitesimal concept like $0.\bar{0}1$ converges to zero, we are only accepting that $0.\bar{9}$ is a hyperreal and still not naturally occuring in the similiar scope as the infinitesimal.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 21:49:45 2017 No.9397820 No, nowhere do hyperreals follow from what has been said. We are accepting that 0.9... is a notation for the sum, nothing more.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 21:53:58 2017 No.9397822 If infinite is real than it's possible Earth could be flat. Like an infinite plane with antarctica being a barrier to unknown lands. What do you guys think?
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 21:55:24 2017 No.9397825 >>9396002>>9395998Obviously you're retarded. It isn't saying that those things are the exact same thing and a person can only believe one of those 3 things. It's saying they have similar belief systems and outlooks towards the subject it is describing.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 21:57:27 2017 No.9397828 >>9395935>>9396002>>9396019>>9396032Its analogous with respect to the belief of the existence of infinity/infinite sets. It has nothing to do with you belief in god, its just a tool the writer used to explain the different stances on infinities. You see, many people are familiar with religion, by making a comparison with something familiar it helps people learn unfamiliar concepts.Platonists believe infinity exists>Religious people believe god existsFinitists believe infinity doesnt exist>Atheists believe god doesn’t existFormalists dont know and dont care whether or not infinity exists>Agnostics dont know and... you get the fucking pointThe fact that i had to explain this to you means you need to leave this board.>>>/b/Seems closer to your IQ. Try there.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 22:32:37 2017 No.9397861 >>9397828*drops mic*
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 22:43:08 2017 No.9397875 >>9397315>>9397321>>9397326counting isn't comprehending the quantity 100, you dumb fucks
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 23:16:50 2017 No.9397916 File: 207 KB, 692x960, 1510723646424.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9397817What is this convergance bullshit we aren't rounding this isnt fuckin 5th grade.$0.\bar{9}$ doesn't converge to 1, it converges to even more 9's. The fact 9 is a maximal integer is completely regardless to the fact $\bar{N}$ is not related to $N$ if $\sum_{n=2}^{\infty} 0.9 \stackrel{+}{=} \frac{9}{10^{n}} = 0.\bar{9}$then $\sum_{n=2}^{\infty} 0.1 \stackrel{-}{=} \frac{9}{10^{n}} = 0.\bar{0}1$We cleary have all the information we need from various proofs and tests and all we need to do is consolidate them instead of continuing to pretend $0.\bar{9} = 1$As much as infinity is actually an abstract concept that mathematicians pretend to fully understand, they should also understand that there are different number bases like hexidecimal and that $0.F _{16} = 0.9375_{10} > 0.9_{10}$ where that every step of$\sum_{n=2}^{\infty} \big( 0.9_{10} \stackrel{+}{=} \frac{9}{10^{n}} \big) < \big( 0.F_{16} \stackrel{+}{=} \frac{F}{10^{n}} \big)$ proves there are numbers greater than $0.\bar{9}$and dont be retarded with>i-if you mark on a number line every 9th, you'll eventually run out of room and just mark 1.0cause if you try to do the same with $0.\bar{1}$ you'll eventually make it to 2.0 of you're that retarded, or dumb enough to say $0.\bar{1} = 0.12$like damn, fuck. 9 is not a special number that gets to play by different rules than all the other numbers.
 >> http://i.4cdn.org/sci/15143175(...) Wed Dec 27 23:22:50 2017 No.9397925 >>9397916Actually, I haven't seen anything stating 0.9¯ = 2 Do you really think that is how this stuff works?Technically 0.9¯ is only approachable from infinite sums. There is no "other" knowing of it, except from the blatant assumption that it is different.I mean, if you want to write it out to prove what you are saying is true, then we can do it that way.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 23:36:04 2017 No.9397947 >>9397768Antisemitism is disgusting.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 23:41:23 2017 No.9397957 File: 7 KB, 420x420, b36.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9397947$\frac{JewsKilledJesus}{JesusWasSemitic} \approx JewsAreAntisemites$
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 23:42:28 2017 No.9397960 File: 103 KB, 1920x1080, 1488294775841.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> http://i.4cdn.org/sci/15143175(...) Wed Dec 27 23:42:43 2017 No.9397961 >>9397957Jesus was a white man you fucking SJW.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 23:51:32 2017 No.9397974 >>9397331>around the 80-90 rangeyour IQ has very little to do with this
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 23:53:56 2017 No.9397980 >>9397916\displaystyle\begin{align*} 1 = \left (\frac{15}{16} + \frac{1}{16} \right ) &= \text{0x0.F} + \frac{1}{16} \\= \text{0x0.F} + \left ( \frac{15}{256} + \frac{1}{256} \right ) &= \text{0x0.FF} + \frac{1}{256}\\= \text{0x0.FF} + \left ( \frac{15}{4096} + \frac{1}{4096} \right ) &= \text{0x0.FFF} + \frac{1}{4096} \\= \text{0x0.FFF} +\left ( \frac{15}{65536} + \frac{1}{65536} \right ) &= \text{0x0.FFFF} + \frac{1}{65536} \\&\vdots\end{align*}\\ \displaystyle\Rightarrow \text{0x}0.\overline{\text{F}} = 1
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 23:59:48 2017 No.9397984 >>9397782Unfalsifiable as in there would be no way to show it was false if it actually was. No shit you can't show it to be false if it's true.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:10:28 2017 No.9397997 >>9397980literal retardation. No, it doesnt equal 1, ot clearly equals solely $0.\bar{F}$fuck it, have fun with this instead$\sum_{\stackrel{n=1}{k=10+n}}^{\infty} \big( \stackrel{+}{=} \frac{9}{10^{n}} \big)_{10} < \big( \stackrel{+}{=} \frac{k-1}{10^{n}} \big)_{k}$
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:11:59 2017 No.9398000 >>9397997please type the line that doesn't equal 1
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:16:08 2017 No.9398008 >all concepts of mathematics aren't "real", aren't present in any form in our universe if not in our imagination; there's nothing special about the axiom of infinity on this regard>a lot of math can be used to model realit, as physicists do; but that doesn't mean that math is essencially ral or anything, what happens is that those models capture partially (often enough) of the structure of our universe so they serve as a trustworthy tool for predictons and simulations>there's no empirical confirmation of anything in our universe that is infinite in any kind of quantity; finitists seem right when they say that infinite isn't real (i.e., in our actual physical universe)>mathematicians don't give (or shouldn't) a shit about math not being actually something existing on our universe; modeling is enough for the applied and a bunch of physicists, and most the pure ones just enjoy playing in ZFC
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:18:21 2017 No.9398014 File: 124 KB, 600x570, 060.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9398000The last line.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:20:18 2017 No.9398017 >>9398014>the implicationso, every one before that equals 1 ?
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:22:10 2017 No.9398019 >>9398017>implying thats what you wroteevery line before that is some F's after 0.Flike i said, fuck it solve$\sum_{\stackrel{n=1}{k=10+n}}^{\infty} \big( \stackrel{+}{=} \frac{9}{10^{n}} \big)_{10} < \big( \stackrel{+}{=} \frac{k-1}{10^{n}} \big)_{k}$ instead
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:25:29 2017 No.9398022   >>9398019$\bar{\infty}_{\infty} = 1$
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:26:24 2017 No.9398024 >>9398019so, every one equals 1 ?Nothing hand wavy about it, punch the line of your choice in your favorite calculator and come back when you get something that isn't 1
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:26:49 2017 No.9398025 >>9398019$0.\bar{\infty}_{\infty} = 1$
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:27:56 2017 No.9398026 File: 9 KB, 211x239, 1513971000563.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9398024>>9398025criminally retarded
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:28:53 2017 No.9398029 >>9398026not an argument
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:30:50 2017 No.9398030 File: 3 KB, 280x272, cGIay9e.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:31:41 2017 No.9398031
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:32:23 2017 No.9398032 >>9397875Comprehending doesn't mean visualizing instantaneously you dumb fuck.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:34:46 2017 No.9398036 >>9397825I didn't say it's saying that those things are the exact same thing, you fucking clown. I'm (correctly) saying the analogy is retarded.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:37:52 2017 No.9398042 >>9397916>What is this convergance bullshithttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_seriesbet you failed Calc I you filthy peasant.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:40:13 2017 No.9398047 >>9397828So for any X, you claim that people who accept/reject X are analogous to religious people/atheists? Can you really not see why that analogy is retarded, you subhuman brainlet?
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:44:02 2017 No.9398050 >>9397960A real number is an element of a complete ordered field. It's that simple.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:44:09 2017 No.9398051 File: 139 KB, 971x565, 1514403883630.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9398042Read the whole post
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:48:20 2017 No.9398053 >>9398051http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum+from+n%3D1+to+infinity+of+9%2F10%5EnDo you dispute this basic fact? Yes or no?
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:58:37 2017 No.9398064 >>9398053He won't answer.At this point he either calls you an idiot using some lame meme image, or he moves goalposts via a whataboutism.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 01:17:25 2017 No.9398085 >>9398053>>9398064http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum+from+n%3D1+to+infinity+of+1%2F10+-+(9%2F10%5En)&incCompTime=truethis is how you can tell the math you've learned is worthless because it's wrong.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 01:21:08 2017 No.9398094 File: 8 KB, 363x364, 1514061519880.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9398085kek wrong formathttp://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum+from+n%3D2+to+infinity+of+1%2F10+-+%289%2F10%5En%29Anyway$\sum_{\stackrel{n=1}{k=10+n}}^{\stackrel{n\rightarrow\infty}{k\rightarrow\infty}} \bigg( \big( \frac{9}{10}_{10} \stackrel{+}{=} \frac{9}{10^{n}} \big)_{10} < \Big(\sum_{g=1}^{g\rightarrow\infty} \big( \frac{k-1}{10}_{k}\stackrel{+}{=} \frac{k-1}{10^{g}} \big)_{k} \Big) \bigg)$
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 01:25:14 2017 No.9398099 File: 42 KB, 562x437, hahaha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9398085Of course it diverges, wtf is the 1/10 doing in the sum?You get inf * 1/10 - 1 = inf -1 = inf
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 01:39:35 2017 No.9398118 >>9398085$\frac{1}{10}-\frac{9}{10^n} \neq \frac{9}{10^n}$ you irredeemable tool.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 01:44:42 2017 No.9398122 File: 142 KB, 617x347, 1509768568403.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9398094http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Sum%5Bk-1%2Fk%5En%2C+%7Bn%2C+1%2C+infinity%7D%2C+%7Bk%2C+10%2C+infinity%7D%5D>wolfram can't even evaluate ithigher math is literally brainletism masquerading as intelligencw. You give these boogrbodies wolfram and haskell and suddenly they feel right at home despite those things being explicitly programmed and designed to return answers within bounds. Fuck may as well just max out all your points in mastering minesweeper.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 01:44:51 2017 No.9398123 >>9398094The literal fuck
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 01:46:02 2017 No.9398126 File: 30 KB, 481x425, 1514070409979.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 01:47:04 2017 No.9398128
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 01:48:11 2017 No.9398129 >>9398126What's your point, fool?
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 02:37:30 2017 No.9398165 infinity exists nowhere in nature or the universe.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 02:45:47 2017 No.9398175 >>9398094>((()))I bet the jews did this
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 02:48:12 2017 No.9398178 >>9397961Jesus looked Lebanese.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 02:49:27 2017 No.9398180 File: 2.67 MB, 400x225, 1454405823973.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9398053http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum+of+n%3D1+to+infinity+of+9%2F10%5En>more terms>show points>says it reaches 1.0 @ 7>requery n=1 to 7>0.9999999>???????>requery n=1 to 20>0.99999999999999999999>?????????????????>requery n=1 to 56>0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999>¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿>requery n=1 to 57>$\frac{999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999}{1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000} = 1.0$ye ok sure.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 02:49:41 2017 No.9398181 finitism = Republican/Conservativeinfinitism = Democrat/Socialist
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 03:01:59 2017 No.9398192 >>939818057 digits of accuracy is neatly octodecillion or 1 with 57 zeroes after it. Wolfram is cutting corners
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 03:02:02 2017 No.9398193 >>9398126>>9398064 still applies
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 03:08:21 2017 No.9398197 File: 16 KB, 498x467, 1512340128839.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9398193>>9398180>>9398192foreverbrainlet
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 03:15:00 2017 No.9398201 >>9398197ooooooooh, another lame meme the puppy shat on the carpet again
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 03:16:47 2017 No.9398204 >>9398180>>9398192It also initially reached it at 7 decimals since that is the accuracy of a $float$ in computers. To get 57 decimals would be a $long long long double$, so in any case even though wolfram can work with big numbers, there is still a definite upper limit, and of course the simulation of infinite limits is merely face value.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 03:17:38 2017 No.9398205 >>9398123It's hilarious, can't tell which is worse, his latex or his "math"
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 03:20:02 2017 No.9398207 File: 60 KB, 1024x558, 1509533757591m.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9398205>ywn be this psychotically booty blastedKeep crying
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 03:21:01 2017 No.9398210
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 03:23:33 2017 No.9398213 >>9398204Of course its face value. Doing infinite work would require infinite time even with a computer that can do trillions of calculations per second. Math majors without computer science knowledge are like an art major without limbs.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 03:37:33 2017 No.9398224 >>9398210$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{9}{10^n} = 0.\bar{9}$Sorry pal but thems the breaks. you can cut it off at some arbitrary point like the 57th digit and round as wolfram does, but you're not really going to infinity then are ya.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 03:47:36 2017 No.9398229
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 04:09:02 2017 No.9398238 >>9398204http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum+of+n%3D1+to+191+of+1%2F2%5EnIt seems to have arbitrary precision but with some extra rules. It likes turning repeating 0.9's into 1 after it's reached some kind of limit of 9's, so depending on how you're trying to get the answer it will take fewer or greater steps to reach that limit. Here for $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{2^n} it takes 191 steps to reach a decimal accuracy that fills its limit registers with 9's to figure it wants to show 1.0, but if you click on more digits the result will change back to a 0.9999999 number so even here this show and hide more digits button bares computational accuracy on the answer even already bouunded by the rule's its trying to abide by.  >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 04:23:40 2017 No.9398244 >>9398094[math] \displaystyle\sum_{n=2}^{ \infty}\left ( \frac{1}{10} - \frac{1}{9^{n}} \right ) \\ \displaystyle= \sum_{n=1}^{ \infty}\left ( \frac{1}{10} - \frac{1}{9^{n}} \right ) - \left (\frac{1}{10} - \frac{1}{9} \right ) \\ \displaystyle= \infty -1 -1/10 + 1/9 = \infty$
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 04:24:05 2017 No.9398246 File: 147 KB, 1920x1080, 1487295147773.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] Only maths worth doing.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 04:49:21 2017 No.9398273 File: 195 KB, 1650x1050, njw.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9395918See the thing about using real numbers is that they work. Physics works, biology works, space stations work and the computers that you use work, to allow to post dumb shit about how real numbers don't work.If you guys want to say that real numbers don't exist and there are no numbers bigger than 100, fine. But early on people realized there is use in defining things like "reals, convergence, imaginaries" because it allows to do stuff that we couldn't without them like calculus which is used everywhere today. And this led to what are known as geometric series, as in, $\sum {\frac{9}{10^n}}$, which can be evaluated with this new, interesting, mathematical framework (outside of just naturals) to 1. As a shorthand we sometimes use 0.999... to denote this sum.Sometimes people who don't understand the more advanced math system think that 0.999... is like a process of adding on the digit 9 to the decimal number 0.9 and can never be really completed. This leads them to the incorrect conclusion that 0.999... isn't 1. I recommend that such people either take a basic calculus course in highschool or take a basic real analysis course in university.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 04:56:32 2017 No.9398277 >>9398273Lol no$\sum_{\stackrel{n=1}{k=1}}^{\infty}\frac{k}{k+1^n}$ has been shown to simply just equal $0.\bar{9}$.you only get one with lazy evaluation.YOGOWLE
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 05:00:29 2017 No.9398284 >>9398273>I recommend that ... take ... highschool ... university.Good luck with that, they can't even take a shower.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 05:02:34 2017 No.9398285 >>9398277>deliriousgo back to masturbating at bus stations
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 05:04:31 2017 No.9398287 File: 114 KB, 256x256, otfr7LYS.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9398285...are you projecting or do you know people who've done this?
 >> http://i.4cdn.org/sci/15143175(...) Thu Dec 28 05:06:03 2017 No.9398288 >>9398277What is $0.\overline{9}^{2}$?
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 05:09:20 2017 No.9398293 >>9398287we've all seen your videos anonyour condom is on all wrong too so you can't handle latex there either
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 05:15:13 2017 No.9398300 File: 179 KB, 645x729, 1514387854434.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 05:21:56 2017 No.9398303 >>9396019>"believing" religion to work, when in reality religion produces working results regardless if you "believe" while atheism aka lazy brainletism doesn't give enough shit to actually figure anything out towards the effect of either contradicting believe or supporting it.What?
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 05:22:24 2017 No.9398304 >>9398300yup, that's how you look on the videos just before the climaxno thanks for reminding me
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 05:28:35 2017 No.9398309 >>9398288if you meant $(0.\bar{8}+0.\bar{1})^2$ the answer is 1. Its undefined for $0.\bar{9}$ but since you like to nig around you were meaning to ask $1^2$ which, $0.\bar{8} + 0.\bar{1}$ neatly sums.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 05:30:44 2017 No.9398311 File: 81 KB, 315x360, 1511761761718.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9398304(((((You)))))
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 05:41:09 2017 No.9398320 >>9398311lame meme time again
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 05:51:55 2017 No.9398333 >>9398320Does pointing out that you constantly et shit on make it easier to deal with? You'd think simply not responding would be the more tactical approach, no?
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 06:01:38 2017 No.9398341 >>9398333>simply not responding would be the more tactical approach, no?how about taking your own advise
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 11:24:17 2017 No.9398699 File: 5 KB, 250x174, q5OL30E.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9398341I couldn't care less if I make a fool out of you though. Your humiliation is very low on my list of priorities. You are simply getting ruined as a byproduct of your own replies. I come here to talk about math and you come here to cry about tumblr feelings so it's not like there isn't evidence only one of us needs to fuck off.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 11:30:21 2017 No.9398712 File: 19 KB, 333x500, snooty.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9398205>the abstract way which he writes a sum of infinite values is so much more unrefined than the abstract way I write a sum of infinite values, charles. I mean, really, who does he think he is trying to instantiate multiple variables? I'd wager he doesn't even know math at all!https://youtu.be/4gO7uemm6Yo
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 11:35:11 2017 No.9398718 >>9396019>believes the existence of imaginary friends>doesn't believe infinite sets exist>mfw
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 11:40:03 2017 No.9398723 >>9398718Id you're the same tard who was talkin about jerkin off in a bus station, the only imaginary friend you've got is straight up lying to you about how to respond to or interpret conversation. No joke, you are fairly mentally damaged right now.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 11:41:56 2017 No.9398729 >>9396146No. Kys.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 11:48:39 2017 No.9398745 >>9398723Not the same guy. He's probably right if you disagree with him, though.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 11:54:33 2017 No.9398761   >>9398729$A\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}9/10^n$$B\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}15/16^n$$A < B$$0.\bar{9} \neq 1$Evaluate and compare a partial sum for any equal n without using wolfram alpha or a computer lacking true arbitrary precision.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 11:54:37 2017 No.9398762 >>9396019Please, put some effort in your bait
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 11:57:41 2017 No.9398770 File: 255 KB, 726x544, 1509576930017.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9398745Thats really retarded logic. Either he made no claims and therefore isnt right about anything and is only senselessly attacking, or his first position was disagree with me which then makes me right.And i doubt anyone would defend him so you can't really imply you aren't him, you fuckin' wierdo.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 11:59:36 2017 No.9398775   >>9398729A$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}9/10^{n}$B$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}15/16^{n}$$A < B$$0.\bar{9} \neq 1$Evaluate and compare the partial sums for any equal n without using wolfram alpha or a computer lacking true arbitrary precision.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 12:00:52 2017 No.9398779 >>9397426Not him, but limits have nothing to do with infinity
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 12:03:53 2017 No.9398782 >>9398729A$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}9/10^{n}_{base10}$B$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}F/10^{n}_{base16}$$A < B$$0.\bar{9} \neq 1$Evaluate and compare the partial sums for any equal n without using wolfram alpha or a computer lacking true arbitrary precision.If the latex fucks up again i dont care.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 12:06:42 2017 No.9398786 >>9398770cry me a river snowflake
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 12:10:29 2017 No.9398795 >>9398770oh look you missed a bus again
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 12:12:30 2017 No.9398798 >>9398770>or his first position was disagree with me which then makes me right.>Thats really retarded logicIsn't it already time for your daily prayers to wild burger?
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 12:25:37 2017 No.9398824 >>9398782http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Sum%5B9%2F10%5En%2C+%7Bn%2C+1%2C+64%7D%5D+divided+by+Sum%5B15%2F16%5En%2C+%7Bn%2C+1%2C+64%7D%5Dif we work within the shortcomings of wolfram and substitute $\infty$ with 64, it will give us a fraction and only try to approximate it to 1 rather than outright equate to 1, even though the fractions have entirely different strings of numbers.Change 64 to 65 and wolfram cant solve it.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 12:33:19 2017 No.9398840 >>9395918Shit stale meme only spergs are still too dumb to post
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 13:00:06 2017 No.9398883 You can imagine numbers as being infinite something, and infinite nothing (zero) merging together and separating equally and infinitely.Therefore all numbers are ultimately infinite, but to us they are finite.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 13:41:33 2017 No.9398941 File: 2 KB, 148x44, MSP3119iga7e0dbabaiba00005iihh58d88d3h71f.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] realy makes u think
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 13:41:41 2017 No.9398943 File: 6 KB, 244x206, j23g90924gj02k4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9398824>>9398224>tfw they don't know what a limit ishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(ε,_δ)-definition_of_limit#Precise_statement_and_related_statements
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 13:56:08 2017 No.9398957 File: 34 KB, 601x508, e7db9e4e33592de521b23e955084488e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9398943>if i pretend he's wrong then he will be wrong
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 14:08:08 2017 No.9398981 File: 140 KB, 1278x990, 2017-12-28 11.07.29.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9398943rly maks u think
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 14:19:17 2017 No.9399000 File: 20 KB, 306x306, 79e0f76f22f429dc6a79ebbe8f3b484d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9398981>$\frac{7}{8} = 1$>this is what mathematicians actually believe
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 14:25:24 2017 No.9399012 File: 38 KB, 413x395, 1507881703152.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9398981>graph literally and unironically shows divergence >"it converges"
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 14:29:54 2017 No.9399019 File: 136 KB, 412x304, Screen Shot 2017-12-28 at 11.29.34 AM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 15:06:19 2017 No.9399094 http://wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Sum%5BN%5B9%2F10%5En%2C2%5D%2C+%7Bn%2C+1%2C+3%7D%5Dheres the arbitrary precision control command for wolframN[ value, digits of precision]where$\sum_{n=1}^{3} N\big[\big(\frac{9}{10^{n}}\big), 2\big]$proves $\big( \frac{9}{10} + \frac{9}{100} + \frac{9}{1000} \big) = 1$there is still a limiter working in the background but it can be used to extend the limiter beyond what it does without the command
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 15:28:55 2017 No.9399148 File: 5 KB, 308x164, laugh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9399094>Sets precision = 2>Tries to use this as an argument
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 15:36:59 2017 No.9399162 >>9399148It was merely to demonstrate where N
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 15:52:15 2017 No.9399204 >>9399162Setting the precision to infinite actually has deleterious results compared to not using NN[sum[9/(10^n), {n, 1, 7}], infinite] = 1sum[9/(10^n), {n, 1, 7}] = 0.9999999unless you plug in big numbers intentionally for precision then its only useful for minimal precision, not maximal
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 16:00:06 2017 No.9399223 >>9395940I think you are right.
 >> http://i.4cdn.org/sci/15143175(...) Thu Dec 28 16:47:07 2017 No.9399335 >>9398309This question was directed at those folks who think $0.\overline{9}$ is just an infinitely long string of nines after the decimal point.In their view of that number, if they square it there is never a terminating 1 and therefor that number squared is equal to itself.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 17:45:34 2017 No.9399464 >>9399204Is this how wolfram gets away with trying to equate 0.9... to 1?http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum%5B8%2F%2810%5En%29%2C+%7Bn%2C+1%2C+19999%7D%5Dthis summation towards 0.888... randomly just puts a 9 as the last digit even though the last operation to get that last digit is still the same operation that got all the preceeding 8's. It's like wolfram is not-so-sneakily adding an infinitisemal of rounding up the last digit. It does this for 5,6,7,8 and 9, but not for 1,2,3 or 4, and since 5 is usually the cutoff point for rounding up then its pretty clear what is going on here.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 17:55:32 2017 No.9399473 >>9399464Jesus Christ people.$\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{9}{10^k} = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \left( \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{9}{10^k} \right ) = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \left(1 - \frac{1}{10^n}\right) = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} 1 - \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{10^n} = 1 - \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{10^n} = 1 - 0 = 1$That's all there is to it. Are you going to dispute the definition of a limit as well?
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 18:07:49 2017 No.9399491 >>9399473b-but 1/3 =/= 0.333...
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 18:41:55 2017 No.9399554 >>9399491it does though
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 18:48:24 2017 No.9399561 >>9399473ah, failed calculus i see.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 18:53:06 2017 No.9399570 >>9399473Question m8, what do you imagine you're implying when you claim $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{9}{10^{n}} = 1[\math] ?  >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 19:05:45 2017 No.9399592 File: 5 KB, 212x238, thinking.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]  >> http://i.4cdn.org/sci/15143175(...) Thu Dec 28 19:20:16 2017 No.9399608 >>9399570>>9399570You know infinite sums are proved and not assumed, right?You can prove the result of the sum through induction in terms of n { f(n) }. Once you have f(n), then in this case you can find the limit using epsilon-delta definition. This is another proof.  >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 19:23:32 2017 No.9399615 File: 5 KB, 224x100, 843.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] Seems pretty airtight to me.  >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 19:49:27 2017 No.9399672 File: 39 KB, 1080x590, Its literally proveable 0.9••• cant equal 1.0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9399473>>9399608>>9399592>>9399615http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=j+%3D+9%2F%28%2810%29%5En%29%2C+k+%3D+15%2F%28%2816%29%5En%29%2C+sum%5Bj×k%2C+%7Bn%2C+1%2C+infinity%7D%5Dmy favorite part about [math]0.\bar{9} = 1$ is how you have to literally pretend there are no greater numbers than $0.\bar{9}$, if not be just satanically retarded.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 20:26:06 2017 No.9399775 File: 8 KB, 499x306, 824.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9399672You've proven wolfram alpha doesn't handle this question consistently, which is a different thing from proving 0.FFF... is greater than 0.999...It looks to me like every additional iteration of the product of 9*10^-n and E*F^-n returns a number closer to 1.27 / 32 = 0.843754347 / 5120 = 0.8490234375695547 / 819200 = 0.84905639648111287547 / 131072000 = 0.8490566024717806007547 / 20971520000 = 0.84905660376Can you tell me at what specific iteration this pattern will stop? When do the iterations of products suddenly stop getting closer to 1? After 1,000 iterations? 1,000,000 iterations?
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 20:35:14 2017 No.9399792 >>9399775they never get close enough to 1 to be considered 1.http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=j+%3D+9%2F%28%2810%29%5En%29%2C+k+%3D+15%2F%28%2816%29%5En%29%2C+sum%5Bk%3Dj%2C+%7Bn%2C+1%2C+9999%7D%5DI set the limit to 9999 here cause it wont evaluate with infinity. I test j=k at every iteration and it returns false for every iteration, that the value of J at n is not the value of K at n. I imagine setting it to infinity is breaking it because it's trying to say $\infty false + 1 true$, or just cause its a boolean evaluation problem rather than a numbers problem where fudging and rounding can surpass infinity so it would instead attempt to perform actual work on each n which it's totally not going to do given it would be infinite work and take infinite time.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 20:43:27 2017 No.9399808 Why is it so strange to trust that $0.\overline{9} \neq 1$?$0.\overline{1}$ doesn't equal anything but itself.$0.\overline{2}$ doesn't equal anything but itself.$0.\overline{3}$ doesn't equal anything but itself.$0.\overline{4}$ doesn't equal anything but itself.$0.\overline{5}$ doesn't equal anything but itself.$0.\overline{6}$ doesn't equal anything but itself.$0.\overline{7}$ doesn't equal anything but itself.$0.\overline{8}$ doesn't equal anything but itself.but [0.\overline{9}[/math] should equal itself and 1?8 out of 9 numbers can't be wrong, there is definitely some kind of self-evident proof here.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 20:47:37 2017 No.9399821 >>9399792So let's say 0.FFF... is greater than 0.999... for the sake of argument.Then 16/17 + 16/17^2 + 16/17^-3... would be greater than 0.FFF...And 17/18 + 17/18^2 + 17/18^-3... would be greater than 16/17 + 16/17^2 + 16/17^-3......Then (ω-1)/ω + (ω-1)/ω^2 + (ω-1)/ω^3... would be greater than all preceding finite denominator fraction sums.What would be the difference between 1 and (ω-1)/ω + (ω-1)/ω^2 + (ω-1)/ω^3... ?
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 20:48:14 2017 No.9399823 >>9399808proof by self-evidence is my favorite kind of mathematical proof
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 20:49:49 2017 No.9399830 >>9399808These numbers actually do equal something else naturally though, and that is as a fraction over 9.It makes sense that $0.\bar{9}$ wouldn't exist here cause while $\frac{8}{9} = 0.\bar{8}, \frac{9}{9} =\frac{3}{3} = \frac{1}{1}$ simply just equals 1.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 20:51:08 2017 No.9399836 >>9399808yeah but 0.9... = 1
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 20:53:27 2017 No.9399840 >>9399821The sum of infinitesimals would be greater? how so
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 20:54:22 2017 No.9399846 File: 7 KB, 214x166, 800.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 20:57:56 2017 No.9399853 >>9399840I don't believe it would.I explicitly said *for the sake of argument* it would be greater following the idea that infinite sums of increasingly larger numerators and denominators would somehow be progressively larger values distinct from 1.e.g. anon's alleged assertion of 15/16 + 15/16^2 + 15/16^-3... being greater than 9/10 + 9/10^2 + 9/10^-3...
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:00:03 2017 No.9399857 >>9399840>>9399853Also they're not infinitesimals (1/infinity would be an infinitesimal), they're the sum of infinity minus one over infinity with the denominator raised by increasingly large negative exponents i.e. the logical conclusion to anon's distinction between 15/16 + 15/16^2 + 15/16^-3... and 9/10 + 9/10^2 + 9/10^-3...
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:03:05 2017 No.9399863 File: 2 KB, 500x343, 6FHwa.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9399846Lmao no?$\frac{1}{11} + \frac{10}{11} = \frac{11}{11} = \frac{1}{1} = 1$I'm not sure how you don't see that $0.\bar{9}$ is the objectively wrong answer.Maybe your problem is that you're not calculating with intermantissa, or rather not calculating with the understanding that a repeating number $\bar{N}$ does not abide by arithmetic in the same way as normal number $N$; not understanding that $\bar{N} \neq N$>>9396891
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:03:59 2017 No.9399865 This isn't an easy, settled issue. Maybe the term infinity in math is really several terms, some of which are invalid concepts.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:05:05 2017 No.9399870 >>9399863What is the decimal notation for 1/11?What is the decimal notation for 10/11?
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:06:16 2017 No.9399872 >>9399857I dunno then, it would probably just sum to $\bar{ω}$ just the same as every number before it.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:06:52 2017 No.9399873 >>9399865It's an easy, settled issue for actual mathematicians.It's a recurring troll topic for 4chan.There's a difference between these two contexts.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:08:44 2017 No.9399876 >>9399872What's greater than 0.ω¯ and less than 1?
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:11:03 2017 No.9399881 >>9399873People have been wrong in the past. It is highly probable they will be wrong in the future. I always doubt everything and try to figure it out on my own. If you don't, you are basically just regurgitating knowledge you mostly don't even have. You are like that monkey in Searle's Chinese Room.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:15:25 2017 No.9399887 >>9399881there are such things as stupid questions
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:17:58 2017 No.9399893 >>9399887Yes, but I really doubt there won't be any new fundemental work on infinity, or that all current work on infinity will stand forever.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:29:42 2017 No.9399909 >>9399881The Chinese Room is a shit thought experiment to begin with, it just exploits the understandable sense of difference you'd have when comparing a normal brain going through 100 billion operations per second with a room that would need to be the size of a galaxy and have millions of years time available to answer 1 simple question.When you warp a situation's physical size and duration to that extreme a degree of course it will seem intuitively unequivalent. Churchland's counterargument addresses this point:>Consider a dark room containing a man holding a bar magnet or charged object. If the man pumps the magnet up and down, then, according to Maxwell's theory of artificial luminance (AL), it will initiate a spreading circle of electromagnetic waves and will thus be luminous. But as all of us who have toyed with magnets or charged balls well know, their forces (or any other forces for that matter), even when set in motion produce no luminance at all. It is inconceivable that you might constitute real luminance just by moving forces around!" The problem is that he would have to wave the magnet up and down something like 450 trillion times per second in order to see anything.Making a vague distinction between "understanding" vs. "just producing outputs" is ironically itself a lazy and not very thoughtful way of conceptualizing what understanding is. If you actually try to approach in specifics how understanding works you will end up breaking it apart into smaller non-understanding components of input and output.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:33:39 2017 No.9399915 >>9399909Maybe the light produced is of such low frequency it's undetectable to the human eye, and/or it's too low amplitude
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:36:09 2017 No.9399921 >>9399909No, it is a great metaphor for what you apparently think math is. Instruction set:>check wikipedia>look for any current controversies>look for words like "consensus">repeat "knowledge" just gained from wikipedia to others without citing sources
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:39:54 2017 No.9399927 >>9399870Thank for reminding me to continue developing the document for intermantissa and i explained it in another thread, 0 and 9 would retain overline representation but referred to as inter-zero and inter-nine adopting the same inter-prefix as the actual inter-numbers. 0 and 9 actually occupy the same singular spot on the intermantissa line, which i realize the first document does not show. This visual attribution would encourage students counting on the line to treat 9 in a sensible way that leads to the correct result for multiplication and non-zero addition in the least, but looking at this specific problem and using addition requires some continued developmental effort.From right to left, evaluating inter-nine plus inter-zero would want to turn into 10 as the upper dominant of the two0.09090[9]... = 10, carry the one0.90909[0]...0.0909[1]0.9090[9] evaluates 10, carry the 10.090[9] evaluates 10, carry the 10.909[0]...1.0counting from 0 to 9 on the IM line counts to "0" and considers that a loop, or otherwise knowing the 9th symbol on the intermantissa line is "0", where the roll over acts as the same as counting past 9 on the normal number line to get "10", except with inter-numbers there are only 8 numbers, so passing inter-8 rolls up to 0.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:41:30 2017 No.9399934 >>9399921Did you want a source for Churchland's argument? Here:http://sils.shoin.ac.jp/~gunji/AI/CR/sciam90couldamachinethink.pdf>>9399915>low frequency>too low amplitudeThat's the point. When you warp the scale of processes you get results which don't seem the same, which is why it's not a good argument to warp the scale of processes and then point to how they seem different.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:45:00 2017 No.9399939 >>9399876Im not sure that question has relevance.Like asking what is the next biggest number after $0.\bar{1}$ is. If you're providing it as an argument against the specific proof that a larger base will always have a larger number between the previous base's maximal repeating decimal and 1, you still haven't reached base infinity, and base $0.\bar{\infty}_{base\infty} = 1$ looks slightly too tarded for me to trust from multiple angles.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 23:13:28 2017 No.9400079 File: 13 KB, 657x527, 1494486599769.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9399927fuck just found the fatal flaw with intermantissa$0.\bar{905} + 0.\bar{286}$with the fuckin intergarbafe countable sensibility gives me 1.a0b when it should be 1.a9b, but since i dont treat $\bar{9}$ like a normal number i cant sum 9 even under arbitrary circumstances mother fuuuuuuuuuuuucker.fuck it fails basic addition and ita like only useful for multiplication.i still don't think $0.\bar{9}$ exists as a normal number without crafting it from an infinite sum
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 28 23:16:32 2017 No.9400086 >>9400079but all numbers are infinite sums
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 29 01:04:12 2017 No.9400272 >>9399808>8 out of 9 numbers can't be wronglmao
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 29 01:11:49 2017 No.9400279 >>9399554*sigh*you really need the "/s" ?
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 29 07:08:46 2017 No.9400636 >>9399672If x = 0.FFF... - 0.999...What's x?I'm pretty sure x has to be 0. Otherwise you run into the problem of finding a nonzero number x which when added 0.999... gets you 0.FFF...It can't be 0.666... because 0.999... + 0.666... is clearly greater than 1, and 0.FFF... is clearly not greater than 1.
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 29 08:22:02 2017 No.9400747 File: 1.89 MB, 400x400, Even Aqua-sama thinks you're pathetic.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9397312It's like an abstract form of autism
 >> http://i.4cdn.org/sci/15143175(...) Fri Dec 29 08:39:26 2017 No.9400769 >>9400636Yeah his argument is of a rather invalid.$A. 0.F_{16} > 0.9_{10}: TrueB. 0.FF_{16} > 0.99_{10}: TrueC. 0.FFF_{16} > 0.999_{10}: TrueD. Let n be the total number of F's following after the hexadecimal point and m be the total number of 9's following after the decimal point, if n=m, then the hexadecimal number must be larger than the decimal number. : again true.E. n=∞, m=∞ \implies n=m \implies 0.\overline{F} > 0.\overline{9} : false and does not follow. For any number, infinity is of a greater magnitude than that number. n can not be defined as infinity. The same applies to m.  >> http://i.4cdn.org/sci/15143175(...) Fri Dec 29 08:40:28 2017 No.9400770 >>9400769Yeah his argument is of a rather invalid premise.[math]A. 0.F_{16} > 0.9_{10}: TrueB. 0.FF_{16} > 0.99_{10}: TrueC. 0.FFF_{16} > 0.999_{10}: TrueD. Let n be the total number of F's following after the hexadecimal point and m be the total number of 9's following after the decimal point, if n=m, then the hexadecimal number must be larger than the decimal number. : again true.E. n=∞, m=∞ \implies n=m \implies 0.\overline{F} > 0.\overline{9} : false and does not follow.For any number, infinity is of a greater magnitude than that number. n can not be defined as infinity. The same applies to m.$
 >> Anonymous Sat Dec 30 00:26:50 2017 No.9402491 >>9400770bruh I think you missed some $tags.  >> Anonymous Sat Dec 30 02:36:28 2017 No.9402651 File: 78 KB, 601x740, santaleb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9398178cool  >> Anonymous Sat Dec 30 02:38:46 2017 No.9402655 File: 219 KB, 400x400, terry album cover.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9397960>constructing real numbersthat's freshman stuff assberger  >> Anonymous Sat Dec 30 02:57:39 2017 No.9402679  >> Anonymous Sat Dec 30 10:40:02 2017 No.9403196 >>9397960dedekingfield opstrivial>illustrativewhat did he mean by this  >> Anonymous Sat Dec 30 11:01:44 2017 No.9403256 What natural basis is there for assuming the existence of finite numbers though? A priori I don't see how we can count without some sizable number of abstractions. I'm sure experts in this area have done it properly, but spitting out some bs on 4chan it seems like you need some sort of category (the concept of the thing), a function mapping every subset of reality to {is the thing, isn't the thing}, and then youre just looking at properties of abstract sets anyway.  >> Anonymous Sat Dec 30 11:04:45 2017 No.9403262 >>9402655yeah, in my undergrad rudin course we did 3 different constructions in the first few weeks...(dedekind cuts, cauchy sequences, construction based on arithmetic on infinite decimals). not sure what's going on in australia  >> Anonymous Sat Dec 30 11:08:23 2017 No.9403267 Peoples inability to understand their mortality and uselesness makes them bully mathematical concept since the usage of while(true) is discouradged.  >> Anonymous Sat Dec 30 11:10:17 2017 No.9403270 >>9400636When using nondecimal numbers you gotta tell us base retard.  >> Anonymous Sat Dec 30 11:19:21 2017 No.9403290 >>9395918(1+1+1)/3 = 10.33333 per != 1/31/3 to dec returns 0.33333 perwhat is so imposible to understand about that?only if we tought a little bit we would realize0.3 per * 3 = 1numbers ccan't have infinite ciphers, just maximum of calculator can fit, in countable mathematics,in accountable mathematics, we can use infinite numbers, which, being past the point finding symbol for it is just one cypther, which means pass the limit. retard.  >> Anonymous Sat Dec 30 11:20:39 2017 No.9403292 There is no calculation whicch retruns 0.999 periodic, which renders your arguments pointless.  >> Anonymous Sat Dec 30 12:32:30 2017 No.9403428 >>9403292[math] \displaystyle1 = \frac {3}{3} = 3 \cdot \frac {1}{3} = 3 \cdot 0. \bar{3} = 0. \bar{9}$
 >> Anonymous Sat Dec 30 14:42:51 2017 No.9403698 >>94032921 - 0 = .999... = 1
 >> Anonymous Sat Dec 30 14:58:25 2017 No.9403722 >>9395918Because the concept of infinity is doomed to failure from the get go.Just because you cant count it doesn't mean its infinite.
>>