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

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

# /sci/ - Science & Math

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 45 KB, 750x1000, raf,750x1000,075,t,fafafa_ca443f4786.u2[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

10 = 9.99999..

x = 9.999999...
10x = 99.999999...
10x - x = 90
9x = 90
x = 10

Explain to me why this does not disprove all of mathematics instead of prove that 10 = 9.999999.....?
If a vending machine want's $10 and I put in$9.99 i'm not getting my Pepsi.
Math is a scam.

 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 12:11:13 2018 No.9580366 Where the fuck did that x - x come from lil brainlet? What you do to the left must also be done to the right. You can't just fucking take stuff out without balancing it out on the other side
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 12:15:16 2018 No.9580376 Let me reiterate on that, you cannot define 10*9.9999... the same as 99.99999... unless your number terminates or can at least be written as an irrational
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 12:21:03 2018 No.9580384 >>9580366>Where the fuck did that x - x come from lil brainlet? What you do to the left must also be done to the right. You can't just fucking take stuff out without balancing it out on the other sideThats what I thought! This whole thing is bullshit.
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 12:23:42 2018 No.9580387 >>9580366>i think inf is a fixed number
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 12:24:46 2018 No.9580392 >>9580384>>9580366samefag
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 12:31:23 2018 No.9580407 >>9580366he did do that, you fucking retard.
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 12:46:09 2018 No.9580430 File: 59 KB, 1209x504, QzaUh7[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 12:49:04 2018 No.9580436 QUICK RETARD FILTER QUESTIONx + x + x + x + ... (x times) = x^2differentiate1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ... (x times) = 2xx = 2xHow? If you don't answer why this can't be in 30 seconds your mom will die in her sleep tonight (counter blesses and protections don't work)
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 12:55:45 2018 No.9580440 >>9580430>i can use mspaint
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 12:58:04 2018 No.9580444 >>9580436sorry, your mom is a retardbut we will always have her pornhub videos to remember her by
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 14:39:00 2018 No.9580586 >>9580436Wtf, I don't know
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 14:45:01 2018 No.9580599 >>9580444>>9580586Hope you said bye bye to mommy tonight, brainlets
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 14:54:05 2018 No.9580621 >>9580436Shit might be bait, idk, but it's because if given x+x+...+x (n times) = nx, we suppose that n is not a function of x. But if it is, then we need to apply product rule to n(=x in your case), giving us (LHS)' = n' * x + n * 1 = 2x = RHSSorry for bad formatting, it's 2am here; I'm phoneposting and lazy to latex
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 16:30:58 2018 No.9580780 >>9580334>If a vending machine want's $10 and I put in$9.99 i'm not getting my Pepsi.What kind of pepsi is $10  >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 16:34:35 2018 No.9580788 >>9580334Why do we have to have this low quality bait every day? Can't we at least get some high quality bait?  >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 16:35:52 2018 No.9580790 >>9580436it'd be x^x, not x^2.  >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 16:46:11 2018 No.9580800 >>9580436x+x+x... x times only equals x^2 for integer values of x. The functions aren't identical.  >> Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Mon Mar 12 19:27:07 2018 No.9581132 >>9580334Take a course on Real Analysis, or read a book on it, and specially look at the construction of the Reals.  >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 19:30:58 2018 No.9581147 >>9581132>tripfag's first real analysis courseYou're very special, please teach us senpai.  >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 19:34:20 2018 No.9581157 >>9580334a = 0.999...10a = 9.999...9a = 10a - a = 9a = 1 = 0.999...  >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 19:39:09 2018 No.9581167 >>9580366Jesus Christ how stupid can someone be  >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 19:53:57 2018 No.9581191 File: 761 KB, 1027x722, 1498490006987.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] Don't you guys ever get tired?  >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:18:29 2018 No.9581579 >>9581157Infinity is unachievable. You'll never have anything but a finite amount of numbers in a repeating decimal. If you subtracted some significant amount from a to reduce it to 0.999a=0.99910a=9.9909a = 10a-a = 8.991a = 8.991÷9 = 0.999You may then increment a by one more 9 and do the problem again, and continue doing this infinitely, and always get the same answer for a as you started with.  >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:22:11 2018 No.9581592 >>9580376How exactly do you write something as an irrational?  >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:26:25 2018 No.9581601 File: 43 KB, 300x219, rene-descartes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9581167I have been wondering this literally every day of my life  >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:28:59 2018 No.9581604 >>9581579This.Even if you have an infinite amount of 9's from 0.999... (which you can't, but w/e), multiplying it by 10 reduces the amount of 9's after the decimal. Subtract 0.999... and you're back to having an infinite amount of digits in the decimal where the last value within the infinite, not after the infinite, is 1. $8.\underbrace{999 \cdots 1}_{\infty \text{ digits}}$  >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:31:21 2018 No.9581613 you need to put in 9.(9)$
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:34:43 2018 No.9581623 >>958161310 dollars =9 dollars,9 dimes,9 pennies,9 shinnes,9 dongols,9 dennies,9 zennys,9 hinnys,and9 niggys
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:46:37 2018 No.9581656 >>9581623You're shortchanging me a niggy.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 00:05:26 2018 No.9581810 >>9581579definition =/= construction
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 00:06:46 2018 No.9581812 >>9581810Construct the number 10
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 00:19:41 2018 No.9581839 >>95818120 = {}1 = {0} U 02 = {1] U 13 = {2} U 24 = {3} U 35 = {4} U 4....10 = {9} U 9
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 00:32:57 2018 No.9581875 >>9581579>÷fucking reported
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 00:38:12 2018 No.9581886 >>9581191I thought I was on /a/ for a second and started to wonder why everyone was acting so retarded. I'm seriously starting to get the impression that /sci/ is actually one of the lower-IQ boards on this site.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 00:48:06 2018 No.9581902 >>9581886>I'm seriously starting to get the impression that /sci/ is actually one of the lower-IQ boards on this site.I don't think it is. But it is a board where people learn quickly not to post in any threads that cover their area of expertise, so there is a strong filter where the great majority of posts are by people who have no idea what they are talking about, even if there is quite a lot of actual knowledge present on the board.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 01:00:56 2018 No.9581924 >>9581839Thanks for providing the methodology of being explicitly unable to construct infinity.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 01:04:26 2018 No.9581935 File: 12 KB, 394x379, squished wojak.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9581924>what is transfinite induction
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 01:12:39 2018 No.9581962 File: 27 KB, 1399x147, germs dont exist.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 01:47:28 2018 No.9582027 >>9581962If you draw 0.9, 9, 9, 9 on a numberline and run out of room, you will have drawn a finite number of 9's...Wikipedia is so retarded omg.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 01:48:31 2018 No.9582030 >>9581935Transfinite oh is that how you cross the missing information gap between finite and infinity?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:39:59 2018 No.9582211 How is this board so retarded. If 0.(9) has an infinite number of nines after the comma then it must be 1 by definition since it's a real number because it's infinitively close to 1. If it is infinitively close then there can be no numbers in between 0.(9) and 1 which means they are the same number. If it isn't then it wasn't infinite number of nines to begin with.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:56:09 2018 No.9582238 $x= \frac{1}{10} \\0. \overline{9}=9x+9x^2+9x^3+9x^4+ \cdots \\0. \overline{9}=9x \left (1+x+x^2+x^3+ \cdots \right ) \\0. \overline{9}=(1-x) \left (1+\mathbf{x}+x^2+\mathbf{x^3}+x^4+ \cdots \right ) \\0. \overline{9}=1-x+ \mathbf{x-x^2}+x^2-x^3+ \mathbf{x^3-x^4}+x^4-x^5+ \cdots \\0. \overline{9}=1$
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:07:49 2018 No.9582372 >>9582211There is no such thing as "infinitely close". That is literal gibberish. The closest anything can be to another thing is a plank length and that is definitely finite. Seriously you can't even begin to rationally describe what "infinitely close" means.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:11:36 2018 No.9582377 File: 162 KB, 329x353, 1509443183555.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9580334when will /sci/ be able to transcend numberphile tier clickbait?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:11:49 2018 No.9582378 >>95823721/inf=0protip: same as your iq
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:15:10 2018 No.9582386 >>9582027its obvious that wiki leaves out detail.no where did they claim the proof is based on you being physically incapable of drawing more distinct lines
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:16:34 2018 No.9582390 >>9582372infinitely close is the distance from an open set to a limit point of that open set.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:20:42 2018 No.9582393 >>9582372You can actually.Suppose we have x and y such that y > x. y will be infinitively close if y < a where a is any number that is bigger than x. If y < a is true for any valid a then y is infinitively close to x.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:24:37 2018 No.9582399 >>9582393>>You can actually.>Suppose we have x and y such that y > x. y will be infinitively close if y < a where a is any number that is bigger than x. If y < a is true for any valid a then y is infinitively close to x. I meant y >= x.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:38:35 2018 No.9582416 >>9582238This assumes infinity is a quantity that can be obtained as well as it being a number since it relies on $1-x^{\infty}$, which means we can just as easily rewrite as $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{9}{10^n}$ where the infinite partial sum is 0 and irrelevant to the sum total meaning all summable work occurred before n=infinity, yet any test of real n doesn't provide an infinite amount of 9's. Oopsie poopsie!
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:47:50 2018 No.9582429 >>9582416It actually relies on $1-x^{\infty +1}$ since $(1-x)(1 + x + x^2 + x^3) = 1-x^4$, so the end of the sequence at $\cdots + x^{\infty}$ means altogether it's $1-x^{\infty +1}$, which directly invokes the undefinable vagueness property of accuracy loss by having used infinity when it doesn't even exist, since infinity+1 is not different from infinity by itself. In the end, you actually lose a value.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:49:36 2018 No.9582434 >>9582429Rather you gained a value.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:54:47 2018 No.9582441 >>9582429>>9582434ACTUALLY the end of the sequence is $\cdots -x^{\infty} + x^{\infty} \big)$ and that value is undefined, so you either only get $x^{\mathbb{R}}$ as a maximum to the sequence or the entire sequence becomes invalidated as undefined. Either way, no longer infinite.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:59:13 2018 No.9582449 File: 5 KB, 250x174, brainlets....jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9582378$\frac{\mathbb{R}}{\infty} = 0$ so thats not saying much. In relation to infinity, 1 is infinitely close to a googol, cause not even 1 with a googolplex googols of zeros after it is anywhere close to infinity.Great methodology.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:09:25 2018 No.9582474 File: 73 KB, 798x798, smilelaugh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9582449In relation to infinity, all numbers have the same value of 0. 1 is no closer to infinity than a billion. Therefore because infinity, 1 = 1,000,000,000 and also any $r \in \mathbb{R} = \text{ any other } r \in \mathbb{R}$thanks, infinity. Numbers no longer have value and cannot be ordered.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:13:18 2018 No.9582482 Infinity needs to be redefined as the only number you shouldn't analyze cause doing so would prove it wrong.Infinity should be redefined as the holocaust.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:15:46 2018 No.9582484 >>9582482but then infinity would only have a value of 6 million.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:16:07 2018 No.9582486 >>9582474finite doesn't push infinite aroundis this surprising to you? baka
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:16:55 2018 No.9582488 File: 32 KB, 312x342, 1508745104360.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9582484>but then infinity would only have a value of 250,000ftfy
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:17:10 2018 No.9582489 Wtf is wrong with this board. It's supposed to be science and math but it's mathlets everywhere.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:17:24 2018 No.9582490 >>9582482>redefinedfrom what?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:19:07 2018 No.9582494 >>9582486A number theory which includes infinity can no longer be well ordered. You want to make sense of the 9's in 0.999... being infinitely close to 1, that doesn't mean much when 1 is then infinitely close to a billion.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:28:21 2018 No.9582509 >>9582494>includes infinityit's kept separate from Rlrn2readhttps://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=infinityAn unbounded quantity that is greater than every real number.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:31:14 2018 No.9582516 >>9582509Where the fuck did the post say infinity had to be a real number.Learn to read retard.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:32:31 2018 No.9582518 >>9580334TRY PUTTING $9.99999999... INTO THE VENDING MACHINE IDIOT  >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:41:15 2018 No.9582539 >>9581924∃x( { } ∈ x ∧ ∀u[u ∈ x → ∃y(y ∈ x ∧ u ∈ y ∧ ∀v[v ∈ u → v ∈ y])])First encountered in axiomatic set theory.>>9582372Usually by using this phrase they mean lim Δx→0 [ f(x) = x + Δx ] or similar notion by context.First encountered in calculus.>>threadIn the construction of the reals, 1 ≡ seg≤(Q,1). Any set bounded from above at 1 with a proper initial segment and no greatest element is equal to 1 ∈ R by definition. One example of such at set would be A = { 1 - 1/n : n ∈ a+ }.First encountered in real analysis.  >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:03:47 2018 No.9582584  >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:05:38 2018 No.9582588 File: 14 KB, 300x168, 10.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9582518people do it erry day  >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:09:41 2018 No.9582596 >>9582584>A number theory which includes infinity can no longer be well orderedA NUMBER THEORY that ALLOWS infinity is worthless.Nothing about the post said real numbers.You actually need to learn how to read.  >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:12:04 2018 No.9582603 File: 73 KB, 1024x1024, bait 0.9.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]  >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:16:44 2018 No.9582608 >>9582596>my number theory doesn't include numbersok. sounds relaxing.  >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:19:13 2018 No.9582612 >>9582494Construct the triangle of points ABCA = (0 , 0)B = (1,000,000,000 , 0)C= (500,000,000, $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}n$)Our point of view is point CAs C.y goes off to infinity, the lines CA and CB become parallel and overlap. Relative to C, A and B are infinitely close to each other. Therefore 0 = 1,000,000,000Are we sure we really want to use "infinitely close" to describe a relationshio between 0.999... and 1? Cause it seems like using that methodology, any number can then be equal to any other number.  >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:24:14 2018 No.9582621 >>95826120.999 repeating is greater than any number less than 1. 1 isn't greater than any number less than 2. So we can very easily see that 1 cannot be infinitively close to 2 but 0.999 can be infinitively close to 1.  >> Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 07:24:32 2018 No.9582622 >>9582612Again, you need to read a book on Real Analysis for proper answers.  >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:27:14 2018 No.9582627 File: 86 KB, 384x313, s4dTtBy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9582608bro you might be retarded.  >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:31:54 2018 No.9582634 >>9582621Relative to infinity there is zero distance between 1 and a billion. I'm not sure how you failed to understand that, it's directly alloted for by $\frac{\mathbb{R}}{\infty} = 0$. No number rationally exists between 1 and a billion. They are infinitely close to each other.You might want to ask yourself who's fault it is that you believe so strongly in a fallacy that you will sooner ignore and question the validity of PROOF than change your mind.  >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:37:43 2018 No.9582646 >>9582634Except they aren't because there are infinite number of numbers between 1 and 1 billion just like between 1 billion amd infinity.  >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:41:49 2018 No.9582648 >>9582646Right, but that doesn't matter. There are also an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, but you're not treating them with unique identities there are you?Your arguement is 0.999... = 1 because there is no positive value to add to 0.999... that will equate 1. The argument in total is that 1 = 1 billion because there is no positive value to add to 1 that will equate 1 billion. Both 1 and 1 billion share the same value identity of 0.  >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:41:51 2018 No.9582649 >>9582634>zero distance between 1 and a billioncan I have my$1 bn now?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:43:37 2018 No.9582652 >>9582649As soon as there is infinite money.Unfortunately infinity doesn't exist.Even if you did get the money though, it wouldn't actually be worth anything.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:44:12 2018 No.9582653 >>9582648No. The argument is that there is no real number between 1 and 0.999 repeating vut there is an infinite reals between 1 and 2.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:45:28 2018 No.9582656 >>9582653There exists no number between 1 and 1 billion. They are infinitely close to each other.Maybe a third time is the charm?Hello, anybody in there?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:46:21 2018 No.9582657 >>9582656>>9582656>>>9582653 (You)>There exists no number between 1 and 1 billion. They are infinitely close to each other.>>Maybe a third time is the charm?>Hello, anybody in there?Okay what. Did you have a stroke there?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:53:52 2018 No.9582672 >>9582657Maybe a fourth time will do the trick.0.999... < r < 1You believe no number r exists, that the value identity of r must then not be one of a positive number, but instead 0. R itself isn't "0", just that, because you believe there is no r here, the r of the problem has zero relevance.Now, for 1 < r < 1,000,000,000 ; no r exists here either. There is no positive value r to add to 1, so the valuable identity of r is 0.1 = 1,000,000,000
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:54:32 2018 No.9582677 >>9582652there is, infinite far away
 >> Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 07:56:11 2018 No.9582680 >>9582672Sorry, you're losing the other guy, and me. There is no Real Number r so that 0.999... < r < 1. There exists a Real Number r so that 1 < r < 2. For example, 1.5.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:57:24 2018 No.9582683 >>9582672Wtf are you talking aboutWhy would r be 0 here in either case? Who claimed that?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:03:44 2018 No.9582693 >>9582680You can't prove 1.5 exists as a number between 1 and 2. You allow infinity to exist, then all real numbers relative to infinity are infinitely close to each other.• $\frac{\mathbb{R}}{\infty} = 0$ means all real numbers have zero value and all real numbers equal each other.• 1 might be less than 5 relative to 10 since 1 is (10-1):9 away and 5 is (10-5):5 away, but 1 is the same number as 5 relative to infinity since 1 is (inf-1):inf and 5 is (inf-5):inff-fifth time is the charm...
 >> Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 08:05:27 2018 No.9582697 >>9582693>You can't prove 1.5 exists as a number between 1 and 2.lolwut>You allow infinity to exist, then all real numbers relative to infinity are infinitely close to each other.Ok, but I thought we were talking about the Reals, and infinity is not a Real Number. Not sure what you're on about here, but you're completely off-base. No one else is making silly arguments like "well, compared to 1 billion, 0 and 1 are really close". No one is invoking infinity either.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:07:38 2018 No.9582700 >>9582697You aren't invoking infinity my claiming 0.999... has an infinite amount of 9's or that it is infinitely close to 1 or that there are infinite numbers between 0 and 1?Really?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:08:35 2018 No.9582702 >>95826931 is 1 less than 2 no matter if you include infinity or not. Why would you relate anything here to infinity?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:09:56 2018 No.9582705 >>95827022 is just a made up number you invented to pretend there exist values between 1 and 1 billion.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:10:41 2018 No.9582706 >>9580366Watch who you call brainlet lol
 >> Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 08:10:47 2018 No.9582707 >>9582700Not really, no.Generally in proper mathematical circles, 0.999... (repeating) can be identified in various ways. One can think of it as a decimal expansion. A decimal expansion is a function f : N -> {0, 1, ..., 9}In this case, the decimal expansion is simply the constant function f(x) = 9No need for a value of infinity here. Then, we can use standard calculus limits and the standard construction of the Reals. No infinity values here either.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:11:11 2018 No.9582709 >>9582700Infinity isn't a part of real numbers. There is an infinite number of real numbers but that doesn't say that infinity is one of them.That's like saying that in a set {2, 3} 2 is 1 less than 3 so 1 is involved in the set.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:12:29 2018 No.9582713 >>9582707I'm glad you're agreeing there are only a finite amount of 9's in 0.999...
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:12:36 2018 No.9582714 >>9580780It also works with 0.9999999
 >> Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 08:13:16 2018 No.9582715 >>9582713I didn't say that. I said that I didn't need the number "infinity". I do need an infinite set, such as Natural Numbers. However, Natural Numbers does not contain the value "infinity".
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:13:33 2018 No.9582716 >>9582709Guess that means you can't have an infinitr amount of 9's in 0.999... and must therefore only be able to have a finite amount of 9's.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:13:37 2018 No.9582717 >>9582705Either way there is no real number that is greater than 0.999 repeating but lower than 1. There are quite a few real numbers that are greater than 1 but lower than 1 billion.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:15:10 2018 No.9582718 >>9580436Why are anons struggling eWith this? There diverative of x^2 is notbequal to x^2
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:15:23 2018 No.9582719 >>9582716How does that follow?
 >> Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 08:16:55 2018 No.9582722 >>9582716In other words, there are an infinite number of Natural Numbers, but "infinity" is not a Natural Number. That's the distinction that I'm trying to draw here. In the decimal expansion 0.999... (repeating), there are an infinite number of '9's, just like there are an infinite number of Natural Numbers. However, infinity is still not a Natural Number, and it's still not a Real Number.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:22:25 2018 No.9582728 >>9582717There is literally no real number you knob gobbler. There can only be a finite amount of 9's in the number you pretend to hope has an infinite amount of 9's, and there will always exist a real number between it and 1 that in the very least just has one more 9 in it. Thats the fact.You presume one value equals the other because you think it is touching it, but one planck length touches another yet these are not assumed to be the same planck length. No value of distance can exist between two touching planck lengths.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:26:12 2018 No.9582730 >>9582728Planck length has no meaning here. And they aren't touching. There are no numbers between them so they must be one and the same number.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:27:13 2018 No.9582733 >>9582728>planck lengthpics or it didn't happen
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:27:23 2018 No.9582734 >>9582722So you argue that there are infinite real numbers and none of them equal infinity, and you argue there are an infinite amount of 9's in 0.999..., yet also aren't intelligent enough to rationalize that the infinite 9's are relateable to infinite numbers, and since infinity is not a real number, there does not exist a real number 0.999... with infinite 9's.Your argument is that you are literally retarded?Bravo.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:30:21 2018 No.9582736 >>9582734That is actually true. The number of nines in 0.999 repeating is infinite therefore it's not a real number but 0.999 repeating itself is a real number.There are no contradictions here.
 >> Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 08:30:42 2018 No.9582737 >>9582734Take some intro college math courses. Again, it should be pretty easy to see: The size of the set N, the set of Natural Numbers, does not equal any Natural Number. In colloquial terms, the set has infinite size.N does not contain the element "infinity". This should all be amazingly straightforward and obvious. One way to define a sequence of infinite '9's is simply a function from naturals to digits, f, where f is a constant function, f(x) = 9. This is all quite elementary, obvious, and covered in low-level college courses, i.e. Real Analysis.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:32:27 2018 No.9582739 >>9582736No, the point was there exists no repeating decimal with infinite repetition. Not 0.333...Not 0.666...Not 0.999...You can't have infinite.Are you saying 0.333... isn't a real number too?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:32:30 2018 No.9582740 >>9582734Another example is square root of 2. Since square root of 2 is irrational then decimal expansion has an infinite number of digits. Square root of 1 is still a real number.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:33:56 2018 No.9582743 >>9582737Right so i just bent you over and fucked you stupid, i don't care what you have to say. You dont need to pretend you're smart around me baby, if you didn't want to get fucked you would have been smart from the get go.
 >> Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 08:34:30 2018 No.9582745 >>9582739>You can't have infinite.Why not? >Are you saying 0.333... isn't a real number too?This is partially a terminology and notation issue. If that was in a typical math textbook or paper, it would be interpreted in a way to be equal a Real Number, the Real Number which is equal to 1/3.>>9582743I'm not sure where this hostility is coming from. Have a good night!
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:34:53 2018 No.9582746 >>9582739You can very easily show a number with infinitively repeating digits.a is equal to the infinite sum of 9/10^n for n from 1 to infinity.a is a real number with infinite decimal repeating expansion.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:37:01 2018 No.9582749 >>9582740Irrationality doesnt provide for infinite existing or not. You could have just said pi instead, but wouldnt change the fact that no one could ever need to use pi accurate to more than 284 decimal places.
 >> Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 08:38:04 2018 No.9582750 >>9582749This is a discussion about math, not engineering.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:38:13 2018 No.9582751 >>9582749How is that relevant? Pi still has an infinite decimal expansion.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:38:59 2018 No.9582753 >>9582750This is a discussion about math, not fantasy fucking useless bullshit.
 >> Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 08:39:49 2018 No.9582754 >>9582753>This is a discussion about math, not fantasy fucking useless bullshit.They're often the same thing.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:43:24 2018 No.9582758 >>9582746If you assume the limit is never reached, there will only ever be a finite amount of 9's in a.If you assume the linit can be reached, you get the partial sum of 0 which is irrelevant to the total sum, therefore reaching infinity was too much. Backtrack to any sum before n=infinity, and you only have a finite amount of 9's.No infinite repetition.
 >> Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 08:45:47 2018 No.9582761 >>9582758It's not a process. It's not a limit. It's a function from Naturals to Digits, which is a particular kind of function from Naturals to Naturals. Do you have a philosophical problem with functions from Naturals to Naturals, such as f(x) = x+2?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:47:55 2018 No.9582762 >>9582758This is high school level math. You might be retarded. Or an edgy middle schooler.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:54:11 2018 No.9582769 There are infinite real numbers, and none of them equal infinity.You can map all the number integers from 0 to arbitrary greatness as real numbers between 0 and 1Because infinity doesn't exist in the real numbers, all the real numbers between 0 and 1 are not infinite, and are perfectly mappable to all the real number integers between 0 and arbitrary greatenessThere are a finite amount of 9's in 0.9repeating, such that a number 0.0repeating1 added to it sums 1.Too bad infinity isn't a real number...
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 09:01:27 2018 No.9582782 >>9582769For posterity, the first line should read "there are unlimited real numbers and none of them equal infinity"
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 13:06:57 2018 No.9583041 >>9582769>There are a finite amount of 9's in 0.9repeating, Wrong.>such that a number 0.0repeating1No such real number.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 13:59:38 2018 No.9583123   >>9583041Does infinity exist in the real numbers?That means only real numbers exist between 0 and non-inclusive infinityIf you map the real numbers between 0 and infinity, non-inclusive of infinity, between 0 and 1, non-inclusive of 1, becuse you cannot reach infinity means you cannot reach 1. Because only all real numbers exist between 0 and non-inclusive infinity, only all real numbers exist between 0 and non-inclusive, there the largest real number greater than 0 and less than 1 is 0.999...0.999... =/= 1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 14:01:26 2018 No.9583127 >>9583041Does infinity exist in the real numbers?That means only real numbers exist between 0 and non-inclusive infinityIf you map the real numbers between 0 and infinity (non-inclusive of infinity), between 0 and 1 (non-inclusive of 1, sinxe you cannot reach infinity means you cannot reach 1. Because only all real numbers exist between 0 and non-inclusive infinity, only all real numbers exist between 0 and non-inclusive 1, therefore the largest real number greater than 0 and less than 1 is 0.999...0.999... =/= 1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 14:07:07 2018 No.9583136 >>95831270.999 repeating isn't infinity and is a real number you brainlet
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 14:10:13 2018 No.9583141 >>95831360.999... doesn't have an infinite amount of 9's, right. Thats what i said.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 14:13:21 2018 No.9583151 >>9583127>therefore the largest real number greater than 0 and less than 1 is 0.999...That doesn't follow from what you're saying. Why does it matter if "only all real numbers" exist in [0,1)? Do you think that infinitely repeating decimals aren't real? The interval has no greatest element, just like $[0,\infty)$ has no greatest element. For any finite sequence of 9's, you can add any number at the end to get something between it and one.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 14:15:16 2018 No.9583154 >>9582758>a is equal to an infinite sum>nuh uh
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 14:19:46 2018 No.9583164 >>9583141What do being infinite and having an infinite decimal expansion have to do with each other?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 14:21:47 2018 No.9583169 >>9583151Im saying all the numbers between 0 and infinity can me mapped between 0 and 1. That there exist an equal number of analogues between 0 and 1 as 0 and infinity.This means that since there is no way to increment to infinity, there exists no analog as the increment from 0 to 1. There will ony ever exist a largest real number number ahead of infinity, and thus can only exist the same largest real number of decimals between 0 and 1.I'm not aure how many more different ways I can rephrase it, so if you didn't understand it this time all I can do is award you with stupid nigger of the year.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 14:23:07 2018 No.9583172 >>9580334You put 10 = 9.999 at the beginning so you get x=9.9999The whole thing is bogus. I don't know what the other anons are even discussing about.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 14:25:54 2018 No.9583186 >>9583169A nice function that can map 0 to 1 to 0 to infinity is f(x) = 1 / (1 - x) - 1Of course it only approaches infinity as x goes to 1.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 14:27:26 2018 No.9583188 >>958317210 = 9.999 isn't part of the argument but the title more or less. It's the reason there are 2 line breaks after it.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 14:32:53 2018 No.9583200 >>9583172x= 0.999...10x = 9.999...$\infty x = \bar{9}$ (a real number)$\bar{9} = \infty$Uh oh looks like infinity fags fucked up again.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 14:53:05 2018 No.9583250 $\rightarrow \infty = \overbrace{\underbrace{0,1,2,3,4,\cdots}_{\infty \text{ elements of } \mathbb{R}}, \underbrace{\infty}_{\text{not in } \mathbb{R}}}^{\text{all possible elements}} \\ \text{Mapped between 0 and 1} \\ 0 \rightarrow 1 = \overbrace{\underbrace{0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999, \cdots}_{\infty \text{ elements of } \mathbb{R}}, \underbrace{1}_{\text{not in }\mathbb{R}}}^{\text{all possible elements}}$
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 15:07:00 2018 No.9583283 >>9583250Mapped between 0.9 and 1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 15:10:19 2018 No.9583285 >>9583250so 1 is not a real number? huh, ok
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 15:12:41 2018 No.9583292 >>95832851 is the mapped analog to infinity, so between the mapped analogs of all real numbers between 0 and infinity, 1 isn't included in the real subdivisions between 0 and 1. Thanks for knowing what mapped means brainlet.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 15:18:08 2018 No.9583298 >>9583292sure it isn't included in the subdivisions between 0 and 1, but 1 is still a real number, your analogy is shit>calling others brainlet while trying to "prove" this bullshitHAH
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 15:20:18 2018 No.9583306 >>9583298I'm not arguing about whether 1 is a real number and you just admitted to understanding 1 isnt mappable as a real number from 0 to infinity mapped as 0 to 1 so what the fuck ever retard, continue crying about shit that doesnt matter while admitting i am right.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 15:34:42 2018 No.9583323 >>9580334You're considering x=9.99999... IrrationalIn the real world stuff usually costs in 9.99 So if you consider that it is rational then the math checks out
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 15:39:13 2018 No.9583330 >>9583250By the map, if 0.999... is assumed to equal 1, then there also must exist a real number assumed to equal infinity, thus infinity is a real number.However since there is no way to increment to the real number infinity, there is also is no way to increment to 1 from 0.999...0.999... =/= 1
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 16:27:27 2018 No.9583417 So once again. By definition, there are no two real numbers that are infinitely close and not equal. That's because if two real numbers are not equal then you can always find a real number that is in between the two.Now, let's suppose we have some number $k$ such that $0.\bar{9} < k < 1$If such $k$ exists then $0.\bar{9} \neq 1$The problem is that no such real $k$ exists.Let $f(x) = \sum_{n = 1}^{x}\frac{9}{10^n}$For any real $k$ such that $k < 1$ you can find $x$ such that $f(x) > k$Because there is no real $k$ there are no real numbers between $0.\bar{9}$ and $1$Because there are no real numbers between $0.\bar{9}$ and $1$ that means they must be equal.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 16:35:12 2018 No.9583426 >>9582612>using commas to clarify large numbers while also using commas to seperate componentsmust be americanlearn to write 1000000 instead of 1,000,000 please
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 16:38:57 2018 No.9583440 >>9583426Or even 10^6 for ease of reading
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 16:42:30 2018 No.9583444 File: 9 KB, 211x239, 1513971000563.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9583417The irony of your post coming directly after a post that explained why assuming 0.999... = 1 is retarded by using the same logic you used.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 16:47:38 2018 No.9583456 >>9583444>if 0.999... is assumed to equal 1, then there also must exist a real number assumed to equal infinityHow does that follow?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 16:48:17 2018 No.9583459
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 16:48:43 2018 No.9583460 >>9583444And nowhere I said anything about infinity.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 16:57:11 2018 No.9583469 File: 492 KB, 1080x1080, 2018-03-13 13.57.03.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9583460Right here
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 16:57:29 2018 No.9583472 >>9583444You could start by pointing out flaws in my proof.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 16:58:41 2018 No.9583474 >>9580436Am i a brainlet? Still stuck on thisx + x + x + x +... (x times) = x(1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +..) d/dx = (1+1+1+1+...) = xSo x+x+x+x+... cannot be x^2.Then what is it?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 16:58:44 2018 No.9583476 >>9583469Infinitively close isn't infinity. And I mentioned it once explaining how real numbers and that was it.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 16:59:26 2018 No.9583478 >>9583472You could start by paying attention to the proof before yours and realizing it is more rigorous. Its not my job to correct you. The necessary information exists, it's your job to learn it.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 17:01:12 2018 No.9583481 >>9583478 >More rigorousI'm convinced you aren't a brainlet and just pretending to be retarded.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 17:03:30 2018 No.9583483 >>9583474You can only do d/dx ax = a when a is constant. In this case a = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ... x times so it depends on x so it's not constant therefore you can't do that.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 17:03:36 2018 No.9583484 File: 94 KB, 866x900, 1512784797225.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9583481Right, thats why you want me to prove you wrong instead of you yourself being able to prove me wrong.I'm the brainlet. Right. Okay buddy. Ahuh. Sure. Heres one more picture of (You).
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 17:05:28 2018 No.9583486 >>9583484I posted a proof but you refuse to point out the flaws in it. Not my fault.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 17:07:27 2018 No.9583489 File: 16 KB, 498x467, 1512340128839.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9583486You refused to acknowledge the proof posted before your own. Not my fault.Here's another (You)
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 17:11:20 2018 No.9583493 >>9583489What proof even
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 17:16:09 2018 No.9583505 >>9583493Exactly my point. You refuse to acknowledge it. Here's an existential question for you. Are you deliberately refusing to acknowledge it, or are you only refusing to acknowledge it because I dictated you couldn't?
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 17:22:13 2018 No.9583520 >>9583505I might as well say that you never presented any proof and that you are refusing to support your position and address proofs.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 17:24:04 2018 No.9583524 >>9583520You may as well, I dictate your life after all because I am your God, and I said you wont acknowledge proof so you wont, for I as God my word is truth.And also so is my proof :^)
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 17:25:27 2018 No.9583527 >>9583474>>9583483think i figured i out in another way. f(x) = x+x+x+x+... = x^2 only when x is an integer.which means you cant differentiate f(x)
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 18:13:10 2018 No.9583616 >>9581601Semi-underrated
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 18:28:12 2018 No.9583653 >>95803349.99=/=9.99...=10
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 18:42:39 2018 No.9583695 >>9580334>>9580366>>9580384State of /sci/
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 18:57:07 2018 No.9583725 >>9583653>9.999...=10$0 \rightarrow \infty = \overbrace{\underbrace{0,1,2,3,4,\cdots}_{\infty \text{ elements of } \mathbb{R}}, \underbrace{\infty}_{\text{not in } \mathbb{R}}}^{\text{all possible elements}} \\ \text{Mapped between 0.9 and 1} \\ 0.9 \rightarrow 1 = \overbrace{\underbrace{0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999, \cdots}_{\infty \space \mathbb{R} \text{ elements of the map}}, \underbrace{1}_{\text{not in the }\mathbb{R}\text{ map}} }^{\text{all possible elements}}$ If there exists a value to bridge the gap between 0.999... and 1 thus allowing 0.999... = 1, there also exists a value to bridge the gap between real numbers and infinity, thus allowing infinity to be equal to a real number. If there exists no value to bridge the gap between 0.999... and 1 thus assuming 0.999... = 1, there also exists no value to bridge the gap between real numbers and infinity, thus allowing a real number to be equal to infinity.Because the value does not actually exist and infinity cannot be reached, there is no possible value to add to 0.999... to make it reach 1; it will never reach 1. No amount of increments in the reals will reach infinity, so no mapped amount of increments between 0.9 and 1 will reach 1. 0.999... is not "infinitely close" to 1. It is actually infinitely far away from 1. Any arithmetic that shows 0.999... = 1 is therefore flawed by making inconsistent and flawed assumptions about the construction of a repeating decimal extended from a flawed interpretation of infinity.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 19:23:02 2018 No.9583784 The difference between 1 and the largest real number is infinitely smaller than the difference between the largest real number and infinity. Relative to infinity, all numbers are the same number: 0
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 19:24:09 2018 No.9583787 >>9583725I applaud your LaTeX skills, but I hope you realize you have written complete mathematical nonsense here. That's an unusual combination to see in the wild, to be sure.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 19:27:41 2018 No.9583793 >>9583784The number system where only 0 and a single non-zero value exist is binary, but even still binary can represent numbers while infinity cannot.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 19:28:46 2018 No.9583795 >>9583787It's fact, sorry bro. If you're too retarded to learn facts then you're better off no talking to anyone ever again.
 >> Anonymous Tue Mar 13 19:38:44 2018 No.9583814 >>9583725>>95837878/10 troll
>>