Quantcast
[ 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


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 3 KB, 473x156, triggered.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9562418 No.9562418 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Does this concept trigger your autism, /sci/?

>> No.9562419

No, the precise meaning if convergance is perfectly expresible in formal mathematical languange.

>> No.9562425

>>9562418
[math]
1 = \dfrac{3}{3} = 3 \cdot \dfrac{1}{3} = 3 \cdot 0.\bar{3} = 0.\bar{9}
[/math]

>> No.9562431
File: 30 KB, 941x522, What do you mean i always have a remainder.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9562431

>>9562425
Retard

>> No.9562445

>>9562431
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%2F3+-+0.3...

asshole

>> No.9562449

>>9562431
hello shitlatexman

>> No.9562451

>>9562425
You mad a mistake
[math]\dfrac{1}{3} \neq 0.\bar{3}[/math]

>> No.9562452

>>9562451

>>9562445

>> No.9562453

>>9562418
bro it's literally basic analysis why the fuck does this trigger you???? once you have a rigorous understanding of the reals this should be very obvious

>> No.9562455

>>9562451
you can't even spell correctly

>> No.9562456

>>9562455
*You

>> No.9562458

>>9562456
fuck off back to >>>/lit/

>> No.9562462

>>9562453
But if .99999 = 1 then why doesn't .333333 = .333334

>> No.9562464

>>9562418
Can you give me an instance where it matters?

>> No.9562466

>>9562462
It's no longer repeating then.

>> No.9562467

>>9562462
>the moron doesn't put in the "..."
because 9 is the largest digit

>> No.9562889

>>9562451
Well I guess we don't know what 0.999999... is, so let's set it to an unknown:
[eqn]N = 0.999999...\\
10N = 9.999999...\\
10N - N = 9.999999... - 0.999999...\\
9N = 9\\
N = 1[/eqn]

>> No.9562891

>>9562425
>>9562889
begging the question

>> No.9562893

>>9562891
what question?

>> No.9562960
File: 116 KB, 1080x1325, Screenshot_2018-02-23-10-37-37-1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9562960

>>9562889
Learn to carry, brainlet.
Your retard math implies 0.9 × 10 = 9.9

>> No.9562967
File: 8 KB, 363x364, 1514061519880.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9562967

>>9562445
>wolfram

>> No.9562999

What is 1÷3?

Is it 0.3? No?
Is it 0.33? No?
Is it 0.333? No?
Is it 0.3333? No?
Is it 0.33333? No?
Is it 0.333333? No?
Is it 0.3333333? No?
Is it 0.33333333? No?
Is it 0.333333333? No?
Is it 0.3333333333? No?
Is it 0.33333333333? No?
Is it 0.333333333333? No?
Is it 0.3333333333333? No?
Is it 0.33333333333333? No?
Is it 0.333333333333333? No?
Is it 0.3333333333333333? No?

What is 1÷3?
3 goes into 1 no times, but 3 goes into 10 three times with 1 left over
0.3
3 goes into 1 no times, but 3 goes into 10 three times with 1 left over
0.33
3 goes into 1 no times, but 3 goes into 10 three times with 1 left over
0.333
3 goes into 1 no times, but 3 goes into 10 three times with 1 left over
0.3333

Hmmm....

so no matter how many times you derive an extra 3 in the significand, you'll always have remainder 1? So simply saying "repeating 3's" is not sufficient in describing the number?
If only there were a sufficient way of describing remainder 1....

Oh! I got it.
1÷3 = 0.3r1
0.3r1 × 3 = 0.9r3
3 goes into 3 one time, no remainder carry up!
0.3r1 × 3 = 0.9[+1]r0
0.3r1 × 3 = 1.0!

But remember, 0.3r1 > 0.333...
And of course, never forget infinity is not a number, so "an infinite amount of 3's" has no intelligible meaning :^)

>> No.9563004
File: 75 KB, 645x729, 1508031603622.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563004

>0.999... is equal to 1
>0.0000...1 is NOT equal to 0 at the same time

>> No.9563008

>>9562462
Repeating decimals are not simply reapeating without meaning. They are always by definition a standin for a rational number that could be written a different way. So then the question is which raional number does .999... or .333... represent ?

>> No.9563016

>>9562999
who knew, infinite is different than finite

1/3=0.333...

>>9562445

>> No.9563017
File: 44 KB, 526x939, Screenshot_2018-02-23-21-20-34-1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563017

>>9563008
You are reading too far into repeating decimals bro.
They exist simply as a byproduct of concatenating long division, but designed by retards who never figured it'd make more sense to write the remainder instead.

>> No.9563018
File: 241 KB, 362x480, maga_pepe_large.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563018

>>9563016
Infinite is, by definition, unachieveable

>>9562967

>> No.9563019 [DELETED] 

>>9562960
ok genius,
is 0.999.../10
=1 or <1 or >1 ?

>> No.9563022

>>9563018
women are unachievable to you
and yet they exist

>> No.9563024

>>9563019
0.9 / 10 = 0.09
0.99 / 10 = 0.099
0.999 / 10 = 0.0999
0.9999 / 10 = 0.09999
How many 9's would you like to extend this to?

>> No.9563025

>>9562960
ok genius,
is 9.999.../10
=1 , <1 or >1 ?

>> No.9563030
File: 224 KB, 481x325, 1518634307153.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563030

>>9563022
I'm sure you have good reason to believe I'm a virgin, right?
Totally not an invalid assumption, right?
Surely your interpretation of infinity couldn't be an invalid assumption, right?

Ah i'm kidding of course i know you're a retarf full of invalid assumptions. Don't need you to verify it.

>> No.9563031

>>9563018
>unachieveable
uh-huh
yet achilles catches up with the tortoise, easily

>> No.9563033

>>9563030
>I'm a virgin, right
not necessarily, cows exist

>> No.9563035

>>9563025
9.9 / 10 = 0.99
9.99 / 10 = 0.999
9.999 / 10 = 0.9999
9.9999 / 10 = 0.99999
How many 9's would you like to extend this to?

>> No.9563036

>>9563004
>tries writing a 1 after the process of writing an infinity of 0s

moron

>> No.9563039

>>9563031
Achilles never catches the tortoise without finite time or finite distance. Are you really so much of a brainlet to have never understood zeno's achilles paradox was littered with finitist elements?

>> No.9563042
File: 16 KB, 498x467, 1512340128839.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563042

>>9563036
>after
>infinity

>> No.9563044

>>9563042
that's my point?

>> No.9563045

>>9563035
infinite, ty

so... shifting works.

>>9562889

>> No.9563050

>>9563044
Nonono, you cant complete infinity so it doesnt matter, anything could come after it.

>> No.9563054

>>9563050
no, nothing comes after it, except more infinity, that's the point of infinity

>> No.9563055

>>9563050
lrn2read numbnut

>> No.9563057

>>9563045
9.(infinity 9's) / 10 = 0.(infinity+1 9's)

Uh oh it looks like you fuckered up boyo, aren't you not allowed to have "infinity+1"?

How are you gonna explain this one?

>> No.9563062

>>9563057
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=inf%2B1

>> No.9563063

>>9563054
>nothing comes after infinity
Which is only a valid statement if you reached infinity to know it.

You can't make any confident assumptions about what could be after infinity, you'll never make it to infinity in the first place. Much like you'll never make it to heaven.

>> No.9563065
File: 55 KB, 617x347, 1509035736738.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563065

>>9563062
Thats not how numbers work hombre.

>> No.9563067

>>9563065
kek
I'll just let Wolfram-Alpha and you battle it out.

>> No.9563072

>>9563063
but since you can't reach infinity in the first place, why would you assume there's an "after", that makes no sense

>> No.9563090

>>9563072
You don't know if something can exist after infinity because you cannot reach infinity. One way or the other it is no more more valid to assume nothing of value could exist there, or if only the most important value could exist there.


But really what we're saying is, because infinity is unreacheable, there cannot br a number 0.(infinite 9's) that could require a number 0.(infinite 0's)1 to exist.
Since infinity is never reached but a large finite number will always exist by attempting, that must simply mean there can only exist a large finite number of 9's in 0.999...

>> No.9563095

>>9563090
the fact it's unreachable is irrelevant, we can still make use of it through abstractions

>> No.9563104

>>9563095
Abstract sounds like codeword for makin up gay retarded fantasy bullshit cause real elements are too taxing for brainlets to obey rules and abide by logic :o

>> No.9563107

>>9563104
abstraction is a higher level brain function, sorry i didn't realize i was talking to a retarded monkey

>> No.9563109
File: 814 KB, 604x717, 1515548699937.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563109

>>9563107
Honestly you couldn't have said it more retarded if you tried. You really went straight for the godmode didn't you? Couldn't have just said it was useful, nope - straight to spilling your spaghetti by associating it with supreme intelligence.

What a fuckin goober you are. I'll be forward, i'm not interested in roleplaying with you so just cut the powercreeping right here, k?

>> No.9563112

>>9563109
>went straight for the godmode
that works fine with infinity

>> No.9563120

>>9563112
I can abstractly count to infinity and then abstractly count higher than infinity. Whats you argument now.
Infinity+1 makes sense if you just think abstractly.

>> No.9563124

>>9563109
if you're gonna badmouth the concept of abstracting without understanding that we couldn't be having this conversation without it, you deserve all the insults

>> No.9563134

>>9563124
Forgive me, i missed the part where we were having a conversation about an abstract concept cause i was too busy insulting you calling you a retard. Maybe we are only having a conversation abstractly in your head along with the rest of your completely invalid assumptions about life.

>> No.9563138

>>9563134
yeah, alzheimer's will do that to you, you should get checked out

>> No.9563141
File: 264 KB, 500x369, 148.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563141

>>9563138

>> No.9563150

>>9563039
>Achilles never catches the tortoise
KEK

>> No.9563154

>>9563120
>Infinity+1 makes sense
sure, inf+1=inf, no problem

>> No.9563160
File: 55 KB, 447x447, 1489097363931.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563160

>>9563150
The tortoise moves at half the speed of achilles
Achilles gives the tortoise a head start of x seconds in a race
Achilles reaches the tortoise after 2x seconds have passed.

X = any finite number: not infinite
X = infinite: achilles never even begins chasing after the tortoise

>> No.9563165
File: 142 KB, 617x347, 1509768568403.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563165

>>9563154
Thats not how numbers work, hombre

>> No.9563167

>>9563141
>so much butthurt he can't contain it
nice one kid, better whip out another meme pic so you can feel better about yourself

>> No.9563177

>>9563167
Would it kill you to shut the fuck up?

>> No.9563180

>>9563160
Read for yourself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise

If you don't want to talk about A&T, just say so

>> No.9563182

>>9563165

>>9563067

>> No.9563185

No.
In fact, it makes perfect sense for anyone who studied 10th grade math.

>> No.9563187

>>9563185
>who is it talking to

>> No.9563200

>>9563180
I just described the problem to you.

>> No.9563207

>>9563200
no, you invented your own story and for some reason call it A&T

>> No.9563208

>>9563177
why risk it?

>> No.9563217

>>9563177
https://youtu.be/wf2P8SnOwLo?t=1m10s

>> No.9563218
File: 761 KB, 1027x722, 1498490006987.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563218

Do you guys never get tired?

>> No.9563224

>>9563218
every 0.999... a while

>> No.9563232

if (0.999... =/= 1), then there must exist a number n such that (0.999... < n < 1)

>> No.9563259

[math]
x= \frac{1}{10} \\
0. \overline{9}=9x+9x^2+9x^3+9x^4+ \cdots \\
0. \overline{9}=9x \left (1+x+x^2+x^3+ \cdots \right ) \\
0. \overline{9}=(1-x) \left (1+\mathbf{x}+x^2+\mathbf{x^3}+x^4+ \cdots \right ) \\
0. \overline{9}=1-x+ \mathbf{x-x^2}+x^2-x^3+ \mathbf{x^3-x^4}+x^4-x^5+ \cdots \\
0. \overline{9}=1
[/math]

>> No.9563262

For you people who can't "believe" the math:
If 0.9999... < 1 then you admit that there is a number N = 1 - 0.9999.... = 0.000....0001 that:
>Has an infinite amount of zeros (because there is an infinite amount of 9).
>But it has to end with 1.
These two points contradict themselves so it can't be true (a number of infinite digits can't have a "last" digit, just like there is no "last" digit in pi, or e).

>> No.9563267

>>9563262
>These two points contradict themselves
hurr what is ordinal arithmetic

The concept is not contradictory.

>> No.9563269

>>9563267
How is it not?

>> No.9563284

>>9563269
where do you put the closing brace for an infinite set?

>> No.9563288

If
[math]1=0.\overline{9}[/math]
Then
[math]1-0.\overline{0}1=0.\overline{9}=1[/math]
And
[math]0.\overline{0}1=0[/math]
[math]0.\overline{0}1 + 0.\overline{0}1=0.\overline{0}2[/math]
[math]0=0.\overline{0}2[/math]
Therefore all numbers are equal to zero
>this is what 0.99...=1 retards actually believe

>> No.9563291

>>9563288
what is your major?

>> No.9563295

>>9563291
fuck off back to >>>/pol/

>> No.9563297

>>9563291
Feminist economics

>> No.9563299

>>9563288
oh shitlatexman, never change

>> No.9563309 [DELETED] 

>>9563232
>if (0.999... =/= 1), then there must exist a number n such that (0.999... < n < 1)
.9999
.99999
.999999
.9999999
.99999999
.....
.9999999999999999
.99999999999999999
.999999999999999999
.9999999999999999999
......
.999999999999999999999999999
.9999999999999999999999999999
.99999999999999999999999999999

The concept of infinitely repeating is that there will never be a shortage of larger expressions of that ^^^ pattern.

....

...
.9999999999999999999999999999999999999
.99999999999999999999999999999999999999

.....

.....

.....

1
Its not that .999999...(repeating infinitely) = 1

Its that there may be a problem with the concept of infinite repeating.

To try to bring it into physicality to have some grasp at an understandable example:

Imagine you had some marbles: 12 to be exact.

And you take one of them. And you cut it in half. .5 of a marble right.

Ok you throw that one away.

You take another marble. That marble = 1 right?

You take a little "the sharpest blade in the world" and you scrap off the marble:
.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

marble material.

Or ok... lets say you remove 1 atom.. or ok... 1 electron from the marble.

It is still 1 marble.

But it is technically less than the absolute wholeness it was prior to the removal of any speck.

This gets into semantics I guess, like that how many grains of sand until it can be called a pile or heap?

How many atoms do you remove from a marble before you can no longer consider it a marble, or 1 marble?

Is a marbl cut inhalf considered a marble?

>> No.9563310

>>9563309
>incoherent rambling and hand waving intensifies

>> No.9563312 [DELETED] 

>>9563232
[math]\frac{0.\overline{9}}{1}[/math]

>> No.9563315

>>9563310
>not an argument fizzles into out as itself before it ends to begin

>> No.9563316

>>9563232
If
0.999...8 != 1
Then there must be a number n such that
(0.999...8 < n < 1)
If repeat this enough times we eventually come to the conclusion
0.9 = 1

>> No.9563321

>>9563232
>if (0.999... =/= 1), then there must exist a number n such that (0.999... < n < 1)
.9999
.99999
.999999
.9999999
.99999999
.....
.9999999999999999
.99999999999999999
.999999999999999999
.9999999999999999999
......
.999999999999999999999999999
.9999999999999999999999999999
.99999999999999999999999999999

The concept of infinitely repeating is that there will never be a shortage of larger expressions of that ^^^ pattern.

....

...
.9999999999999999999999999999999999999
.99999999999999999999999999999999999999

.....

.....

.....

1
Its not that .999999...(repeating infinitely) = 1

Its that there may be a problem with the concept of infinite repeating.

To try to bring it into physicality to have some grasp at an understandable example:

Imagine you had some marbles: 12 to be exact.

And you take one of them. And you cut it in half. .5 of a marble right.

Ok you throw that one away.

You take another marble. That marble = 1 right?

You take a little "the sharpest blade in the world" and you scrap off the marble:
.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

marble material.

Or ok... lets say you remove 1 atom.. or ok... 1 electron from the marble.

It is still 1 marble.

But it is technically less than the absolute wholeness it was prior to the removal of any speck.

This gets into semantics I guess, like that how many grains of sand until it can be called a pile or heap?

How many atoms do you remove from a marble before you can no longer consider it a marble, or 1 marble?

Is a marbl cut inhalf considered a marble?

>> No.9563327

>>9563315
>before it ends to begin
i rest my case

>> No.9563331

>>9563321
try again, with capital letters

>> No.9563335

>>9563321
you've literally gone marbles

>> No.9563342

>>9563310
>>9563321

The number 1 is a whole 'thing', and it can be divided into parts, it is composed of parts.

An object, baseball, tomato, apple, tree, cup, is a whole thing, that can be divided into parts, and is composed of parts.


There are 3 apples on the table.

Each apple is 1.

Except objects are not composed of infinite parts, as The Perfect Objects That Are Abstract Numbers are claimed to be...

If a number is composed of infinite parts... that means you can remove 1 piece from the number, infinitely, and never lessen the number?

That would be like taking infinite atoms away from an apple and still having a whole apple?

The system of numbers is a system of conviennce, and of perfect sense and proportion and order: and works perfectly (in most if not absolutely almost all areas), but gets a little sketchy with these 'seemingly' partially invented rule conceptions: like there are infinite quantities between any 2.

The rules apparently beg this to be the case, and at the same time logic appears to say something is very strange about this.

Because it is not real, and tangible, so much of the mapping, the conception and use of math works so well with what is real, and so much of it transposes so smoothly to the real (like 1 number 1. 1 apple. cut number 1 in half, get . 5 of number 1. cut apple in half get .5 of 1 apple)

but as you can find an apple and show me, I think it is a bit harder to go into nature and show me a .999999... infinitely repeating. You can find me 9 apples. and 999 apples. But good luck finding 999999999... infinitely repeating apples.

You can find me .999999999999999 apple: remove an electron from an apple.

But what would it mean to remove .999999....(infinitely repeating) from an apple?

Shave off a sliver of an electron? (if that were possible)

Shave off .9999999999999 of an electron?

>> No.9563343

>>9562418
Figuratively or literally? Indeed the limit is 1, however this should not be taken to imply that "approaching a certain point but never reaching it" means "actually reaching that point"?

>> No.9563345

>>9563331
THE CONCEPT PORTRAYED IN THE OP IS LITERALLY THE INVENTED (BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ CONCEPT OF ROUNDING UP, BUT WITH AN EXTRA STEP OF PRETENDING YOU DIDNT

>> No.9563349

>>9562418
>/sci/ confuses the modern numerical system with reality
It is a common mistake. Our decimal and arithmatic systems are functional but not always ideal.

>> No.9563355

>>9563342
matmaticians forget that physics has minimums such as the planck length and its implications with the speed of light and quantitization of energy. But math fags are too autistic to acknowledge.

>> No.9563360

>>9563343
>however this should not be taken to imply that "approaching a certain point but never reaching it" means "actually reaching that point"?
in fact the real numbers collapse this distinction, which is otherwise sensible

>> No.9563361

>>9563360
Let me put this another way, does the summation being referred to occur through time (one by one) or through all of space (all infinitely many negative integer powers of ten times nine simultaneously)? This is a science not a literature board, one should be clear about what one means and not speak figuratively to try to fool people.

>> No.9563363

>>9563360
now explain the faiure of the decimal system to express irrational numbers.

>> No.9563366

>>9563355
that's why physics and math are two different subjects
why would you ever limit mathematics to only what's tangible?

>> No.9563367

>>9563366
>why would you ever focus math on something that is meaningful
mathfags are this delusional

>> No.9563370

>>9563355
>>9563366
>>9563367
Even if the Plank length is the minimum length of something, that still does not mean it is the minimum distance that exists. Do people really not understand what the concept of infinity is?

>> No.9563372

>>9563367
that's what physics is for, retard

>> No.9563373
File: 116 KB, 710x512, wojak_03.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563373

>tfw this is what brainlets try to debate when they can't into higher level maths

Pathetic.

>> No.9563374

>>9563363
?
>>9563361
>does the summation being referred to occur through time (one by one) or through all of space (all infinitely many negative integer powers of ten times nine simultaneously)?
Neither are a concept in the usual formulation of mathematics. Nothing "happens" in math.

>> No.9563378

>>9563374
You sound like you are trying to trick people. For example, if one did not have something one wanted (such as financial security), but one could make it seem like one is approaching that, then one could forever fool the person into thinking it will one day come, because one never actually reaches time=infinity.

>> No.9563384

>tfw we wouldn't have this problem if we just used base 12

>> No.9563386

>>9563370
>if we imagine that infinity exists then infinity exists, screw actually trying to determine if it does
>also if we immagine something infinitely small exists then it also exists
mathfags everyone. They'd tell you that masturbation is identical to sex because they define it as so while remaining ignorant of biochemical exchanges between the involved parties.

>> No.9563388

>>9563384
base 12 fags really irritate the fuck out of me. There is no reason to prefer base 12 over base 6, and since both 6 and 10 have two distinct prime factors there is very little reason to prefer 6 or 12 over 10.

In fact we should use either base 3, base 2, base 6, or base 30 in that order.

12 is a fucking huge meme.

>> No.9563392

>>9563386
That's what you want to think.

Suppose that the Plank length were really the quantum of distance. Suppose you had a right triangle with sides ABC, A=B, and angle AB were a right angle. If A and B were equal to the Plank length, then what does side C equal?

See the problem? Clearly there has to be some deeper connection to math than physicists currently realize.

>> No.9563394

>>9563388
base 2 or 3 would be horrible in real life, base 30 sounds great though, we already have about 30 letters in the alphabet

>> No.9563400
File: 31 KB, 654x422, Babylonian.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563400

>>9563388
>not using blessed babylonian base 60 math
Their number system is divine with useful factors. Groups of ten point to the left, remainder points down. Concise, logcial and easily readable.

>> No.9563407

>>9563400
There is little reason to prefer base 60 over base 30 because the only difference is a factor of 2 which is already a factor of 30.

What we are aiming at is a compactness of representation (3 is the best base) and plentiful finite rational expansions (this is only a function of the prime factors of the base). So the best bases would be
3, 2, 6, 30, 210, ... (all primorals from here)

no others rate because they require more memorization with no gain in compactness of representation nor accessibility of new rationals finitely expressed

>> No.9563408

>>9563388
>>9563394
>>9563400
>>9563407
>loses argument and tries to derail thread

>> No.9563411

>>9563378
>You sound like you are trying to trick people.
You sound like you are confusing how math is applied from what it is.

>> No.9563417

>>9563411
That is exactly how I am saying you are trying to trick people. People are going to think of what the real life application of something is when they look at it no matter what it is. It is how they are used to thinking.

>> No.9563418

>>9563417
I can't help that.

>> No.9563420

>>9563407
>5280 = 2^5 × 3 × 5 × 11
Divisors are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 20, 22, 24, 30, 32, 33, 40, 44, 48, 55, 60, 66, 80, 88, 96, 110, 120, 132, 160, 165, 176, 220, 240, 264, 330, 352, 440, 480, 528, 660, 880, 1056, 1320, 1760, 2640, 5280
metricfags btfo

>> No.9563421

>>9563394
base 2 multiplication is sick tho

>> No.9563422

>>9563418
So it is just a coincidence that "0.999..." happens to correspond to some real life situation, that one stands to gain something by tricking people into thinking what it means figuratively is what it means literally, and that you are indeed trying to argue that "0.999..." actually is 1?

>> No.9563425

>>9563422
>So it is just a coincidence that "0.999..." happens to correspond to some real life situation
There is no such situation. What "real life situation" corresponds to an "infinite" sequence of nines?

>> No.9563428

>>9563425
I've already explained this. >>9563378

>> No.9563430

>>9563428
>the value of infinite series is to trick someone

>> No.9563432

>>9563430
You don't seem to know the difference between figurative and literal. Can you say what 1+1 is, both figuratively and literally?

>> No.9563434

>>9563392
I dont exactly know what you guys are distinctly talking about: but whether humans can measure it or not it or not: there must be a 'smallest possible unit of distance', because there must not be infinite distance between your two fingers.

I dont know how certain they are or can be when they bring numbers into it and what they define first:

As I just stated: "We know there must be a smallest possible distance", so lets call it: Rtrkfdjsg ... (or planck)

but then they are confident that by bombarding particles and energy with particles and energy and by measuring how they reacted they can label that distance with numbers

>> No.9563436

>>9563428
You've only pointed out a confusion you have. There is no way for a security to "approach a value but only reach it at infinity" because all representations are finite and therefore some kind of rounding happens "in reality." 0.999... = 1 can in some systems be true depending on what one means by "0.999..." and what one means by "=". But none of that has anything to do with how computers or people perform arithmetic

>> No.9563445

>>9563425
>>9563422
Buy this Handsome Cream for a special offer 1 time payment of ONLY $9.99(fine print: .....)

>> No.9563448

>>9563342
>show me a .999999... infinitely repeating

[math]0. \bar{9}[/math] <--- there. lookie lookie.

>> No.9563457

>>9563448
no, show me the real thing: two ways of doing it:

as you can show me a real thing represetnation of 1 or .5

An apple, or half an apple.

Show me a real representation of an object: .9999999.....

Or.. show me a . with infinite 9's after it.

Not just a few dots... not just a bar over it... the real thing baby

>> No.9563471
File: 71 KB, 1048x383, ZENO.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563471

>>9563457

>he doesn't understand the concept of limits

You sound like a faggot who never even took a basic philosophy course where they literally explain this with Zeno's paradox.

>> No.9563472

>>9563471
I suspect you are busy drawing all them 9's

>> No.9563474

>>9563471
I just drew a unicorn on a piece of paper, do unicorns exist on earth?

>> No.9563478

>>9563472

Yeah, as a concept.

>> No.9563498

>>9563478
Is a unicorn in the process of having its horn removed 1 atom at a time a .999999.... horse?

>> No.9563513

>>9563478
1 can be shown to exist in nature, so it is more than a concept, it is a real concept:

.9999..... can not be shown to exist in nature, but can only be considered abstractly as an imaginary concept:

the difference between horse and unicorn.

So using .9999.... in reality would be saying like:

If a unicorn existed (because when you use .99999... you are always saying: if it was possible for the concept .9999.... to exist in reality: it might interact with the realness of reality thusly:) in reality it might be able to win a fight with a horse: or it might run 45 mph, or it might start by running 1 mph and then gradually run 1.0000000000000001 mph and then in a smooth continuum of imperceptible momentous mobility
notch it up to 1.0000000000001 mph.... and then maybe 1.000000000001.... and then eventually it might reach 1.99999999999... mph....

which AT THAT VERY MOMENT it would be running at exactly equal to 2 mph

>> No.9563527
File: 52 KB, 500x314, socratesquote.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563527

>>9563513

Nah, that's a really bad metaphor. Why are you so obsessed with this anyways?

There's many ways to take this argument, but it's a waste of time since you're trying to relate mathematical conventions to reality. At that point philosophy comes into play. What is 1 horse? If it's missing a leg does that make it .85 of a horse (or however much a leg is). If it's missing a hair is it .999999999 or however many decimal points a percentage of hair is to a horse.

As in, you say 1 can be shown to exist in nature but that's not true. What is 1 of something? Please define what 1 of something in nature is for any known thing. You have to write a proof for this.

.9999... repeating whatever is equal to 1 because it's a mathematical convention that makes sense theoretically. As soon as you bring in reality into the mix you're just unnecessarily complicating things.

>> No.9563547

>>9563457
>the real thing
drum roll... 1

happy?

>> No.9563550

>>9563474
>but my shitposts are real... believe me

>> No.9563557

>>9562418
It is correct because it is impossible to measure at infinite precision

>> No.9563564

>>9563457
if you pay for the crayons I'll draw you horsies

>> No.9563579

>>9563527
the motion is actually a really good metaphor, and well someone brought up zeno:

The horse would start at 0 mph and arrive at past 1 mph, which means it would have to touch .9999999....

>Please define what 1 of something in nature is for any known thing. You have to write a proof for this.
Go into a grocery store.

>What is 1 horse? If it's missing a leg does that make it .85 of a horse
1 horse is 1 horse. Yes, if you cut a horse in half and send half to the glue factory and the rest in your backyard, there is half a horse in your backyard.

>it's a mathematical convention that makes sense theoretically.

It doesnt make sense theoretically. 1 is very well defined. and .9999.... is not it. .99999... is very well defined and it is not 1.

If .999.... = 1

.999.... wouldn't exist as a concept... only 1 would exist.

what is the number just before .99999....?

>> No.9563585

>>9563579
>1 is very well defined

Define 1 for me mathematically.

>> No.9563586

>>9563579
.999...8

>> No.9563591

>>9563585
let 0 be the absolute absence of all quantity/stuff. Let 0 be nothing.

let 1 be something.

>> No.9563594

>>9563591
>let 0 be the absolute absence of all quantity/stuff. Let 0 be nothing.
>let 1 be something.

This isn't a rigorous mathematical definition anon. Ty again. You're playing with logic here.

What is something?

>> No.9563615

>>9563594
0 • n = no n
1 • n = n
where n is something

>> No.9563619

>>9563594
>What is something?
the first thing that is not nothing

math is intimately unavoidably attached to reality, without reality there would be no 'awareness' of math.

Without conciousness existing, the universe could still exist: there would still be 1 star here, 9 planets/comet there.

numbers exist beyond the mind as the quantity that is objects, this is firstly where the mind got the idea of numbers from.

Where did the mind get the idea of .999... from? why did it think it was a good and right idea? What does it think it means?

Imagine there are many intelligent alien species far more intelligent than mankind, who also developed on planets, and developed systems of math: do you think they would all agree? Well first, do you think they would use .9999....? And what do you think they would think of it? That it is just convenient fairy tale? (I dont 1 apple + 2 apple is just convenient fairy tale): Do you think they would agree .999... = 1?


What I cant get over is most things about Math correlate to reality and hold true and valid and sensible and comparable: but this concept sorely stands out.

And yeah you can talk about 192032 dimension solenoids or something and how they cant correlate to reality... but I think all that possible weird stuff has closer potential extrapolation and correlations than this impossibility we are contenting.

>> No.9563626

>>9563579
>the number just before .99999....
what is "uncountable"
look it up

>> No.9563634

>>9563619
you could manure a small state's fields with this much bs

>> No.9563636

>>9563619
>math is intimately unavoidably attached to reality

You're using a semantically flawed language to demonstrate a proof of logic. If you're going to prove something please do so mathematically. As soon as you start writing more prose than logic, it just becomes philosophy.

>> No.9563647

>only defense that retarded fags have is "0.999... is an abstract concept so [arbitrary rules i just made up go here]"
>literally not even joking
Imagine being so fucking insane to believe these two obviously distinct number values are the same that you have to log onto the internet to try to convince people using non-logic that will never convince anyone.

Definition of delusional!

>> No.9563654

>>9563647
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+%2B+0.999...

>> No.9563659

>>9563647

The only people trying to convince others are the brainlets who cannot understand a grade school concept.

>> No.9563668

>>9563659
Case in point: No mathematical definitions,more text than logic.

>> No.9563676

>>9563668
he thinks pro math is short for prose mathematician

>> No.9563685

>>9563654
Why do you keep posting wolfram alpha?
Do you know how calculators work or are you a mathlet you never learned applied mathematics?

The answer is you don't know and you are a mathlet. That is obvious.

http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=fullSimplify%5Bx%2F10%2C+x%3D9.999999%5D
>9.999999 / 10 = 1
>wolfram can't compute more than 6 decimals of accuracy arbatrarily
>"b-b-b-but m-muh wolfram"

>> No.9563701
File: 1.59 MB, 480x480, 1513365244685.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563701

>>9563685
>>9562967

>> No.9563707

>>9563685
anon shitposter vs W-A
it's like bambi vs godzilla

you're a fucking joke

>> No.9563712
File: 54 KB, 680x380, 17zpe7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563712

>>9563685
Oh well that solves everything doesnt it. See, you don't need to count infinite 9's, just 6.
If someone asks about 0.9999999 you just tell them that is an infinite amount of 9's.
You also have more than an infinite amount of fingers!
There are literally an infinite amount of days in a week too! Haha, no wonder everyone hates mondays!

>> No.9563713

>>9563707

It's entertaining to post in this thread in-between Multi-Variable Calc problems. The example exercises would blow this brainlet's mind.

>> No.9563715

>>9563685
>anon can't spell arbitrarily

>> No.9563719 [DELETED] 

>>9563636
reality = 1
math = .9999..... of reality
.999..... =/= reality

let = bother

let = objective truth

let Δ = good and right

let = reason

it is I am and this is Δ

because there is no Δ why math would correlate to theoretical reality and be the basis for its sense making and proofing: and yet say something is true, which cannot be expressed at all as true in reality.

I really do think my first point grasps it and it I think it represents your side best:

You have 1 single marble:

you remove an electron from it:

and show it to someone: they say: That is 1 marble, 1 whole marble.

This is the best representation of what is going on here.

You have a full whole. And remove the tiniest tiniest tiniest piece of it so that you cant even notice: and then say: """""its ...comeon guys.... its like..... practicalllylyyyyy the sammeeee thingggg""""

And you know what .... thats absolutely right... it is pretty much, practically, overwhelmingly equal before and after....

My only contention is that there is a difference.

And as long as your infinite monkeys on their infinite type writers are still banging the heck out of their 9 key over eternal time with the first monkey who made sure to first hit the . first:

Then the expression of those monkeys will not equal, the holy concept of 1.

>> No.9563721

>>9563707
You want to see something neat in wolfram?
Check this out broski
http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4+-+%285%2F6%29%5E%284%2F5%29%5E%283%2F4%29%5E%282%2F3%29%5E%280.5%29%5E%284%2F5%29%5E%283%2F4%29%5E%282%2F3%29%5E%283%2F4%29%5E%288%2F9%29%5E%289%29%5E%288%2F9%29%5E%282%2F3%29%5E%283%2F4%29%5E%284%2F5%29%5E%288%29%5E%281%2F2%29

Also since its correct to more than 6 decimal places that means it is infinitely equatable to pi.

>> No.9563724
File: 720 KB, 350x200, runqvist.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563724

>>9563719

>> No.9563726

>>9563636
I really do think my first point grasps it and it I think it represents your side best (but now just having gone through its extrapolation again I re convinced myself of my initial knee jerk position):

You have 1 single marble:

you remove an electron from it:

and show it to someone: they say: That is 1 marble, 1 whole marble.

This is the best representation of what is going on here.

You have a full whole. And remove the tiniest tiniest tiniest piece of it so that you cant even notice: and then say: """""its ...comeon guys.... its like..... practicalllylyyyyy the sammeeee thingggg""""

And you know what .... thats absolutely right... it is pretty much, practically, overwhelmingly equal before and after....

My only contention is that there is a difference.

And as long as your infinite monkeys on their infinite type writers are still banging the heck out of their 9 key over eternal time with the first monkey who made sure to first hit the . first:

Then the expression of those monkeys will not equal, the holy concept of 1.

>> No.9563732

>>9563719

Except that the whole - minus 1 electron != 0.(infinite number of nines) of the whole. Because the nines are infinite. This is a waste of time.

Again. Bad metaphor.

>> No.9563740

>>9563726
>are still banging
are you one of them?

>> No.9563741
File: 66 KB, 554x400, 1473433322140.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563741

>>9563732
THE DEFINITION OF INFINITY IMPLIES IT CANNOT BE ATTAINED

YOU CANNOT HAVE "AN INFINITE AMOUNT" OF SOMETHING YOU DUMB DUMB

>> No.9563745

>>9562418
In all real world applications (apart from the field of maths dedicated to this sort of concept) recurring digits are basically rounded up to the simplest use-able number.

My frickin maths teacher told me this years ago. If you were to apply this 0.999999999999999999.... number in a real calculation 1) you'd run out of paper 2) the computer would run out of computable time before you died 3) you'd piss off all of the mathematicians for not using a simpler term.

That's like saying "Oh, I only use Pi to the billionth decimal place for accuracy"

No, that's just absurd and no one in their right mind would use an ever decreasing in value number to define a more accurate result because even the OEIS have a 100 million digit accuracy limit (I think it's 100mil anyway) and you'd be wasting your time trying to use that many numbers anyway.

Recurring decimals should be left as fractions (as per the advice of many, MANY of my peers) at least in summations OR used as rounded numbers to the correct degree of accuracy.I'd never use more than 40 repeating digits anyway

>> No.9563752

>>9563745
aww the engineer thinks he's a big boy now

>> No.9563755

>>9563745
>No, that's just absurd and no one in their right mind would use an ever decreasing in value number to define a more accurate result because even the OEIS have a 100 million digit accuracy limit (I think it's 100mil anyway) and you'd be wasting your time trying to use that many numbers anyway.
yes

which is why real numbers are utter bullshit, but that's a different thread

>> No.9563756

>>9563741

Except a function's definition at infinity CAN be attained with Calculus. First thing you learn after you become a big boy. Your math teachers lie to you because they don't want to break your brainlet brain. It's why in 1st grade there are no negative numbers. A lot of the things that are impossible to lower level math plebs are normal procedures for anyone in College.

>> No.9563765

Remember when you couldn't take [math] y = x^{-2} [/math] for x=4 because the exponent was negative? Your teachers lied to you. All of this can be done. You're a brainlet, sorry you had to find out this way OP.

>> No.9563777

>>9563756
>c-c-calculus s-says y-you c-can use i-i-i-infinity s-so i am right
Applied mathematics derived from calculus do not use infinity, which you would know if you ever learned anything that had any real value.
You ever wonder why all those numberphile nerds and mathologer are just teachers? Ita cause after graduating with a meme degree in abstract maths, they can do nothing to benefit society with the knowledge other than keep the vicious cycle of bullshit going. Theres no real jobs in those kinds of maths. The only real world applicable definition of infinity that could possibly matter is that teaching this garbage abstract field of maths is an infinite loop of sadness.

>> No.9563787

>>9563777
>Applied mathematics
plug&chug >>>/diy/

>> No.9563788

>>9563777
>acceleration literally cannot exist
Waste of trips

>> No.9563790
File: 263 KB, 893x719, o1vBQqf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563790

>>9563777
>higher math is literally a cryptocurrency scam of pump and dump
It all makes sense
Math teachers are basically just those bitcoin shitters begging people to buy into bitcoin while they exclaim how successful it has made them. You pay into it and all you're left with is becoming the next degenerate shitbag begging people to buy into bitcoin.

>> No.9563794
File: 139 KB, 971x565, 1514403883630.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563794

>>9563788
>acceleration requires calculus

>> No.9563799

>>9563777
>Applied mathematics

Kek

Nice bait-and-switch. Your first sentence is wrong anyways.

>> No.9563801
File: 170 KB, 1000x1000, really makes you link.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563801

>>9563794
>being able to find instantaneous rates of change without finding a limit
How do I learn this power

>> No.9563808

>>9563636
>>9563626
Ok my last points and questions:

Is the concept portrayed in the OP any different at all from the concept of rounding up?

"Hey I saw a shirt you will really like in that store, its only $10"
"cool"
(pretend tax doesnt exist)
*goes to store*
"What the heck...the shirt is $9.99"
*goes home*
"thanks, I got the shirt, but it wasnt $10.. it was $9.99"
"cmon...thats $10.... 9.99 = 10..."

How is this any different than that? Besides an over exaggeration of 9's?

Its simply rounding up.

.9999... is =/= to 1

.9999.... can be rounded up to 1.

There, all better.

Secondly and lastly:

Is: 1.000000000000000001..... equal to 1?

(does it work both ways?)

>> No.9563811

>>9563799
Nah it isn't at all, literally.
Assuming whatever hunk of shit you're posting from has speakers and can omit audio, digital audio uses fourier transforms to create the frequencies required to produce sounds, except it performs on finitely countable chunks of data where the aspect of infinity is thrown out the window.

Just admit it, you dont have any real world knowledge of mathematics that is applicable towards solving actual problems. You don't know how computers work, much less calculators. You're a brainlet. You're a Mathlet.

>> No.9563812

>>9563808
with infinity it's exact, no rounding

>> No.9563814

>>9563752
ayy shhh I'm just reasoning mr pure mathematics haha

>> No.9563822

>>9563808
That answer requires a Pure Maths Degree(tm) to answer. Buy one now for just $150K USD.

Warning possible side effects include: depression and sudden realization that your meme degree is based on axioms (ideas or instruction set in pretentious nerd speak) not found in the real world.

>> No.9563825

>>9563812
Infinity cannot be attained by definition. It is realistically the prime xample of approximation and receiving non-finite, innacurate values.

1÷3 > 0.333... because no matter how many threes exist, it is always an insufficient amount to completely equate 1/3.
If 1/3 > 0.333... and we multiply it by 3,
Then 3/3 > 0.999... and voila
1 > 0.999...

Continue existing for the laughing stock.

>> No.9563828

>>9563808

Because 9.99 is 999/100

>>9563811

It is though.
>muh fourier transforms
Kek. Also, that last sentence. What are you trying to prove to yourself, anon?

>> No.9563835

>>9563808
>Is the concept portrayed in the OP any different at all from the concept of rounding up?
Depends on what you mean by "rounding up" doesn't it?
The reals could definitely be considered a certain kind of abstraction over rounding.

>Besides an over exaggeration of 9s?
What makes it an "over exaggeration" in buying a shirt may be different from an "over exaggeration" in calculating bank interest may be different from an "over exaggeration" in calculating some result in a particle collision and so on. The reals are essentially defined to take into account an arbitrary unspecified precision, unlike "rounding" which is a practice with an arbitrary given precision.

>Is: 1.000000000000000001..... equal to 1?
No.

>> No.9563842

>>9563825
>attained
it's not a fucking bridge
infinite just is, no need to know how it happened

>> No.9563846

>>9563842
nice religion

>> No.9563855

>>9563822
I guess it's just pure coincidence that we can model the real world so well using math.

>> No.9563857

>>9563846

>numbers just are, things are just finite

nice religion

>> No.9563858

>>9563846
more like an axiom

religious people seem to think they have a hot line to god, very much like you think you have any idea how infinity is constructed

>> No.9563859

>>9563857
there is no evidence of infinity anywhere

>> No.9563863

>>9563859

there is no evidence that anywhere that we have evidence is everywhere, it's like you don't even know basic logic anon, c'mon

>> No.9563864

>>9563825
1 is greater than 0.9 recurring, yes. Good job.

What does that actually mean though? For all actual uses 0.[9] has the same calculative use as 1. You literally cannot define the distance between these two figures on the number line.

>> No.9563867

>>9563859
>what is zeno
infinity is everywhere

>> No.9563870

>>9563855
yes and all of those models make use of the infinity meme
fucking brainlet

>> No.9563880

>>9562418
1 ~= 2
checkmate autists

>> No.9563885

Lets slow it down for the special little kids in this thread.

Can you agree that:
>infinity is a value larger than all real numbers
?
Yes?
Okay. Well, does there exist a largest real number?
It can't be 100 since 101 exists, but if you can always just at least add +1 to any real number, you will always get a larger number; even if you add +1 to the largest real number you can think of!
That must mean there is no such thing as a largest real number value!
this is going to take some abstract thinking now so i'll go slow:
If there is no greatest real number value, that means you can never get or even approach a greatest real number value, you'll only ever have greater and greater real number values. Now, you want to say infinity comes after the greatest real number value, but you never even get to a greatest real number value! This is where the abstraction comes into play:

We have clearly just defined the analogy that
"The greatest real number" is to "infinity"
As
"infinity" is to "infinity+1"

Amazing huh?

Infinity+1 makes no sense cause what could come after the value greater than the greatest real value?
Yet infinity also makes no sense cause the only thing that could come after a great real number is an even greater real number! You can't add anything to infinity cause you can't add anything to result infinity!

Infinity is equal to (infinity+1)
But infinity+1 is equal to (infinity+1)+1
But infinity+1+1 = (infinity+1)+1+1
But infinity+1+1+1 = (infinity+1)+1+1+1
But infinity+1+1+1+1 = (infinity+1)+1+1+1+1
But... oh my, it never ends, does it?

Infinity IS infinity+1, in the very least, but infinity+1 is not infinity. Infinity+1 is just infinity+1+1 in the very least.

This "value" not only doesnt exist, it never stops increasing. It is always getting bigger, so even if in one moment you thought you grasped it, the next moment it has already increased by an unmeasureable amount, leaving you behind in the dust.
Just remember, infinity is defined as infinity+1.

>> No.9563888

How many ways are there conceptually to express the number line? There are graphs, there is the classical traditional straight line:

negatives, 0, positives.

So trying to bring this into physicality, as it already unavoidably borrows upon familiar physical principles for itself in the first place:

there are evenly spaced notches: and now of course we already immediately run into the problem of (how do the infinitesimals fit.. in between two numbers..so already we have scrap it and say, yeah the number line cant really be imagined, or drawn, because it doesnt make physical sense: along the horizontal line there would just be an infinite drop off directly after 0, because 0.00000001.... could never reach 1 in infinite time and space...

well was thinking along the lines of how 1 would be represented: as we run into issues with the marble as being a representation of 1, as each marble made has different quantity of atoms: so there is no pure objective standard: so lets consider electron for instance which is said to be unbreakable and each one thought to be entirely equal to all others: lets imagine the tiniest piece could be broke off, there:

so on the number line: is it as if 1 is not a 2d/3d notch that could be represented as a cm or mm or planck length rectangle: what is being suggested appears to be that there is no "Point" 1 on the number line: but only an infinitely thin 'coin' with one side being .9999..... and the other side being 1.000001......

I am now having the urge to say these infinite decimal places between whole numbers are lies, not as close to valid and true, as pure real whole numbers: It is not that a marble is 1 and you scrap off an electron and it becomes .99999999.... of a marble: it is that each indivisible part of the atom = 1: and the marble is composed of many many many many 1's.

>> No.9563891

>>9563888

pt 2

silly asinine speculation

I think all that exist are 1 and 0. And anything to do with quantity is conglomerations of 1's. yes you can say that the 1 is composed of many mini 1s; many .000001s ... but can you say an infinite number of them...you can...but can that be actually true....there is nothing real to stop you, like space stops you from taking infinite forward steps to your mailbox...so you could say the number 1 wears glasses and has blue hair if you want... its composed of infinite mini .0000001s...what is this grounded in though...why and how did this come about.. (i know irrationals and dividing and fractions), does this have any basis in truth, what would happen if it was said there are not infinite digits between 0 and 1, or 1 is not composed of infinite pieces? if it was defined that 1 was composed of 99 quadrillion kabillion quintillion .00001s but thats it, no more...

>> No.9563892

3/3
>>9563888
>>9563891
are infinitely repeating digits of irrational numbers a representative of the fact of space and times infinite continuum existence, why are there anything other than whole numbers in the first place; are numbers just symbolic measurement labels in time and space (I guess, ala graph)? Are numbers only an infinite 3d/4d graph? And when marking different ones and creating 'equations of interaction between them on the graph', where and how and why do infinitesimals get involved; because the result hovers and zigzags between a single infinitesimal point (thats what I mean by infinity of time: when there is an unclean, un rational, result of the computation, there can be an ever searching of more precise, following the equation function, and this ever searching touches upon more numbers, being the next numbers in the sequence of infinite string of non repeating for that result? Is it like going a 5th dimension in the graph, the infinitesimal? Its just a command: Continuously go away from this point but never arrive at that point; whats one to do? doggy dig a hole in place, grab surrounding land and place it under your feat and proudly and smarmily look the commander in the face as you are technically continuously walking on new land, as you place the torn up lawn from your surrounding beneath your feet, as you are digging a hole downward too?

>> No.9563896

>>9562999
dumb nigger
1 / 3
is 0.5
all you need is your foot

>> No.9563899
File: 29 KB, 400x400, your-argument-means-nothing[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563899

>>9563892
your powers of reason are nothing compared to the emptiness of nihilism.

>> No.9563900

>>9563896
1 / 3 in base 15 is 0.5
i am sure there's something fundamental there
string theory
triangles
toblerone
my amazing penis
anyway
enjoy dickface

>> No.9563909

>>9563900
5/15 is 1/3 natch
my penis is hard
also
.3 in base 9 and
.9 in base 27

>> No.9563912

>>9563899
lol basically
"Suck this fat 0"

>> No.9563916
File: 30 KB, 512x498, durr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563916

>>9563909
What's that on base 0?
durrrr

>> No.9563922

>>9563885
>Infinity IS infinity+1, in the very least, but infinity+1 is not infinity

holy shit that's deep
can we throw the virgins in the volcano now?

>> No.9563924

>>9563732
>Except that the whole - minus 1 electron != 0.(infinite number of nines) of the whole. Because the nines are infinite
ok, well because there are always electrons floating around everywhere: the miniscule second you begin to remove the electron to say for that moment 'Guys this marble is not a whole 1 marble! guys look!' another electron swooped in... And you notice, so you begin to pull it... oh and then... 1 electron is moved to a further outer shell of atom... and another electron is kind of attracted near by by static force... so how far away does the electron have to be from the marble to be not considered a part of it? The marble is always losing and gaining electrons so continously on the brink of being 1 whole electron and the slightest bit less than 1 whole electron for the shortest possible time and then 1 whole electron again over and over and over and over a million times a second... I think this is back to being a good metaphor...

>> No.9563926

>>9563756
>I beheld infinity in a grain of sand

>> No.9563930
File: 37 KB, 720x404, 1513545723611.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9563930

>>9563909
>if i use other bases then it evaluates properly
Wew amazing
1/3 in base3 is 0.1
What is 1/2 in base 3?
0.111111....
oh fuck!!!!!

try sticking to base 10 which is what normal people use, or base16 if you're a real mathman.

Thanks for calling yourself a nig so i dont have to.

>> No.9563931

>>9563885
>>9563888
>>9563891
>>9563892
>monkeys banging typewriters intensifies

>> No.9563944

So many smart anons, they should try writing math papers on these things.

>> No.9563945

>>9563899
>your powers of reason are nothing compared to the emptiness of nihilism.
there is infinite meaning in not being merely a worm... now thats an infinity I can get behind

>> No.9563981

>>9563922
Infinity is so poorly defined that its basic definition recursively references itself in the definition it's trying to make. This is the equivalent of trying to explain what a potato is by just calling it a potato instead of anything useful like "it is a kind of food" or "it is a kind of plant that grows under soil" or even "french fries are made from potatos"

Infinity defined as "greater than any real finite number" requires a greatest real finite number such that no value r could exist between
The Greatest Real Finite Number < r < infinity.
Which must mean The Greatest Real Finite Number is infinity, which means infinity is a real finite number on the numberline and as such is not actually infinite at all.

Only mathleticians who suck newtons tiny brainlet cock would argue that infinity is "well defined"

No it fucking isn't. It is so poorly defined that it automatically invalidates itself by default.

>> No.9564003

>>9563944
The only people in a position to write actual math papers on this already understand the standard position in the mathematical field, and thus feel no need to write further papers on what is already well-understood.

>> No.9564016

>be newton
>have brainlet complex
>steal leibnitz work after having it explained to him on several occasions
>still dont know what the fuck i'm doing
>remember leibnitz said infinity was the biggest possible value
>write a stupid definition
>be seen as a mathematical superhero by brainlets world wide

such a fucking chad

>> No.9564027

>>9564003

Of course anon, it was a meme.

>> No.9564062

>>9563981
and hilbert - is he gay too, and a nigger?

>> No.9564066

>>9563916
-1/12

>> No.9564071

>>9563930
>try sticking to base 10 which is what normal people use, or base16 if you're a real mathman.
quite literally the vast majority of people that use base 10 are retarded
are you sure you want to use this argument? Y/N

>> No.9564078

Quintessimal

>> No.9564086
File: 27 KB, 485x443, 1519971411261.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9564086

>divison
>subtraction
>existing

>> No.9564095

>>9564071
Everyone knows base 12 makes the most sense in the natural world, and it's what people used for 10 000 years, and the only reason we use base 10 is French autism

>> No.9564111

>>9563065
>infinity
>a number

>> No.9564132

>>9563445
You either round up or pay down to the penny (or smallest unit of money that exists). Seller's choice.

>> No.9564136

>>9564071
Base 2 is best base

>> No.9564171

>>9564136
I prefer third base

>> No.9564187

>>9564171
slut

>> No.9564236

If you assume no real value r can exist in 0.999... < r < 1 such that 0.999... must then be equal 1, then you must also assume no real value r can exist in "The Greatest Real Finite Number" < r < infinity such that infinity must then be The Greatest Real Finite Value.

If infinity is the greatest real finite value, that must mean you can finitely increment to infinity, where infinity-1 is also just a great real finite value, clearly finitely less than infinity, and infinity+1 is now the freatest real finite value, clearly finitely more than infinity, no different than how 10-1 is a finite number 9 and 10+1 is also a finite number 11.
That means if
0.99 = 9.9 / 10
0.999 = 9.99 / 10
0.9999 = 9.999 / 10
0.99999 = 9.9999 / 10
Then
0.(infinite 9's) = 9.(infinite-1 9s) / 10
And
9.(infinite 9's) / 10 = 0.(infinite+1 9's)

And if this is all true, then if
x = 0.999...(infinite 9's)
10x = 9.999...(infinite-1 9's)
10x - x = 8.999...(infinite-1 9's)1
9x / 9 = 0.999...(infinite 9's)
x = 0.999...(infinite 9's)

You could instead also assume there exists no real r in
"Any Real Finite Number" < r < infinity
Such that any real finite number is actually infinity, but i think we can all agree that is a little too retarded.

So you could assume an r instead does exist, so that r is greater than any real finite number but less than infinity, but what would r then be if not "the greatest real finite number"?
r would have to be "the greatest real finite number", meaning there exists a single greatest real finite number and that it is less than infinity, and because this singular greatest real finite number r exists, there is no reason to even deal with infinity since there obviously exists a single real finite value r that is the biggest allowable number, which just brings us back to there being no r in
"The greatest real finite number" < r < infinity
such that infinity is the greatest real finite number, and therefore not actually infinite.

>> No.9564279

>>9564236
>infinity is ... not actually infinite.

all retards, applaud now

>> No.9564280

>>9563207
A&T is how i described it to you. If you had the ability to think abstractly, you'd be able to discern there is no difference between achilles giving the tortoise a head start of x seconds, or a race track of x length where the tortoise gets to start at x/2 distance while achilles starts at 0 distance. Both descriptions have the same result. There must be a finitely knowable amount of time to validate as a head start or there must be a finitely knowable distance to validate where half the distance is. If they were actually infinite, there would be never ending time before achilles could begin chasing the turtle, or starting a race with a never ending distance between achilles and the tortoise, both cases providing for achilles never being able to reach the tortoise unless you assume infinity/2 is a real knowable finite number because infinity is a real knowable finite number, which only proves that [math]\frac{1}{\infty} \neq 0[/math] as an infinitesimal cannot be insignificant, which further disproves Zeno's arrow paradox of believing there to be "infinite" identical reference frames of an arrow in flight where all added together provide the path of arrow's travel, yet no individual reference frame is distinguishable from another because "0 time has passed between any frame, so the arrow hasn't moved"

Zeno was a godforsaken retard, bro. The paradoxes were only paradoxical to each other cause he was too retarded to figure a singular consistent definition for infinity.

>> No.9564286

If you write in another base any other periodic number, you will find a base were it has finitely many digits after the decimal point. for example 0.33333333... is 0.1 in base 3.
You cannot find abase where any number with periodic 9s has finite digits after the decimal point.

>> No.9564296

>>9564280
great story
now try talking about A&T

>> No.9564370
File: 7 KB, 420x420, b36.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9564370

>>9564286
Base 10
8/9 > 0.888...
9/9 > 0.999...

Base 11
9/a > 0.999...
a/a > 0.aaa...

Base 12
9/b > 0.999...

[math]0.\bar{9}_{base10} < 0.\bar{a}_{base11} < 0.\bar{b}_{base12}[/math]
Or
[math]0.\bar{b}_{base10} = \mathbb{FUCK}[/math]
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.b...++to+base+10

>> No.9564376

>>9564296
Did your mother intentionally kill herself just to get away from you?

>> No.9564383
File: 207 KB, 706x561, 8894fb50-c39e-464f-bb4e-206ff182fc1f-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9564383

>>9564370
>immediately crashes the server

>> No.9564400

>>9564376
projecting a bit here, aren't we?

>> No.9564407
File: 29 KB, 600x494, reece.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9564407

>>9564400
My mums still alive, so no.

>> No.9564417

Whats an example of a process or equation that would naturally result with .9999.... appearing?

>> No.9564426

>>9562418
According to the infinitesimal theory, there actually is a difference between the two expressions.

>> No.9564445

>>9564286
If you define 0.999... base 10 to be a maximally closest number to 1.0, then 0.999... in base 11 is 0.aaa..., in base 12 is 0.bbb..., in base 13 is 0.ccc... and so on.

Base10: 9/10^n = 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 + ....

Base11: a/10^n = 0.a + 0.0a + 0.00a + 0.000a + ....

Base12: b/10^n = 0.b + 0.0b + 0.00b + 0.000b + ....

Theres an obvious problem here
9/10 = 0.9
a/10 = 10/11 = 0.909090...
b/10 = 11/12 = 0.91666...

9/10 + 9/100 = 0.99
10/11 + 10/121 = 0.9917355372
11/12 + 11/144 = 0.9930555556

0.b > 0.a > 0.9
0.bb > 0.aa > 0.99
0.bbb > 0.aaa > 0.999
...
0.b... > 0.a... > 0.9...

>> No.9564455

>>9564407
>mums still alive
of course she is, Norman
https://youtu.be/xWHYmNrAFlI?t=50s

>> No.9564460

>>9564417
[math]\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{9}{10^n}[/math] is the only way if you dont believe 1/3 > 0.333..., which multiplied by 3 could naturally result 0.999...

>> No.9564467

>>9563864
>For all actual uses 0.[9] has the same calculative use as 1. You literally cannot define the distance between these two figures on the number line
So say you have a 12 inch ruler:

And you scan your finger to the 1 inch mark and there is something like a marking:

||||

Of that first line: this whole conversation is saying like: .9999.... is JUST touching the first line: and "1" is 'the center' of the first line?

>> No.9564469

>>9563885
>infinity is a value larger than all real numbers
there is a difference between the value quantity infinity, and a single digit repeating infinitely

>> No.9564475
File: 73 KB, 334x319, 1508566033111-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9564475

>>9564469
No there isn't, but nice try anyway.

>> No.9564491

>>9564445
>0.b > 0.a > 0.9
>0.bb > 0.aa > 0.99
>0.bbb > 0.aaa > 0.999

That's a good observation, but you have to take into account that each place in a higher base holds more information. Three places in base10 cannot express as much as 3 places in base12, and so base12 will be closer in approximation when written as a finite value.

Base2 is a great example of the same: 0.111... = 1.
But the finite 0.111 in base2 is only 0.875 in base10--quite far from 0.999, but binary of course requires the most digits in order to convey information.

>> No.9564501

i can have 1 apple
bu i cant have 0.999... apple obviously
whats the fuckin deal??

>> No.9564530

>>9564501
>paying 1 lb of apples instead of 0.999... lb of apples
cuck

>> No.9564988

>>9563888
>I am now having the urge to say these infinite decimal places between whole numbers are lies, not as close to valid and true
I am now thinking they might almost entirely be true.

As something traveling from 0 to 1 would cover more time and space being in non 1 or two.

but where do we assume these spaces from?

And that gets back to the initial reason and introductory statement about continuum, 12345678....22232425 are back to back with no space...where does the convention and invention of putting space between them as a ruler, come from?

why would the tiniest notches not be the main ones? each tinist impossible to detect sliver is a continous back to back term away from 0.

>> No.9564991

>>9564460
So would you say aprox. 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 or so math problems/equations/occurrences in human history have resulted in the term: .9999....?

>> No.9565028

>>9564991
Yes. It is not easily achievable without working outside of repeating decimals and the only only intelligible way of crafting it for arbitrary invocation is the infinite sum 9/10^n. However you can also craft the number at different rates for any [math]\frac{x}{(x+1)^n}[/math] depending on how strict the definition of "0.999..." is. 1/2^n approaches 0.999... but almost always usually as some trailing series of random numbers after any set amount of 9's, something like "0.9999999999999999999999997537532787542245" where the sum does indeed increment more 9's but theres always garbage numbers after it. 9/10^n would obviously pump out only 9's, but 99/100^n or 999/1000^n would also spit out only nines at an even faster rate, where any partial sum test of a single n value between any variety of [math]\frac{x}{(x+1)^n}[/math] would clearly draw them lesser than and greater than to each other, but never equal.
9/10^n
n1: 0.9
n2: 0.99
n3: 0.999

99/100^n
n1: 0.99
n2: 0.9999
n3: 0.999999

infinite sums are also gay and dumb and newton was a fag.

The only rational way of getting 0.999... "naturally" is fucking up using a calculator that has a rounding buffer overflow with finite decimal accuracy.
1÷3 in most calculators will give you 0.3333333 and if you multiply this by 3, you'll get 1. If you clear the calculator and manually input "0.3333333 × 3" though, you will usually get 0.9999999 because the user doesn't have direct access to filling the rounding buffer, where 1÷3 was actually computed as 0.3333333[3 with an extra invisible 3 that became 0.9999999[9 and rounded up to 0.9999999[10 which carried over. Meanwhile via manual input, you only really accomplish 0.3333333[0 with an empty rounding buffer which of course only becomes 0.9999999[0 and doesn't round up.

0.9 repeating is usually indicative of a mistake in normal math, but all the same it cannot be assumed to always simple equate 1.0

Repeating decimals are a dumb mistake in math in general.

>> No.9565032

no it makes sense to me.

>> No.9565051

>>9565028
In reality the rounding buffer of a calculator is actually disingenuous because it obviously searches for an end to endless repetition, but mathletecians would blow their gaskets if they typed 1 ÷ 3 =, ×3 =, and got 0.9999999 in return, cause i guess matheniggertarians forgot how to do division and are too high on their own supply of arbitrary definitions of infinity and infinite repetition to really rationalize what this all ought to mean.

>> No.9565074

>>9562418
The fact that they wrote three nines does.

>> No.9565105

>>9562418
Why would it? Math is just a set of variables you can swap around willy nilly without any care.

>> No.9565110

5 divided by 10 means?

5 slices of pie divided by 10 people?

Each person gets .5?

9/10

9 slices of pie split between 10 people?

1 whole slice is short.

10/10 = 1
10 pies divided by 10 people

each person gets 1

>> No.9565139

>>9565110
9/10 = 0.9
9 pies between 10 people, every people get a 0.9 pie

>> No.9565215

>>9565074
This. Literally wtf.

>> No.9565291

>>9563004
If it's not equal to zero then you have to find a number smaller than 0.00...1 but greater than 0.

>> No.9565294

>>9565291
>0.00...01
where's your god now

>> No.9565793

>>9563284
Wtf are you talking about. The brace goes after the predicate governming inclusion in the set. What does that have to do with the definition of rational numbers?

>> No.9565937

>>9565793
think about it a little longer

>> No.9565999

>>9565291
If you actually believe the methodology of X < r < Y is valid then such a number obviously exists
>>9564236
Unfortunately for you, you will have to abandon the X < r < Y methodology.

>> No.9566119

>>9565291
maybe the concept of a number line, view numbers as escalating in a line up is arbitrary and fogging the vision of these attempts at clear understanding of the truest and realest nature of our and the concept of numbers and their metaphysical relation.

-1, 0, 1, 1.000...1..

maybe its this left to right depiction, that makes us think of a person walking from left to right:
they would have to touch 'all that exists' on their journey from one to the next.

And if one is to claim that starting from .999
and traveling towards 1, taking 'as small as possible increments as possible', which is answered, technically, infinite:

If it is claimed that process would = 1.

So a slope getting ever far from .999 and ever near 1 but never touching (though the claim that it is 1 is a claim that ""eventually"" it touches...)

Why would there not be a slope in the other direction right on the other side of 1.

Could a person not walk from right to left, and is there not that same situation of 'infinte digits' in between 1 and 1.000000000002?

If you started at 1.0000000000000002 and walked left on the number line, and hit every digit, wouldnt you never arrive at 1?

And is that not the argument used on the other side .999...

>> No.9566121

2/2
>>9566119

Well this is all due to a number line visualization action grouping bias?

Would the same thing exist if we envisioned the numbers as lists? And 0 is its own intendant list, a separate concept, tool, input, symbol. And negatives are in their own list, and positives are in their own group list. And so there is no moving to one or the other, the numbers all exist in theory, in their groups categories (a bunch of venn diagrams, different numbers are in different categories). 0.0000004 and 0.0000001 just exist somewhere on the list. Well the same issue applies the list is infinitely long, and the numbers .999.... and to every digit to the left of ...0.0001, there are infinity numbers that could never be on the list. This is simply due to unphysicality of numbers, and a rule that allows for this to happen, just a fact, infinite infinities, the concept of the fact of never ending, and theoretical action in the face of never ending (time).

List of every positive number except put a power symbol on the end of each number and place in that to the power of the list of every positive number with the to the power of the list of every positive number, each number being to the power of the list of all positive numbers (of course them being multiplied) and computing this all positive numbers multiplied together to the power of all positive numbers multiplied together that amount every second etc. to show the crazyness of this concept.

and maybe there is something to this decimal system, are there infinite digits between any two decimal number? Or no, obviously 0.0001 and 0.0002 and 0.34664 and 0.34665 can be shown... there are no numbers in between those two examples right?

>> No.9566135

>>9565139
9/10 =! 0.999...

>> No.9566163

>>9566119
The truest expression of 0.999... as a "slope" is that it is actually parallel to 1.0
Were a line drawn from 0.9 to 0.999... where each decimal value also increased in height along a y-axis, and a vertical line were drawn across 1.0, these two lines would actually be essentially parallel given they never meet, even if it may look like the 0.999... line "approaches" 1, it never gets there, no more than 0.666... ever gets to 0.666...7 or 0.333... ever gets to 0.333...4
It requires a non-euclidean or fractal zoom approach to visualizing, but it is otherwise easily understandable that, with arbitrary(limitless) precision, 0.999... will never sufficiently be close enough to 1 to assume there doesn't exist a smallest part required to add to sum 1, a smallest part to take you out of this non-euclidean repeating 9 dimension and put you back on the numberline

>> No.9566169

>>9566163
Adding 9s to the end of 0.9 will never get you to 1. But that's not what 0.(9) means. Repeating decimals are defined by limits

>> No.9566197

>>9563316
No, because you can always then express that as
0.999...8<0.999...9<n<1

>> No.9566217

>>9563177
you are too stupid to realize you are stupid :o

>> No.9566282

>>9566169
No they aren't. Repeating decimals are defined by long division you mongoloid. See >>9563017


>>9566217
You are too stupid to realize you only have the ability to project, that when mentioning a flaw it is only a flaw in yourself. You are too stupid to realize that things exist beyond simply how they make you feel, and further too stupid to realize your own feeling is not the objective state. You are so stupid, you can't go to heaven because you have fucked yourself selfish.

>> No.9566329

>>9566169
Moreover, your idea of a limit is literally just rounding and rounding requires a cutoff, so your implement of "limit" is truly nothing more than failing to take the full abstraction of a repeating decimal by cutting it off at some arbitrary point.
I appreciate your willingness to understand cutting is necessary since arbitrary decimal accuracy is good for nothing, but calling rounding by a different term and spicing it up with unecessary terminology isn't helping. Feel free to claim [math]0.\bar{9} \approx 1[/math], but dont be dumb enough to say [math]0.\bar{9} = 1[/math]. Its already been established that there are few natural ways to actually result 0.999... so you can more than safely assume getting such a result from anything but an "infinite sum" of [math]\frac{\bar{9}_{\bar{x}}}{1\bar{0}_{\bar{x}}^n}[/math] for any x amount of 9's and 0's would actually be the result of a mathematical mistake provided an arbitrary rounding cutoff point exists. If no such rounding exists, even with a cutoff, [math]\frac{1}{3} × 3[/math] is well off enough just being 0.999... as math intended.

If you're going to dress up rounding and call it a limit, you better be certain to provide which finite number limit you're going to, and better be happy to accept an infinite limit explicitly means no cutoff point exists.

>> No.9566346

>>9566329
An infinite limit cutoff would exist if and only if infinity is the greatest real finite number, but defining it as such no longer allows unending work, plus it creates the problem of what is the exact number of infinity and which numbers come before it.

>> No.9566562

ITT: brainlets

Suppose we want to check what number "n" lies between 0.9 and 1.

So we go

0.9 < 0.99 < 1
0.99 < 0.999 < 1
0.999 < 0.9999 < 1.

Now suppose we do this process infinitely many times. We end up with n = 0.999...
But the rules of our game was that n < 1.

Suppose n = 0.999.. = 1.

Then, 1 < 1

Contradiction.

Therefore: 0.999... =/= 1.

>> No.9567008

In the UK we learn how to convert fractions to decimals and vice versa at an early age. Is this not the case in America?

n = 0.999...

10n = 9.999...

10n - n = 9.999... - 0.999...

9n = 9

n = 1

Simple to understand. I really don't get why Americans have such a hard time with this.

>> No.9567025

>>9567008
10n = 9.999...0 != 9.999...

>> No.9567193

>>9566562
>But the rules of our game was that n < 1.
>Then, 1 < 1
This does not follow. If the predicate was that n < 1 and it turns out to be false, then what you must infer is that you've either arrived at or passed 1. I.e. [math]\lnot\mathbf{P}\left(n<1\right) \iff \mathbf{P}\left(n \geq 1\right)[/math].

Let's turn the tables for a bit. Suppose that [math]0.999\dots \ne 1[/math], then what in effect you are saying, is that there is an [math]x[/math] such that [math]0.999... + x = 1[/math].
Then [math]x[/math] would have to be an infinitely small number approaching 0, so let's let's say [math]x = \frac{1}{10^n}[/math], where [math]n[/math] approaches [math]\infty[/math]. Which is the same as saying [math]\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{10^n}[/math] i.e. 0. If 0.999... + 0 = 1, then it must also be 1.

>>9567025
[math]0.999\dots[/math] means that there are an continuous infinite amount of 9's after. Therefore there cannot be a "last" number and as such a statement like 9.999...0 (i.e. an infinite amount of 9's followed by a single 0) is utterly absurd. It's like asking what happened before time began, what the concept of sleep smell like or what a square circle look like.

>> No.9567213

>>9567193
>what a square circle look like
https://youtu.be/oWfFco7K9v8

>> No.9567740

>>9567193
You dumbdumb. If you assume an x must exist in 0.999...+x=1, x would be arbatrarily small approaching zero, providing for [math]\frac{1}{\infty} >
0 [/math] to be true.

Infinity is fucking stupid dude. It doesnt work. Its very essence is attempting to describe a value that, like zero, is not actually a value, but unlike zero, cannot be attained through arithmetic. Theres no such thing as a biggest number, and this simple fact invalidates infinity outright. If the world instead agreed that 1,000,000,000,000,000 was the biggest number, infinity would still have no relevance unless we just called 1 quadrillion as "infinity" instead of 1 quadrillion, meaning if we take off that quadrillion agreed limit, "infinity" would either just be any arbatrarily large finite value, or it wouldn't exist.

If it doesnt exist, using it doesnt actually mean anything. If its an arbatrarily large finite value, this provides for [math]\frac{1}{\infty}>0[/math].

>> No.9567801

>>9567740
>infinity
>number
go eat your crayons somewhere else, try >>>/x/

>> No.9567856

>>9567801
Imagine how learning to read might improve your life :^)

>> No.9567875

>>9567856
>no such thing as a biggest number, and this simple fact invalidates infinity

>> No.9567904

when infinity is used how is it used? What is the meaning associated with it that can effect its interaction with other digits/values? How can the admitted inability to capture and represent a particular concept of quantity: be used? Without denying/obscuring/altering the concept? The concept cannot be represented (or when it is and is tried: what is the real quantitative value? (I guess the answer is there is a difference between Infinity and infinitely long sequence after decimals.. or someone or everyone would say the string of digits in 0.0008767857787578... repeating, and 5.84888888888888... are both equal to the 'one and only Concept of Infinity': because there is no end, even if one number starts with 0.6... and another one 0.8... meaning infinity would include as a possible contextual reference the series of digits following the point and number: 0.8....

0.8884356493643.. or 0.888888...

There is only 1 Infinity? Or each 'infinite' irrational number is merely an infinite string, but not infinity, and is only the exact number it is

>> No.9567936
File: 321 KB, 1200x878, 1200px-Pieter_Bruegel_the_Elder_-_The_Tower_of_Babel_(Vienna)_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9567936

>>9567875
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Infinity

A quantity greater than any real number

any real number < infinity
the greatest real number < infinity

The greatest real number cannot be achieved, meaning the greatest real number is to infinity as infinity is to infinity+1.

Infinity+1 cannot be achieved because infinity cannot first be achieved.

Infinity cannot be achieved because the greatest real number cannot first be achieved.

Infinity+1 is invalid, but infinity is "infinity+1", therefore infinity is invalid.

>> No.9567945

>>9567936
Alternatively, infinity is the greatest real number, making it finite.

Either way it doesnt exist and is an invalid concept. It is either invalid outright, or invalid to its intent by being the greatest real, finite number, such that [math]\frac{1}{\infty} = NaN \neq 0[/math] must be true, or [math]\frac{1}{\infty} > 0[/math] must be true.

>> No.9567963

>>9567936
>y is "infinity+1", therefore infinity is invalid.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Infinity%2B1

re-tard

>> No.9567969
File: 72 KB, 625x564, cray.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9567969

>>9567936

>> No.9568038

>>9567963
If infinity+1 = infinity
The greatest real number+1 = infinity

Infinity = infinity-1
The greatest real number = infinity-1

Therefore
The greatest real number = Infinity
The greatest real number is finite
Infinity is finite

Learn to FUCKING READ, retard.

>> No.9568045

>>9567963
Learn

>> No.9568048

>>9567963
To

>> No.9568049

>>9568038
KEK
you can fight it out with W-A, retard

>> No.9568051

>>9567963
Read

>> No.9568054

>>9568045
>>9568048
>>9568051
are these your crayon colors?

>> No.9568056

>>9568049
Withdrawing your argument since you can't defend it because you don't know english? Cool.

>> No.9568061

>>9568056
>awwww it thinks it's clever
lrn2read

>> No.9568066
File: 336 KB, 629x468, 4bOGtMo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9568066

>>9568054
>this nigger is so stupid he saw "read" and thought it meant the color red
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Maybe try a board more your speed, such as >>>/mlp/, or maybe just go back to >>>/r/eddit

>> No.9568081

>>9568066
>ooh good one, you are so clever
Did you know that having arguments with yourself, and winning them, is an indicator of schizophrenia?

>> No.9568089

[math]0.\bar9 = 1[/math]
[math]1^2 = 1[/math]
[math](0.\bar9)^2 = 0.\bar9[/math]
[math]0.\bar9 * 0.\bar9[/math]
[math]\frac{9}{10} * \frac{9}{10} = \frac{81}{100} = 0.81[/math]
[math]\frac{99}{100} * \frac{99}{100} = \frac{9801}{10000} = 0.9801[/math]
[math]\frac{999}{1000} * \frac{999}{1000} = \frac{998001}{1000000} = 0.998001[/math]
okay i was trying to prove that [math](0.\bar9)^2 = 0.\bar9[/math]
but it doesnt look like it

>> No.9568129

>>9568089
0.9...^2= 0.9...80...1
anything after the first "..." can be ignored

0.9...^2= 0.9...

>> No.9568300
File: 5 KB, 250x174, brainlets....jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9568300

>>9568129
0.99 = 0.999
anything after the second 9 can be ignored
0.99 = 1

>> No.9568302

>infinitesimals thread

>300 replies
why

>> No.9568305

>>9568300
finite vs infinite
who knew it would be so complicated...

>> No.9568309
File: 35 KB, 627x470, 1519147002259.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9568309

>>9568081
Are you an idiotic psychopath or do you actually believe that you are me?

that makes you the schizo, retard.
Thanks for ousting yourself as a fucking loony you sad chinkloving quasi-jew. Hitler was right.

>> No.9568313

>>9568305
Infinite is finite.

>> No.9568318

>>9568309
congraz, you won again

>> No.9568319

>>9568305
Your idea of infinity as an arbitrarily ever-increasing number isn't real. It is only an arbitrarily large real finite number, by definition.

>> No.9568324
File: 51 KB, 553x569, retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9568324

>>9568313

>> No.9568328

>>9568319
>http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Infinity
A quantity greater than any real number

*bitchslap*
where does it say infinity is a number
*bitchslap* *bitchslap*

>> No.9568335

>>9568129
0.998001
0.99980001
0.9999800001
0.999998000001
0.99999_8000001
>5 nines, 7 trailing
0.99999980000001
0.999999_80000001
>6 nines, 8 trailing
You will reach more zeros & 1 before you even reach infinite 9's, allowing the 8 to exist at all times
0.999^2 = 0.999...8

Unless you already submit infinity is a maximal finite value, such that pushing anything to or beyond it simply terminates it
...9998000[
...9999800[
...9999980[
...9999998[
...9999999[
But doing this isnt allowed when infinity is a real finite number, as the total amount of digits in the entire number 0.999...8000...1 is infinite, with (infinity/2)-1 nines and (infinity/2)-1 0's

>> No.9568337
File: 27 KB, 361x416, 1511848397337.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9568337

>>9568328
>You cant have 10 fingers because 10 is a number not a quantity
Dumb satan worshipper

>> No.9568338

>>9568335
>when infinity is a real finite number

guess what, it isn't
>>9568328

>> No.9568342
File: 117 KB, 220x135, x.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9568342

>>9568337

>> No.9568343

>>9567936>>9568338

A quantity greater than any real number

any real number < infinity
the greatest real number < infinity

The greatest real number cannot be achieved, meaning the greatest real number is to infinity as infinity is to infinity+1.

Infinity+1 cannot be achieved because infinity cannot first be achieved.

Infinity cannot be achieved because the greatest real number cannot first be achieved.

Infinity+1 is invalid, but infinity is "infinity+1", therefore infinity is invalid.

Guess what, it totally is.

>> No.9568346

>>9568343
>the greatest real number
doesn't exist

>> No.9568349
File: 963 KB, 990x1146, 85a.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9568349

>>9568346
The greatest real number literally is infinity, so good job.

>> No.9568358

>>9568346
>greatest real number is to infinity as infinity is to infinity+1.

pro math is not short for prose math
shove your religious crap up yours

>> No.9568360

>>9568349

>>9568328

>> No.9568361

>>9568358
English is not your first language. Shove your hunger for dog flesh up yours

>> No.9568364

>>9568361
brain is not your thinking organ

>> No.9568381

>>9568360
Any real number < infinity

A: Any real number < the greatest real number < infinity
B: Any real number < the greatest real number = infinity

If A and the greatest real number cannot be achieved, nothing after a great real number of decimal places matters. All "unending" work is finitely concatenated.

If A and the greatest real number can be achieved, all "unending" work actually comes to a maximum allowable end and is finitely concatenated.

If B, the greatest real number can always be achieved and infinity is any arbitrarily large real finite number.

A quantity larger than any real number
Any real number < infinity
Any real number < The greatest real number
The greatest real number < infinity
The greatest real number = infinity
All real numbers are finite
Infinity is a real number (the greatest)
Therefore infinity is finite.

You could solve this too if satan allowed you to think.

>> No.9568396

>>9568381
Any number < greatest number < infinity

Infinity is
"Greater than all numbers"

The greatest number = infinity
But the greatest number is also a real number

Any real number = the greatest number = infinity

Any number = infinity

This is the actual way infinity is used by brainlet mathematicians.

>> No.9568401

>>9568381

>>9568346

>> No.9568407

>>9568396
>Any number = infinity

[retard-drooling intensifies]

>> No.9568412

>>9568401
The greatest real number = a quantity greater than any real number
Infinity = a quantity greater than any real number

The greatest real number = doesn't exist
Infinity = doesn't exist

Should i talk slower like you're a retard?
Should i talk slower like you're retarded?
Get it? Get it? Get it? You just don't get it,
You stupid motherfucker
You stupid motherfucker
You stupid motherfucker

>> No.9568421

>>9568412
>The greatest real number
doesn't exist

scream all you want 'til kingdom come,
the greatest real number doesn't exist

>> No.9568424

>>9568412
1) The greatest real number = a quantity greater than any real number
2) Infinity = a quantity greater than any real number

(1) doesn't exist
(2) doesn't claim that infinity is a number

>> No.9568426

>>9568421
You're right, infinity doesn't exist.
Not for feeble mortal minds such as your own, anyways.

>> No.9568427

>>9568426
wrong
infinity isn't a number

>> No.9568428
File: 53 KB, 403x448, 1509935607777.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9568428

>>9568424
>quantities arent numbers
>>9568337

>> No.9568431

>>9568428
not a real number
lrn2read

>> No.9568438
File: 38 KB, 645x729, 1509035922690.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9568438

>>9568431
>quantities are not real numbers
>its impossible to have 10 fingers because 10 is a real number and real numbers are not quantities
fucking foreigners and their wackymath its no wonder white people invent everything.

>> No.9568449

>>9568438
>http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Infinity
A quantity greater than any real number

If infinity would be a real number, it would be greater than any real number

Infinity would be greater than itself
[retards applauding]

>> No.9568453

>>9568449
Infinity+1 = infinity
It is greater than itself
Infinity < infinity+1
Infinity = infinity+1

Take a bow, mr. Retard. You've earned your applause.

>> No.9568461

>>9568453
>Infinity+1 = infinity
>It is greater than itself

1+0=1
it is greater than itself

this is how stupid you are

all that it means is that infinity is the max already, nothing finite does anything to it

>> No.9568471

>>9568461
infinity+1 = infinity
Is not
1 + 0 = 1
You FUCKING
INSIGNIFICANT
OXYGEN STARVED
IDIOT
IT IS
N+1 = N
0+1 = 0

Normal numbers dont behave like this!
0+1 is supposed to equal 1, not zero

Infinity+1 is supposed to equal infinity+1, not infinity!

Because it is infinity, that means infinity+1 = infinity
even though N+1 > N is true while N+1 = N is false, so (infinity+1) > infinity
Yet (infinity+1) also equals (infinity)
Therefore (infinity) > infinity

Infinity being greater than itself is literally the lowest bar understanding of it you should have already had before even visiting /sci/ much less posting in this thread.

>> No.9568506

>>9568471
>N+1 = N
infinity isn't a number
can't add anything to it

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Infinity%2B1

>> No.9568526

>>9568471
That's because infinity is not a number. Think of it more referring to method, i.e.: repeat some operation forever. Something equaling infinity then, really just means that it never stops growing. Thus adding a 1 to something that never stops growing can't possibly make it bigger.

Consider [math]1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + \dots[/math], does adding another 1 make it any bigger? Obviously not. You can add any natural number to it you like and its sum would always be infinity, that is to say, it would never stop growing.

>> No.9568527

>>9563392
>right triangle

I think you mean a trirectangular tetrahedron, but your point is valid.

It follows that the smallest elements in the universe are cubic, and so they must be arranged in a fixed grid, and so they can only interact logically.

What's strange is that Physicists refuse to square the circle themselves, in spite of making fun of Mathematicians for refusing to do so.

>> No.9568535

>>9568527
>It follows that the smallest elements in the universe are cubic
Prove it.

>> No.9568958
File: 77 KB, 1024x861, sad-and-laughing-rage-1-1024x861.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9568958

>>9568526
1+1 = 2
1+1+1 = 3
1+1+1+1 = 4
1+1+1+1+1 = 5
1+1+1+1+1+1 = 6
1+1+1+1+1+1+.... I dont care, and neither does math care, how many operations you decide to do. The result will always be a real number.
If you decide to never end the operations of adding, then you also decide to never receive a sum. If you never receive a sum, then this unending operation is not useful, is it? You perform math to get results. You say:
1 + 1 = ?
1 + 1 = 2

You dont say:
1 + __ = ?
You dont say:
1

These arent maths. These are statements. Saying "1" is not math. Saying "1" is just saying a number. If you said "1" and i said "one what" and you said "equals 10" then i would say "one doesnt equal ten you retard" and you'd say they were two unrelated statements
>"1"
>"= 10"
And i say wow cool good for you, are you two years old or was there some point to all this
Then you say "WABBY GOBBLEDYBLOO INFINITY MEANS UNENDING IT IS NOT A NUMBER QUANTITY SO INFINITE REPETITION MEANS UNENDING REPETITION AND THEREFORE I SUCK COCKS CAUSE THAT MEANS 0.999... CAN ONLY EQUAL 0.999... CAUSE EQUATING IT TO 1 MEANS I END THE REPITITION SO NOW IM GONNA GO BACK TO SAYING ITS A NUMBER QUANITITY AMOUNT BABABOOEY MOMMY FUCKS NIGGERS WHEN DAD ISNT HOME"

and then i let this fucking thread die.

>> No.9568979

yes

>> No.9569001

>>9568535
There's nothing to prove, since it follows from the assertion of Physicists that there is a quantum of distance in a space where movement isn't restricted orthogonally. that isn't divided orthogonally. Since you're too much of a brainlet to understand intuitively, here's a v. difficult proof:

Let A-C equal the plank length. Then if movement in the universe isn't restricted along the axis parallel to AC and the two orthogonal axes, there exists a point B, such that A-B and B-C equal 0.7071. But this is less than the plank length.

>> No.9569157

>>9568349
>The greatest real number literally is infinity, so good job.
How can the greatest real number be infinity if infinity cannot be a real number? It is just saying there is no such thing as greatest number. Because if theoretically time was theoretically infinite you could always x the largest number by 99999^999999999 for eternity. How is it harnasable as a concept and number, how is the fact of never ending captured, how is the infinite expressed as a finite and maintains what percentage of its character?

>> No.9569219

>>9568958
This post is the equivalent of publicly shitting yourself and then proclaim yourself the victor as people make a hasty exist to get away from you.

>> No.9569230

>>9569001
What about if A is 1.00002 and C is 1.00003

are there numbers in between them?

>> No.9569384

>>9562462
Neither of those equations are true, because you forgot the ellipses you fucking retard!

>> No.9569470
File: 28 KB, 1141x488, plank-length-what.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9569470

>>9569230
I don't know. I defeated my own proof trying to illustrate it.

>> No.9569707

>>9568958
>result will always be a real number
only if done finite times
once it's done infinite times, it's not a real number, by definition:

>http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Infinity
A quantity greater than any real number

>> No.9569727

>>9568958

>>9563724

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
reCAPTCHA
Action