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

# /sci/ - Science & Math

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 359 KB, 540x540, 55.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It doesn't make sense.

Let's take 5 divided by zero. That's obviously equal to 0, since 5 * 0 equals zero.

 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 06:36:54 2018 No.9717622 >>9717619Would you mind demonstrating that? I mean with a physical demonstration, like take an apple and divide it into zero parts
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 06:40:49 2018 No.9717627 >>9717622Suppose we have a group of 10 coins, and we divide it into zero groups.How many objects are in each group? Zero.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 06:45:02 2018 No.9717632 >>9717627Would you mind drawing a picture?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 06:47:51 2018 No.9717635 >>9717627In this example you assume that there is at least one group with # of elements = 0. First, you would then at least have ONE group and second it isn't really consistent, since saying sth. Like "divide into zero groups" does not make sense whatsoever yet alone the concept of size inside a non existent group.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 06:52:45 2018 No.9717639 File: 37 KB, 741x734, fd.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 07:02:51 2018 No.9717653 >>9717639In a dashed group the concept of elements inside that group makes no sense
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 07:09:40 2018 No.9717666 >>9717639Those objects are still there and as they're the only relevant parameter the group that does not contain them isn't a group, it's an antigroup
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 07:17:03 2018 No.9717681 So 5/0 = 5?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 07:41:06 2018 No.9717721 >>9717627>we divide [it] into zero groupsSo you have no "groups", therefore no division has been performed.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 08:32:26 2018 No.9717788 >>9717619WILL EVERYONE PLEASE STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS!!On the 0/0 chance they're not a troll, they're too stupid to be convinced.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 08:41:37 2018 No.9717804 >>9717788Technically there's a 50% chance they aren't a troll
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 08:48:20 2018 No.9717814 >>9717804No, statistics are not binary, you troll
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 08:57:24 2018 No.9717831 >>9717619Take the function 1/xAt 1/1 = 11/.1 = 101/.01 = 100..1/.00000001 = 100000000Until you reach Infiniti as you approach 0.Infinity in that sense isn't actually a number. It's theoretical. You could never do it, make it, go it, wtvr. But get this1/-1 = -1..1/-.00000001 = -10000000Until you reach - infinity as you approach 0.So tell us, at 0, what should x be? Every number from negative infinity to positive infinity as it crosses the y axis at 0?Professional mathematicians just prefer to call it "undefined" because you can't do it. 1/x doesn't exist at 0.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 09:00:52 2018 No.9717838 >>9717804If "troll" is only 50% probable, then "stupid" is also 50%.Giving a 100% probability that arguing is a waste of time.YOUR time.I don't care about theirs.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 09:02:05 2018 No.9717842 >>9717639That just looks like you got cut out of the deal and someone else got all 4 apples.They didn't disappear, offsetting the entropy of the cosmos. They still exist. It actually just looks like you didn't devide them at all, you just have an empty shopping basket.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 09:03:10 2018 No.9717843 >>9717838Kek, based response
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 09:04:04 2018 No.9717845 >>9717619How many zeros, lumped together, equal 5?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 09:05:43 2018 No.9717847 >>9717842Its almost like Wildberger was right.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 09:10:03 2018 No.9717857 >>9717838You're forgetting that there is also a 50% chance they are right
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 09:21:53 2018 No.9717885 >>97176190 isn't a real number, it just behaves like one sometimes. trying to divide by zero is like trying to get to nowhere
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 09:27:09 2018 No.9717891 >>9717619How many times can we subtract 0 from 5 before we reach 0 ?(5 - a*0 = 0), what is a?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 09:32:26 2018 No.9717904 >>9717885??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????0 is in R ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 09:33:32 2018 No.9717905 >>9717885OP is retarded but 0 is in R lol
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 09:41:21 2018 No.9717927 >>9717619>Let's take 5 divided by zero. That's obviously equal to 0So what happened to the 5?Division is not subtraction.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 09:47:11 2018 No.9717936 >>9717627So what you are saying is that you haven't divided.You haven't even divided into one group. You said "Let's divide these coins into zero groups" and then tossed the coins over your shoulder and walked away.Division by zero makes no logical sense because if you have a group to begin with and you end up with any number of groups then you haven't divided by zero.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 10:02:26 2018 No.9717953 >>9717619>that's obviously equal to 0Calculate quick the limit of y as x-> 0 for y=5/x and tell me its obviously 0
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 10:24:52 2018 No.9717985   File: 8 KB, 222x227, How the fuck does Modulo Work with negatives.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] Explain it to me like I'm fucking dumb because I am /sci/HOW DOES MODULUS WORK WITH NEGATIVES?I always thought of modulus as a remainder operator i.e. 5 % 10 would be 5 because 5/10 in integer division is 0 with a remainder 5. 5 % would be 2 because 3 goes into 5 once with a remainder of 2 etc. etc.When it comes to negatives I get completely lost. -5 % 3 in my mind would give -2, but it gives 1.-3 % 7 in my mind would give -3 for the above reason but it's instead 4. The only way I can wrap my head around it is if I just subtract the first from the second, if the second is larger and the first is negative, but I KNOW this isn't how it works.I came across this problem while looking at a solution for simplifying a rock paper scissors script in python using dictionaries and keys.I didn't understand how or why modulus could be used to eliminate all the conditionals and relegate it to one line to determine whether user input won.tl:dr How does modulus actually work with negative numbers? I can't understand the actual reason, even though I know a brain dead solution.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 10:32:54 2018 No.9717993 is everyone here pretending to be retarded?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 10:35:19 2018 No.9717997 >>9717627dividing 10 objects into zero groups of zero. There is no group to begin with, so you can't have zero coins in each group.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 10:48:19 2018 No.9718020 >>9717619>dividing by 0OP is either retarded or Chuck Norris
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 10:51:04 2018 No.9718027 >>9717619Because majority of people are either more intelligent than you or less ignorant.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 11:06:04 2018 No.9718059 File: 60 KB, 620x410, divide by zero.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 11:07:29 2018 No.9718062 >>9717627>Suppose we have a group of 10 coins, and we divide it into zero groups.But if you're allowed not to put the ten coins in your group, couldn't you have two groups of zero coins? Or ten? Or an infinite set of groups?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 11:09:00 2018 No.9718064 >>9717845Yes, 0*X=5 has no solution. But that doesn't mean 5/0 doesn't. It does, and it's infinity.Infinity is very inconvenient to work with (seeing as it isn't a number) and a division that doesn't have a multiplication as its inverse is also very inconvenient. For these reasons, mathematicians often prefer to say "fuck it. We'll just avoid doing it, because it's not worth the trouble".And I agree, it really isn't worth the trouble. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or doesn't make sense. It does and it does.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 11:18:46 2018 No.9718086 ya if x/0 was defined R wouldn't even be a vector space which would be funny af famalam
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 11:28:16 2018 No.9718105 File: 39 KB, 427x435, 09funicello1_cnd-blog427.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9717619>since 5 * 0 equals zero.Haven't read the thread yet, and I'm drinking Tequila at work but here goes:If 5*0 = 0, then... 0/0 = 5and0/5 = 0Convince me I'm wrong.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 11:29:23 2018 No.9718108 File: 98 KB, 700x523, 88.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9717639"dashed lines represent a lack of a group"
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 11:31:07 2018 No.9718112 File: 93 KB, 1200x768, carrey19f-1-web.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9717814>No, statistics are not binary, you trollI'm going for a walk.I'll either get hit by lightning, or I won't 50-50 bruh.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 11:33:07 2018 No.9718117 File: 49 KB, 360x640, Buddy-Christ-kevin-smith-70822_360_640.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 12:27:15 2018 No.9718203 >>9717639>We can divide by zero if we don't actually DIVIDE anythingRetard.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 12:28:18 2018 No.9718205 >>9717838Probability isn't a percentage you orangutan.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 13:24:27 2018 No.9718290 >>9717619>>9717627>>9717639the reason is mainly theoretical in natureif you allow division by zero you can basically proof everythingthis video might be very simple and for kids but it gets the point across perfectlyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI9CaQD7P6I
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 15:38:09 2018 No.9718566 >>9717619If A/B = C,Then C*B = A. You propose 5/0 = 0. Then you are also proposing 0 * 0 = 5. Yet 0 * 0 is clearly 0, therefore 0 * 0 = 5 is false and so 5/0 = 0 is also false.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 15:42:05 2018 No.9718575 You can instead of dividing, multiply by the inverse. So 5/0 =5*1/0=5*1*1/0...Then you open that so there's no space to post the real answer.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 15:52:18 2018 No.9718600 >>9717788>tfw /sci/ is too retarded to get the 0/0 joke
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 15:54:58 2018 No.9718607 File: 43 KB, 613x771, Cr7Sl-aWYAA3QHa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] This is the spookiest thread I've seen in a while.>>9717622>taking the kindergarten definition of division literally>>9717831>implying functions have to be continuous>>9717845>>9718105>>9718566>implying all operations are invertible>>9717891>implying division is repeated subtraction
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 15:56:59 2018 No.9718614 >>9718600I was actually trying to figure out how often something happening zero out of zero times would occur
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 16:23:43 2018 No.9718677 Any number divided by zero is infinity.12 ÷ 4 = 3>12 - 4 = 8 (1)>8 - 4 = 4 (2)>4 - 4 = 0 (3)3÷3 = 1>3 - 3 = 0 (1)3÷2 = 1.5>3 - 2 = 1 (1)>[10] - 2 = 0.8 (0.1)>[8] - 2 = 0.6 (0.2)>[6] - 2 = 0.4 (0.3)>[4] - 2 = 0.2 (0.4)>[2] - 2 = 0.0 (0.5)3÷0 =>3 - 0 = 3 (1)>3 - 0 = 3 (2)>3 - 0 = 3 (3)>3 - 0 = 3 (4)>3 - 0 = 3 (5)>...>3 - 0 = 3 (34059)>...>3 - 0 = 3 (infinity)it is undefined because infinity is not really number and it can't be reconstructed from multiplication12÷3 = 4, but then 3×4 = 1212÷0 = infinfity, but 0×infinity would then be equal to any and every number.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 16:31:58 2018 No.9718701 >>9718677This is also why $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{2^n}$ cannot equal 1, as $\frac{1}{\infty}$ at n=infinity would equal 0, but infinite 0's would equal any number. The sum can "appear" very close to 1 by ignoring that infinite decimal places musy be filled, but it will never properly land on 1 in realtime, as well as infinitely surpassing 1 in an arbitrary time scenario where n=infinity is actually reachable.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 16:38:00 2018 No.9718714 >>9718701$0.\bar{9} \neq 1$ for the same exact reason $0.\bar{3}$ doesn't equal any other number but $0.\bar{3}$.Repeating decimals are unique identities unequatable to real numbers because they carry an aspect of infinity, where infinity is itself a unique identity unrelateable to real numbers where; -googol, 0, and +googol, or any number are all the same equal distance away from infinity
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 16:46:20 2018 No.9718729 Holy fuck people. Division by an x is defined as a multiplication by the inverse of x. The inverse of x is defined as y such that x*y=1.But, if x=0 then x*y = x*0 = 0 for any y. So there is no inverse for 0.That's why division is not defined for 0. It's a matter of definitions. Feel free to define your own way multiplication, but then you probably can't use a lot of the math we have proven so far.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 16:48:20 2018 No.9718736 *own way of division
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 16:51:18 2018 No.9718743 >>9718729based & redpilled
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 16:52:59 2018 No.9718748 >>9717619five divided by zero isn't five? I have five apples and I don't divide them so i'm left with five apples. Right? How is this wrong?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 17:17:40 2018 No.9718811 >>9718729>inverse of >t. did not attend highschool
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 17:32:50 2018 No.9718837 Look at a tan graph, you can't actually divide by 0, only divide by the closest number possible. This is shown by the asymptote on a tan graph. The closer the tan 90 you get, the closer to infinity you get. You can reasonably, albeit without concrete proof conclude that x/0 = ∞
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 17:49:40 2018 No.9718866 >>9718607Math that can't be used for physics isn't real math.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 17:52:27 2018 No.9718872 File: 3 KB, 210x186, divisionbyzero.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9718677This. It is agreed upon scientific fact.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 17:54:32 2018 No.9718883 >>9718677Any number divided by itself is equal to 1. Any number divided by zero is infinity.0/0.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 17:59:25 2018 No.9718895 >>9717639the post that ended /sci/
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 18:06:22 2018 No.9718903 File: 4 KB, 260x260, wheel theory.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9718866>implying all math used for physics is based purely on invertible, continuous operations
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 18:20:54 2018 No.9718931 >>9718903No, my implication was that the kindergarten definition of division is the only useful one. Wheel theory is a shitpost though.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 18:21:58 2018 No.9718932 >>9717619that's 0 divided by 5, retard.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 18:28:09 2018 No.9718949 >>9718932Dismiss yourself.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 20:48:04 2018 No.9719211 >>9718883zero divided by any number is 00 ÷ 1 = 00 ÷ 2 = 00 ÷ 3 = 0Any number divided by zero is infinity3 ÷ 0 = ∞2 ÷ 0 = ∞1 ÷ 0 = ∞therefore 0 is the inverse compliment of infinity, and 0 by itself must then not really be a real number just like infinity isn't, which is a fair say because most systems are designed to count the presence of something, not the absence of something.0 ÷ 0 = $\stackrel{0}{\stackrel{+}{-}\infty}$
 >> Anonymous Fri May 4 20:49:47 2018 No.9719215 >>9719211$\stackrel{+}{-}\stackrel{0}{\infty}$
 >> Anonymous Sat May 5 01:42:49 2018 No.9719605 >>9717845>How many zeros, lumped together, equal 5?Pretty easy.If $y * x = z$then $x= z/y$We can apply this theorem in your case as well.Since$5 * 0 = 0$This must mean $5 = 0/0$
 >> Anonymous Sat May 5 01:49:13 2018 No.9719612 >>9717953The Limit of f(x) is not necessarily equal to f(x)Not all functions are continous.
 >> Anonymous Sat May 5 10:39:25 2018 No.9720103 >>97188724/0 is infinity153523/0 is infinityso 4 = 153523?
 >> Anonymous Sat May 5 10:51:56 2018 No.9720120 >>9718729"""proven""" math of today will be rejected in a couple of centuries as retardation
 >> Anonymous Sat May 5 12:27:46 2018 No.9720246 >>9718607The limits example has nothing to do with continuity in this case, you're retarded and probably failed calculus.
 >> Anonymous Sat May 5 17:46:45 2018 No.9720810 >>9718714https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...You're a retard, please don't talk about math you don't understand.
 >> Anonymous Sat May 5 18:06:59 2018 No.9720868 >>9718714>>9718701Ffs search for "geometric series" on wikipedia.$\displaystyle \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{2^n} = 0$ you absolute retards.I wont post this demonstration again. [eqn] \displaystile \sum_{n = 1}^\infty ar^n = \frac{1}{1 - r} [/eqn] and because $\displaystyle \sum_{n = k}^\infty a_n = \sum_{n = 0}^\infty - \sum_{n = 0}^k a_n$ so it follows fucking obviosly that: [eqn]\displaystyle \sum_{n = 1}^\infty ar^n = \frac{ar}{1 - r} [/eqn] so in the. Case of $0.9999 \dots$ you have that: [eqn] \displaystyle \sum_{n = 1}^\infty 9\bigg(\frac{1}{10}\bigg) = 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 \dots = \frac{ar}{1 - r} = \frac{9\bigg(\frac{1}{10}\bigg)}{1 - \frac{1}{10}} [/eqn]Motherfucking $Q.E.D$ you fucking ape-brained retards.
 >> Anonymous Sat May 5 18:09:30 2018 No.9720871 >>9720868I hate posting on my phone. For the last sum its: [eqn] \displaystyle \sum_{n = 1}^\infty 9\bigg(\frac{1}{10}\bigg)^n [/eqn]You get the idea you fucking faggots.
 >> Anonymous Sat May 5 22:00:43 2018 No.9721270 >>9717788How can there be a chance of not being a troll if it is 0/0? Doesn't exist/Doesn't exist equals to one, which means you are a faggot.
 >> Anonymous Sat May 5 22:42:07 2018 No.9721366 >>97181055=0/0=65=6
 >> Anonymous Sat May 5 22:44:44 2018 No.9721375 >>97188830/0 in indeterminate and can have any value from -inf to 0 to +inf
 >> Anonymous Sat May 5 22:53:55 2018 No.9721387 >>9717619You can't divide by zero, I suggest learning basic division if you still think you can't divide by 0 after this thread.
 >> Anonymous Sat May 5 22:55:49 2018 No.9721395 >>9717619You need to define zero first.
 >> Anonymous Sat May 5 22:59:34 2018 No.9721402 I agree it is odd that mathematics being totally abstract work of imagination mandates that you "can't" do something. If you can do ramanujan summation and add 1+2+3+.... and get -1/12 then you sure as hell should be allowed to divide by zero. Just bend the definitions as mathematicians always do and problem solved.
 >> Anonymous Sat May 5 23:22:18 2018 No.9721436 >>9721402>ramanujan summationThat shit is literally executed wrong though, that's why you get a completely nonsensical answer like -1/12. It's just a pop-sci meme at this point.
 >> Anonymous Sat May 5 23:55:19 2018 No.9721481 >>9721436source?there are plenty of videos explaining Ramanujan summation/analytic continuation. the popsci meme is high school aged redditors telling their friends that the actual sum is -1/12 which is not what is being claimed
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 00:04:57 2018 No.9721490 >>9721481Can't find the video I watched but this one explains basically the samehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuIIjLr6vUA
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 00:11:46 2018 No.9721503 >>9721490yeah unfortunately I’ve already spent a lot of time watching that video. the series is not convergent, and it definitely doesn’t converge to -1/12 but it does using analytic continuation. so I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me or not.
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 00:15:08 2018 No.9721509 >>9717619>Let's take 5 divided by zero. That's obviously equal to 0, since 5 * 0 equals zero.I say it's infinity since [eqn]\lim_{x\rightarrow 0}\frac{5}{x} = \infty[/eqn]
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 02:33:27 2018 No.9721680 >>9720868>>9720871Fuck off retard.Rewriting the problem doesn't change the problem.In your retard world you would have $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{x}{(x+1)} = 1$ for any integer x. First you ignore the fundamentals of existence and spacetime itself by ignoring the entire concept of rate of change, then you fuck up more by pretending infinity is anything but a non-numerical vaguely defined directive only equivalent to a verb. >>9718701> sum can "appear" very close to 1 by ignoring that infinite decimal places must be fillednot actually understanding this part of the post is where your concave skull mislead you.
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 02:43:15 2018 No.9721694 >>9721375-infinity and +infinity are misattributing infinity as an element relateable to actual numbers. The integer difference between -infinity and +infinity is the same as the difference between a googolplex and +infinity, if you treat it like a number. The point of infinity is that it is unreachable, so no number is any closer to infinity than any other number. -googolplex and +googolplex are still the same distance from +infinity.infinity is for brainlets. dividing by zero gives you indeterminable work, aka infinity, aka "infinity" = "indeterminable"Indeterminable isn't a number. Its not a value. Its not a noun. $0.\overline{9}$ has an indeterminable amount of 9's after it. It's obviously not 1.0
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 02:51:39 2018 No.9721700 >>9718701>in realtimeNumbers not only have timestamps, but also have mustaches and sombreros.>fuck off idiot
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 02:53:20 2018 No.9721706 >>9721509but it isn't
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 02:53:28 2018 No.9721707 File: 165 KB, 800x800, 1524043147486.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9721700Even a retarded fucking sombrero wearing beaner would have made more of an effort to read the post than you did. Suicide is your only way out, queer.
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 03:03:28 2018 No.9721726 >>9717619The cancellation law says if ac=bc, then a=b, provided c is not equal to zero, because for example, the expression 1x0=2x0, canceling 0 would mean 1=2 which is clearly false.
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 05:24:08 2018 No.9721901 File: 106 KB, 612x491, 1524668600173.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] it becomes clear why you can't do it when you rearrange the formula5 / 0 = aa * 0 = 5^there is no way to solve this.
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 05:39:59 2018 No.9721927 File: 287 KB, 696x504, LMAO.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9721707>I have no argument
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 08:13:39 2018 No.9722118 >>9720246The argument "the limit as x goes to 0 of 1/x is undefined, therefore 1/x must also be undefined at x = 0" only works if you presuppose that 1/x is continuous on its domain. Otherwise the limits are irrelevant to the actual values of the function and you can define 1/0 = 2 or 1/0 = 0 or whatever else you want.
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 08:25:43 2018 No.9722130 >>9721901oh shit i never thought of it like that thanks anon
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 10:53:00 2018 No.9722326 >>9721680Are fucking retarded or just trolling?Why do you define a summation of n terms in terms of x? Have you even taken a calculus class in your misserable life?>Infinity is anything but a non-numerical vaguely defined directive only equivalent to a verbIm -fucking- plying.Ill make this very simple for you, you fucking lard brained worm;The fact that you dont understand what infinity means does fucking not mean infinity is "anything but a non-numerical..."What the fuck do you even think are "the fundamentals of existence and space-time"?For fucks sake you should be IP banned.Ive said this before and ill say it again and it should be an axiom of this site so ill say it in formal verbatim;"He who has not, at the very least, attenden a university lecture on a STEM field, should not, (and hopefully will not) be allowed to ever post his proletariat nonsense on /sci/".The fact thay you dont understand the concepts of calculus does not imply that calculus is wrong, it implies the rather obvious,and that is that youre a retard.Please kill yourself, at the very least castrate yourself.
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 11:24:54 2018 No.9722397 >>9718677this is the most retarded thing i've read all day
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 11:27:49 2018 No.9722400 >>9717619>Let's take 5 divided by zero. That's obviously equal to 0, since 5 * 0 equals zero.What OP is saying is dumb dumb.You are getting at 0*0 = 5Dissagree
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 11:32:47 2018 No.9722412 >>97176192/0 = 0 = 5/02 = 0*0 =5Makes for some useless math.
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 12:28:07 2018 No.9722511 >>9722326wouldnt u feel guilty if he actually castrated himself. YEAH YOU FUCKING WOULD. jerk.
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 12:39:19 2018 No.9722535 >>9718931>>9718866There's a multi-trillion dollar gaming industry that'd like a word with you.
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 12:44:04 2018 No.9722546 >>9721706Prove it.
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 12:50:30 2018 No.9722556 >>9722535>>>/g/hetto
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 12:57:56 2018 No.9722563 >>97225465/-0.1=-505/-0.01=-5005/-0.001=-5000need some more?tough shit, I'm out of crayons and sock puppets
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 13:02:58 2018 No.9722579 >>9722563Oh no I forgot a pixel, my bad [eqn]\lim_{x\rightarrow 0^+}\frac{5}{x} = \infty[/eqn] pretty dumb thing to get hung up on considering I wrote that a limit equals infinity instead of saying it doesn't converge.
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 14:05:47 2018 No.9722714 >>9721694wtf r u talking abouta number being between -inf to +inf is just any real number, its a valid statement, I didn't say it was infinity0/0 is undefined but is an indeterminate answer when working with limits, and needs to be reworked to find the true answer
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 14:11:06 2018 No.9722733 File: 475 KB, 670x623, 1517284858323.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9722326The fact a variable 'x' is throwing you for a loop means you dont even understand algebra let alone calculus. Go be a dumb nigger somewhere else.
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 14:17:33 2018 No.9722757 >>9722733Your sum statement makes no sense you fucking retard. You define a sum of n terms of a sequence thats in terms of x.Your sum only converges y x = 0. Not for any integer x.What the fuck are you even trying to say?Have you even gone past calc 2 or are you just some youtube watching conspiracy nigger.For fucks sake don't attempt to discuss subjects you lack the brain power to understand.People like you are ruining this site.
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 14:32:29 2018 No.9722807 >>9722757Substitute x for 1.Accept you dont have a highschool education and go talk about ponies or pokemon on /b/ or something.
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 14:36:17 2018 No.9722827 >>9722757Oh you know what i am the dummy.You ought to have known i meant $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{x}{(x+1)^{n}}$
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 14:57:23 2018 No.9722888 >>9721927The counter to your response of mocking "real time" was literally in the same post you quoted, which denied plausibility to arbitrary time where n=infinity might be achievable.Put it this way, if you treat sum$\frac{1}{2^n}$ up to $\frac{1}{\infty}$ as a numerical value, or more aptly sum$\frac{9}{10^n}$ since this one produces only 9's, for every real number n under infinity you get more 9's until infinity which produces terminating zeros, as $\frac{n}{\infty}$ ought to equal 0. This is just one of many many examples of infinite summation being retarded because infinity is retarded and treated as a number in higher math, when it really really really really isn't even relateable to numbers at all; being unable to perform any similar function that real numbers and even imaginary numbers can. Even this example would show that in arbitrary unreal time where infinity could be achieved, doing so invents termination, thus $0.\overline{9}$ truly is not the same number as 1. This is further shown through the implication that the infinite property of the sum truly should mean "unending", which also means there exists no decimal cutoff of accuracy and implies a requirement of infinite arbitrary decimal places that need to be filled. For 7 decimal places, would you say [0.9999999] is equal to 1?For 2 decimal places like with dollars, would you say 0.99 is equal to 1?No. Of course not. You accept that there is always some small remainder, but you get retarded about infinity and deny a small remainder can exist there too.0.99] 99 cents is not 1 dollar0.999] 999 grams is not 1 kilogram0.999...] $0.\overline{9} \neq 1$
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 15:49:09 2018 No.9723009 File: 54 KB, 625x325, retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9722888>let's pretend infinity is finite
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 16:55:29 2018 No.9723162 >>9722827>>9722827Well that series converges if $\frac{1}{|x + 1|} < 1$ not for any integer, what makes you think I would say that converges for any integer?
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 17:54:18 2018 No.9723263 File: 84 KB, 800x800, 1525641066850.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 18:46:05 2018 No.9723330 >>9723263He's right you fucktard. If you say, "x divided by zero should be zero" then you're saying:x / 0 = 0-> x = 0 for any x in R
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 18:50:46 2018 No.9723338 File: 814 KB, 604x717, 1515548699937.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9723009You're tasked to count every real number between 0 and 1, starting from 0 and counting up.You never reach 1.Never as in never ever.
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 19:00:03 2018 No.9723348 >>9723009Reaching infinity is finite, yes. If you could reach infinity, there exists no greater value to increase towards. It's a finite end. Infinity is not supposed to be reached, but higher math simply ends up treating it as an arbitrarily large number which can be reached.If you accept n=infinity never occurs in an infinite sum, you accept that you're not really doing infinite summation. You also accept there exists a finite decimal place of accuracy sought, and truthfully only do summation towards meeting that finite'th decimal place. 0.9 is not 10.99 is not 10.999 is not 10.9999 is not 10.99999 is not 10.999999 is not 10.9999999 is not 10.99999999 is not 10.999999999 is not 1This shit never ends. Its never 1. And even if it were in a single case, there would exist infinite cases before it that said the value wasn't 1, which puts more strain on your brain when you thought you were comfortable with ignoring anything which might occur $after$ infinity.
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 19:23:12 2018 No.9723376 >>9722733your sum didn't make sense thoughyou set a sum of n, but have no n in the term. You also have to define x as a variable
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 19:25:13 2018 No.9723380 >>9723348>0.3 is not 1/3>0.33 is not 1/3>0.333 is not 1/3>0.3333 is not 1/3>0.33333 is not 1/3>This shit never ends. Its never 1/3. And even if it were in a single case, there would exist infinite cases before it that said the value wasn't 1/3.
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 19:52:55 2018 No.9723419 File: 30 KB, 941x522, What do you mean i always have a remainder.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9723380correct
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 22:21:38 2018 No.9723631 >>9723419Nice
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 22:25:49 2018 No.9723640 >>9717619you can't divide by zero because 0 isn't a number. trying to divide by 0 is like trying to figure out where nowhere is or how long you have to wait until never
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 22:33:59 2018 No.9723659 >>9723348>>9723348Do you know what convergence is brainlet?
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 22:37:10 2018 No.9723669 >>9717622>destroy the apple
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 22:46:43 2018 No.9723687 >>9723419$\frac{1}{3}_{12}=0.25_{12}$
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 23:01:45 2018 No.9723715 >>9723659some series converge to infinity
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 23:05:00 2018 No.9723719 >>9723659The only people who pretend to know how convergence works are the same retards who believe divergence isn't literally the same thing. If a sum continues to grow towards infinity, it is considered divergent. If you map all real numbers between 0 and infinity to between 0 and 1, this doesn't mean you're converging to 1. It is still just diverging to infinity.
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 23:21:16 2018 No.9723766 >>9723419How does that work
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 23:30:01 2018 No.9723783 >>9717619>It doesn't make sense.Ask Siri for a clever answer to this question.Let x = 5/0. Therefore x * 0 == 5. No number times 0 equals 5, therefore x is undefined. This proof is valid for all real nonzero real numbers. I don't have a corresponding proof for x=0/0, since x * 0 == 0 is true for all real values of x.
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 23:45:03 2018 No.9723806 File: 64 KB, 761x556, papit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9723348>Reaching infinity is finite,
 >> Anonymous Sun May 6 23:58:54 2018 No.9723818   >>97234190.3=3/10+1/30=0.33+1/300=0.333+1/3000=0.3333+1/30000This shit never ends. It's always 1/31/3= 0.333...+1/inf = 0.333... + 0 = 0.333...
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 00:03:04 2018 No.9723822 >>97234191/3=3/10+1/30=0.3+1/30=0.33+1/300=0.333+1/3000=0.3333+1/30000This shit never ends. It's always 1/31/3 = 0.333... + 1/inf = 0.333... + 0 = 0.333...
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 00:27:19 2018 No.9723843   >>9723822looks like you have a problem with the decimal representations of fractions. If there are infinitely many 3s after the decimal then the difference between the fraction and decimal would be 0
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 00:38:33 2018 No.9723848 >>9723843>problemfeel free to type the faulty line
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 00:56:49 2018 No.9723860 >>9723822>>97237661/3 > 0.31/3 > 0.331/3 > 0.333$\frac{1}{3} > 0.3\rightarrow$It works because thats how division works.
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 01:06:18 2018 No.9723865
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 01:08:24 2018 No.9723868 it's just a meme op you can definitely divide by zero if you put your mind to it
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 01:52:22 2018 No.9723924 >>9723009Infinity is unrelated to numbers. It has no meaningful number attributes like positive, negative, real, imaginary, complex, or even finiteness. This is the truthful definition of infinity.Putting infinity on a number line is a brainlet mistake for the ages. Saying there exists no greatest number but infinity is also brainlet bullshit, cause that explicitly means it is finite because you can't go past it. Together, infinity on the numberline as a number that comes at the end because nothing can surpass it means it is finite.Higher math was a mistake.
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 02:03:32 2018 No.9723933 >>9723719Converging to 1 is like saying you're converging to Titan.Like, nigger, you're never going to Titan. You will never make it to Titan. You are no closer to getting to titan than Jupiter is. It doesn't matter what you or Jupiter does, neither of you will ever reach Titan. Jupiter is a lot closer to Saturn and Titan byproxy than Earth is, but Jupiter doesn't cross its orbit with Titan and neither do you, so for the sake of things it will take an infinite amount of distance traveled over an infinite amount of time, and this amount is equal for both you and Jupiter: infinite.There is no such thing as "being close" to infinity. Infinity is infinitly far from anything. Infinity has an infinite difference from every number. An arbitrarily large number is no closer to infinity than 0 is. This "closeness" test is complete bullshit, so there is absolutely no sense in assuming $0.\bar{9}$ is "close" or "infinitely close" to 1. It isn't. It's infinitely far from 1, just the same as it's infinitely far from 0.9
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 02:09:49 2018 No.9723942 File: 3 KB, 635x223, r8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9723924>the truthful definition of infinitystop talking out of your asshttps://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=infinityAn unbounded quantity that is greater than every real number.
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 02:48:51 2018 No.9723970 >>9718064That's not correct. Take the limit as x approaches 0 for 1/x and you get -infinity or +infinity depending on which side you approach from. Mathematicians don't just say "fuck it," any function with a discontinuous limit like that is defined as undefined at the point of discontinuity.
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 02:57:24 2018 No.9723977 >>9723933it converges to 1 because it will never reach a value beyond 1 while simultaneously being able to cover all the values below 1you converge to titan because, in a straight line, you will never go beyond titan while simultaneously covering all the distance between titan and wherever you came fromretards like you seem to forget about this part
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 05:05:18 2018 No.9724084 >>9723977Retards like you give credence to convergence when divergence is used in the contrary while meaning the same exact thing as convergence. Fucking nut.Learn to read posts bro. The concept of convergence in calculus is invalid hand wavy poorly prescribed garbage for literal fucking retards.
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 06:15:36 2018 No.9724146 >>9724084You dont understand the very concept of infinity.It can be positive, negative or complex.But its an unbounded quantity. (Not exactly a quantity).You have to understand all numbers represent ideas, infinity represents a different idea from all other numbers, hence why its not considered an "actual" number. Heres a thought experiment for you:Think of any any number.Now think of any other number thats smaller or larger than your first number.Count how many times you can do this.
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 07:31:35 2018 No.9724240 >>9719605But this would work for any number that's not 5. So 0/0 is all real numbers
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 07:42:02 2018 No.9724258 Is this the new 0.999... bait?
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 13:34:17 2018 No.9724749 File: 50 KB, 322x279, 1436739579057.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >first time on /sci/>see this threadmaybe this board isnt for me
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 13:42:27 2018 No.9724764 >>9724749dumb frogposter
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 16:48:21 2018 No.9725087 File: 29 KB, 600x494, reece.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9723977Not only does it never reach a value beyond 1, it never comes close to reaching 1 in the first place. Convergence and divergence are useless and retarded.
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 16:50:29 2018 No.9725093 5/0=5
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 17:17:53 2018 No.9725142 >>9725087Welp, forgot about signal processing and Taylor series approximations boys, this fag just said it's impossible to do so don't bother.
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 17:37:57 2018 No.9725172 >>9725142$"\approx" \neq "=" \\ \frac{1}{3} \approx 0.\bar{3} \\ 0.\bar{9} \approx 1 \\ \frac{1}{3} \neq 0.\bar{3} \\ 0.\bar{9} \neq 1$Approximation is not equivalence.
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 17:39:16 2018 No.9725173 >>9725172It's literally just truncation of the infinite series in these examples, but okay you constructivist loon.
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 17:43:01 2018 No.9725178 File: 16 KB, 498x467, 1512340128839.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9725173>truncating is infinite
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 17:44:30 2018 No.9725182 >>9725178>implyingTruncating is finite, a step your feeble mind demands to avoid considering logically consistent results like convergent infinite series.
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 17:47:48 2018 No.9725190 File: 38 KB, 655x552, DDhvQLSXsAI6fNh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9725182>"infinite sum just means finite to an arbitrary point which i wont proclaim where that is until I personally decide to make up how much information i want, so because i'm not saying which obviously finite point i'm going to end on, you can't tell me that i'm not doing it infinitely :^)"
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 17:54:02 2018 No.9725204 >>9725190>I have a whole folder of brainlet wojacks to post, which I supplement with intentional misrepresentations of my opponent's argumentjust fucking kysAn infinite series is technically defined as the limit of the sequence of partial sums.
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 17:56:45 2018 No.9725208   File: 482 KB, 925x524, wtfs.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] Answer is A but does anyone have the explanation to this?
 >> Anonymous Mon May 7 22:21:30 2018 No.9725791 File: 1.89 MB, 366x158, foryou.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 00:11:29 2018 No.9725977 >>9725204Limit is meaningless for fraction work like $\frac{x}{(x+1)^n}$. Take $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{18}{10^n}$ for example. That just "converges" to 2. Its just 9/10^n × 2. You dont need calculus to determine this. Converging to any number is retarded and easy, even though converging to a number under "infinite" summation is just mapping a divergence towards infinity to towards a number, but the base mechanics dont change. It never teaches infinity in divergence and it never reaches the limit in convergence. This would be less retarded if convergence wasn't seen as positive assertive equivalence while divergence seen as negating or null info.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 02:16:47 2018 No.9726158 >>9725172.9999...=a10a=9.9999....10a=9a+a9.9999...=9a+0.99999...9=9aa=1=0.99999...
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 02:49:01 2018 No.9726186 $x= \frac{1}{10} \\0. \overline{9}=9x+9x^2+9x^3+9x^4+ \cdots \\0. \overline{9}=9x \left (1+x+x^2+x^3+ \cdots \right ) \\0. \overline{9}=(1-x) \left (1+\mathbf{x}+x^2+\mathbf{x^3}+x^4+ \cdots \right ) \\0. \overline{9}=1-x+ \mathbf{x-x^2}+x^2-x^3+ \mathbf{x^3-x^4}+x^4-x^5+ \cdots \\0. \overline{9}=1$
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 03:20:04 2018 No.9726208 >>9718203>We can divide by zero if we don't actually DIVIDE anythingWell it's not like that's wrong
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 04:16:04 2018 No.9726264 File: 194 KB, 591x462, 1523871650315.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>97261580.999 = a10a = 9.9910a = 9a+a9.99 = 9a + 0.9999a = 8.991Looks like you invented an extra 9 at some point.Infinity doesn't mean "i can change how many numbers there are".
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 04:28:01 2018 No.9726280 File: 720 KB, 350x200, runqvist.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9726264>inf = 3k
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 04:34:25 2018 No.9726291 >>9726264[eqn].\bar{9} = 9*.\bar{1} = 9\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{10^n} = 9\frac{\frac{1}{10}}{1-\frac{1}{10}} = 1[/eqn]If this doesn't convince you then you're hopeless.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 05:48:02 2018 No.9726350 File: 139 KB, 971x565, 1514403883630.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9726280>>9726291Stop inventing extra 9'sThis is equivalent to what you're saying:>x = 0.999>10x = 9.999>you're fucking up right here because 10x is actually 9.99, not 9.999 . You're forgetting to shift the decimal over and instead just invent an extra 9 out of thin air that wasn't accounted for in the first place to literally redefine a variable mid-equation.>10x - x = 9.999 - 0.999 = 9>9x = 9>x = 1Learn to do math you babbling gooks. If you're going to be retarded and treat infinity like a number, then fucking treat it like a number and not some arbitrary lala-land fantasy bullshit variable that can pretend to be any value you want to the effect of making you look insane and mentally challenged.If there are an infinite amount of 9's, then there can be no greater amount of 9's. The correct procedure is:$x = 0.\bar{9}\stackrel{\infty}{\rightarrow} \\ 10x = 9.\bar{9}\stackrel{(\infty -1)}{\rightarrow}$And before you go into some more lame and gay hand wavy garbage or misdirection about>infinity - 1just take a goddamn single second to realize a value less than infinity is still in the real numbers instead of your retarded method of trying to introduce an extra 9 to a value that already has the maximum amount of possible 9's, aka going beyond infinity.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 05:52:35 2018 No.9726352 >>9726350$.\bar{9}$ is shorthand for the convergent geometric series $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}9\frac{1}{10^n}$ which is exactly equal to 1.This fact is elementary and any student of mathematics should be able to prove it. The expression is perfectly well defined, and involves no such use of "infinity as a number" or whatever other nonsense your post is failing to convey.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 05:52:53 2018 No.9726353 >>9726350Quit shilling lame dick notation
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:01:02 2018 No.9726362 File: 44 KB, 526x939, Screenshot_2018-02-23-21-20-34-1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9726352$0.\bar{9}$ is shorthand for repetitive 9's you goofy nigger. Stop making up retarded bullshit and kys.What faggot country did you grow up in where you weren't taught fucking basic division.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:04:00 2018 No.9726363 File: 15 KB, 600x581, 71e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9726353Quit doing retard math so i don't have to use notation that jumpstarts your neurons.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:06:54 2018 No.9726366 File: 383 KB, 1920x1080, 1473186391511.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9726352>$0.\bar{1} × 9 = 1$>$0.\bar{1} × 9 \neq 0.\bar{9}$>implying
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:13:31 2018 No.9726377 >>9726352$\frac{1}{9} > 0.\bar{1} \\ \frac{2}{9} > 0.\bar{2} \\ \frac{1}{3} > 0.\bar{3} \\ \frac{4}{9} > 0.\bar{4} \\ \frac{5}{9} > 0.\bar{5} \\ \frac{2}{3} > 0.\bar{6} \\ \frac{7}{9} > 0.\bar{7} \\ \frac{8}{9} > 0.\bar{8} \\ 1 > 0.\bar{9}$
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:14:03 2018 No.9726379 >>9726362>>9726366>>9726377The decimal representation "r" of a given number is defined as follows [eqn]r = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{a_i}{10^i}[/eqn]letting $a_0 = 1$ and $a_i = 9$ $\forall \space i\in \mathbb{N}$ We arrive at the definition of the symbol $.\bar{9}$.[eqn].\bar{9} = \sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\frac{9}{10^i} = \frac{\frac{9}{10}}{1-\frac{1}{10}} = 1[/eqn] by the convergence theorem for geometric series due to Euler. Any questions?
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:16:37 2018 No.9726382 >>9726377Each of those inequalities is false in the real number system. See my proof above.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:17:31 2018 No.9726384 File: 37 KB, 340x565, 1514683747604.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9726379>m-muh convergence>i-if i rewrite the equation it'll surely work!>>9724084Only question i've got is what faggot country are you from where they don't teach you how to do math.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:18:44 2018 No.9726386 >>9726384Is there an issue with my proof? I could prove that it converges but Euler did it for me a few centuries ago.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:21:31 2018 No.9726390 >>9726382$\frac{1}{3} > 0.3 \\ \frac{1}{3} > 0.33 \\ \frac{1}{3} > 0.333 \\ \frac{1}{3} > 0.3333 \\ \frac{1}{3} > 0.33333 \\ \frac{1}{3} > 0.333333 \\ ... \\ \frac{1}{3} > 0.\bar{3}$its as simple as it can be, dude. Theres no excuse to fuck this up. Maybe you're still just fucking up only on the definitions of approximation and equality, but that has been covered already too.>>9725172
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:26:20 2018 No.9726396 >>9726390Each of those inequalities is true, except the final one, which fails by definition.[eqn].\bar{3} \equiv \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{3}{10^n}= 3\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left({\frac{1}{10}}\right)^n = 3\frac{\frac{1}{10}}{1-\frac{1}{10}}=\frac{1}{3}[/eqn]
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:26:27 2018 No.9726397 >>9726363>retard mathlook who's talking with his retard kindergarten doodles
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:33:42 2018 No.9726408 >>9726390Do note that $.\bar{3}$ does not represent that sequence you posted, but is defined to be the limit of that sequence. Which is exactly $\frac{1}{3}$. Perhaps that's where you're having trouble? That sequence does never reach $\frac{1}{3}$ but it's limit is $\frac{1}{3}$. Good on you for questioning what's presented and thinking about infinity, but the symbol is defined to be the limit.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:36:49 2018 No.9726412 >>9726390Let me explain it another way. $.\bar{9}$ is defined to be that very same number a finite string of 9s never reaches, which is the number 1. Therefore when we write $.\bar{9}$ we mean the number 1. So you can maintain your intuition that it never quite reaches 1 while still accepting that its limit is 1, and we're speaking in terms of limits when we invoke infinity, whether it's with bars or dots
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:37:03 2018 No.9726414 >>9726390$\frac{7}{8} > 0.8 \\ \frac{7}{8} > 0.87 \\ \frac{7}{8} = 0.875 \\ \frac{7}{8}= 0.8750 \\ \frac{7}{8} = 0.87500 \\ \frac{7}{8} = 0.875000 \\ \frac{7}{8} = 0.8750000 \\ ... \\ \frac{7}{8} = 0.875\bar{0}$its a lot different with a non repeating final answer. The closest chance you can come to saying 1/3 actually equals 0.333... is if $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{3}{10^n}$ produces terminating zeroes at n=infinity on $\frac{3}{10^\infty} = 0$, but even that works against your logic since that then means $0.\bar{9}$ must then be its own seperate number from 1 since it has terminating zeroes after it.Fucking infinity-abusing donkeyshit brainlet. I'm tired of this garbage conversation. You've been given the info you must learn anf if you don't learn it then it is your own fault.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:41:21 2018 No.9726420 >>9726412>$0.\bar{1} = 0.\bar{1}$>$0.\bar{2} = 0.\bar{2}$>$0.\bar{3} = 0.\bar{3}$>$0.\bar{4} = 0.\bar{4}$>$0.\bar{5} = 0.\bar{5}$>$0.\bar{6} = 0.\bar{6}$>$0.\bar{7} = 0.\bar{7}$>$0.\bar{8} = 0.\bar{8}$>$0.\bar{9} = 1$One of these things is not like the others. Quit posting, every time you do you just say more stupid shit.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:42:34 2018 No.9726421 >>9726420Each of those equalities is provably correct. Conveniently, I have already proven the last one for you.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:43:50 2018 No.9726423 File: 112 KB, 500x434, meme-cuisin-tastes-good-man-all-star-chicken-tendies-yee-18402606.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9726421I warned you and you did it anyway. You posted again and just as predicted, you said more stupid shit.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:44:15 2018 No.9726424 >>9726423Do you understand what the word "proof" means, frogposter?
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:44:47 2018 No.9726425 File: 1.13 MB, 300x400, dogSmile.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9726414With infinite sums, 'to approach' and 'to equal' are the same thing.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:47:16 2018 No.9726428 >>9726424Yes. You dont. You provided an infinite sum equation, not a proof, and further did so when one of the biggest points of the conversation being about how convergence, infinite sums, and the concept of infinity as a number, are all fantasy brainlet garbage. You don't know what a proof is. Your "proof" is worth as much as>source: meSo fuck off, brainlet.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:48:10 2018 No.9726433 >>97264201/9 = 0.111...2/9 = 0.222...::8/9 = 0.888...9/9 = 0.999... = 1
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:49:14 2018 No.9726434 File: 223 KB, 500x500, Fluctuations-within-the-housing-market-may-be-creating-some-difficulties-for-prospective-buyers-interested-in-making-investments-in-new-or-existing-ho.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9726425Unironically, "APPROach" and "APPROximate" have a lot more in common than what you're claiming.Knock knock is anyone home
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:50:14 2018 No.9726436 >>9726428Nope, I proved the equality using the definitions. It's not my fault you don't understand infinity nor convergence. It must be tough having such a low IQ. My source is Euler, not myself. He is the one who proved the formula for a geometric series. I can't imagine being so mentally handicapped that you cannot wrap your mind around concepts understood in the 1700s.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:50:53 2018 No.9726438 >>9726434an idiot wrote both of them in a shitpostfuck off back to >>>/lit/
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:51:57 2018 No.9726443 File: 9 KB, 159x199, 1506910662049.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9726433>9 DIVIDED BY 9 IS EQUAL TO INFINITE 9'S CAUSE I LEARNED MATH AS WELL AS ALL LIFE LESSONS FROM A DEAD SQUIRREL I FOUND IN MY BACKYARD
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:52:56 2018 No.9726445 >>9726443>i have no argument
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:53:59 2018 No.9726446 >>9726443Nope, read "Elements of Algebra" by Leonhard Euler. If you can read, that is.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:54:26 2018 No.9726447 File: 7 KB, 420x420, b36.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9726436>dead ancient people can't be wrong.gr8 defense m8
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:54:37 2018 No.9726448 >>9726443newsflash: 9*(1/9)=9/9
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:55:16 2018 No.9726449 >>9726447It's a proof. It's proven. It's not wrong. What part of this is hard to understand? Are you so mathematically inept that you cannot even verify a proof for yourself?
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:55:41 2018 No.9726452 >>9717619But so does 6*0 and 7*0 and everything*0. So the result of x/0 is simultaneously every number, so is undefined.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:55:59 2018 No.9726453 >>9726448Newsflash$\frac{1}{9} > 0.\bar{1}$
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:56:47 2018 No.9726454 >>9726453[citation needed]
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:57:59 2018 No.9726456 >>9726453Wrong.[eqn].\bar{1} \equiv \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{1}{10}\right)^n = \frac{1}{9}[/eqn]
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:59:13 2018 No.9726458 >>9726449This isn't law. Its not like euler can't be tried twice for the same crime.Fuck off dude. You're an idiot. You dont know how to consolidate math as a language and instead pretend to think you're intelligent by arbitrarly changing the fundamentals of arithmetic on a per-equation basis. This isn't even math, it's just gay and lame, so go be gay and lame somewhere else.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 06:59:16 2018 No.9726459 >>9726453This is honestly one of the saddest displays of ignorance I've ever seen. I can't imagine being so proud of one's own stupidity.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:00:17 2018 No.9726462 >>9726458It is math, in particular it's Real Analysis, a deep and complex subset of mathematics. The theorems and definitions I have cited are all well-defined and provably correct.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:00:38 2018 No.9726464 File: 53 KB, 403x448, 1509935607777.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9726454$\frac{1}{9} > 0.1\rightarrow$ Keep adding 1's after the arrow.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:02:26 2018 No.9726470 >>9726464Your expression is not well-defined, and if it were the only sane definition would be $0.1 \rightarrow \space= \space \frac{1}{9}$
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:02:49 2018 No.9726471 >>9726464>fuck off back to >>>/lit/kek, you and your doodles
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:05:58 2018 No.9726474 >>9726458I know your type. You failed calculus and now you have a grudge against it. Sad
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:06:55 2018 No.9726479 >>9726470Its well defined by basic division which predates calculus by thousands of years a dumb cunt.Do the fucking math1÷9 = whatFirst term0.1Still a remainderSecond term0.11Still a remainderThird term0.111STILL a remainderMove to hawaii and die in a lava flow you creepy slop of brain diarrhea.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:09:20 2018 No.9726485 >>9726479So basically you're defining a sequence that can be made arbitrarily close to $\frac{1}{9}$ sounds like a limit to me.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:09:24 2018 No.9726486 >>9726479>let's pretend infinite is finitestop pissing in your cereals
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:11:23 2018 No.9726488 >>9726479Do you realize you're literally using division to construct $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{1}{10}\right)^n$, which is equal to $\frac{1}{9}$?
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:13:05 2018 No.9726492 >>9726479You're dividing and adding the remainder. You're adding an infinite number of remainders. An infinite sum. Congratulations for finding an alternative derivation of the exact same number.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:13:06 2018 No.9726493 >>9726485>>9726486>>9726488You're godless idiots.>>9725172
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:14:13 2018 No.9726495 >>9726493The symbol $.\bar{9}$ is defined to be the limit which is provably 1.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:16:53 2018 No.9726497 File: 166 KB, 1080x1080, 2018-05-08 04.16.23.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9726492How did you miss this. All i did was prove pic related, my point, and suddenly you agree with me after disagreeing cause you have literal goldfish intelligence.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:17:55 2018 No.9726498 >>9726495Which symbol
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:19:49 2018 No.9726501 >>9726498$.\bar{9}$>>9726497I saw that and gave multiple proofs to its inaccuracy. Please only discuss concepts you understand in the future, for your sake and ours.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:22:58 2018 No.9726504 >>9726501Which symbol$. \qquad 9 \qquad \bar{ }$which one.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:24:36 2018 No.9726506 >>9726504The composition of the three. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough for you.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:25:16 2018 No.9726507 >>9726486Where do you assume to have stopped getting a remainder instead of infinitely getting a remainder? Its almost like you greentexted the reply you yourself deserved instead of actually quoting or responding.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:32:05 2018 No.9726519 >>9726506Three symbols is not a symbol. $0.\bar{9}$ is not a symbol.It is a number. Its a number you can craft with the decimal system. Considering you're a godforsaken brainlet and probably use calculators for much everything, $0.\bar{9}$ is roughly equal to 0.999999999999999, or just 0.9999999 when you feel like the Casio will do you well. In any case, far from infinite, and far beyond your grasp of how calculation is actually performed. There is nothing left to say to you other than "You're delusional" if you honestly believe a repeating decimal is somehow a symbol with deeper meaning related to euler and calculus. So.You'rw delusional.Seek help $\text{senpai}$
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:33:49 2018 No.9726522 >>9726519Wrong.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:34:25 2018 No.9726523 >>9717619Brainlet here making a 5th attempt at reading Penrose's "Road To Reality".In the first few chapters, he provides a chronology of number system expansions. Natural numbers to integers/rationals to the system of reals and finally complex numbers. Keep in mind, giving a "value" to sqrt(-1) was once considered meaningless or at least treated with skepticism. Maybe we need to expand our notion of a "number" yet again to unify physics (ToE)?Is the formal symbol for divide-by-zero considered "infinity" or is it considered meaningless? If not, does it make any sense to adjoin x/0 to the number system in a more formal way, a more useful way? If not this either, is there some other meaningful way we can extend our number system? Does it make sense to give a duality to zero whereby any divide-by-zero can be treated as divide-by-infinity instead? Go easy on me, I'm just spit-balling.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:34:59 2018 No.9726524 >>9726522You've lost so much you can barely muster a single word.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:37:53 2018 No.9726528 >>9726524Incorrect. A construction is given on page 11 of "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" by Walter Rudin
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:38:02 2018 No.9726529 >>9726523Neither 0 or infinity are Real Numbers so there is no sensible arithmetic to be performed with them. May as well try to calculate 1 ÷ salmon
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:56:17 2018 No.9726545 >>9726507word salad, take your pills and try again
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:57:36 2018 No.9726547 >>9726529>no sensible arithmetic5+0=5>mind blown
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 07:59:38 2018 No.9726548 >>9717619.9999999=1whoo says you can't divide 5 by zero
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 08:01:53 2018 No.9726551 >itt>undergrads and people who failed calc
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 09:01:39 2018 No.9726620 >>9726264lmao seriously?
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 09:07:26 2018 No.9726628 1-0.9999...=???
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 09:12:08 2018 No.9726636 2/7=0.285714285714...+5/7=0.714285714285...=7/7=0.9999....
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 09:16:40 2018 No.9726642 >>97266281/inf = 0
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 09:18:11 2018 No.9726647 >>97266361/9 = 0.111...+8/9 = 0.888...=9/9 = 0.999...
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 09:54:16 2018 No.9726710 >>9726529>>9726523 here.That's sort of what I'm getting at. Once upon a time sqrt(-1) was nonsensical. I'm not saying there is a formal way to join a zer0-infinity duality to our number system. But your skepticism is an echo of past treatment of irrationals and complex numbers. I fully admit I'm a brainlet, but I often wonder what we are missing wrt unifying physics. Number system expansions, whether forced upon the ancients (irrationals) or just a curiosity at first (complex plane) has had direct relevance to physical reality. What number system expansion is needed now to unify GR and QM?
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 10:22:36 2018 No.9726753 >>97176195 divided by 0 is still 5. Prove me wrong.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 10:25:06 2018 No.9726755 >>9726753>Pedro gives away 5 apples equally to 0 persons.>Therefore Pedro has 5 apples leftCheck m8 atheists
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 14:47:11 2018 No.9727254 0/infinity=infinity/0
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 14:54:57 2018 No.9727263 >>9717619absolute state of this website
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 17:10:55 2018 No.9727491 >>9727263This is depressing. /Sci/ used to be an enlightened board.
 >> Anonymous Tue May 8 17:19:11 2018 No.9727501 In a fraction u can define zero if u use limit , like lim1/x as x goes to zero , but x never takes actually 0 . (5/0)=y => 0*y=5 which doesnt exist
 >> Anonymous Wed May 9 00:47:16 2018 No.9728359 File: 38 KB, 645x729, 1509035922690.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9726547>performing arithmetic when there is literally no reason to do so as no change will occur is sensible>wasting time and energy is sensible
 >> Anonymous Wed May 9 00:55:39 2018 No.9728374
 >> Anonymous Wed May 9 00:56:28 2018 No.9728378 >>9726710Infinity doesn't need to exist and thats the problem right there. It is essentially just alternate of eternity, but treated as a number in math has created tremendously stupid fields and equations. So yea, there are some ways math could change sure, but they involve getting away from infinity outright. Also since the internet has come about, rate of prestablished information being positively change has decreased. We're sooner to lose all higher maths than infinity as liberal for profit universities go full communism to indoctrinate their students with intentionally bad math supportive of fringe foreign government policies, which will eventually become no math at all with the increased reliance on "smart" devices and generations of learning about how much money you're entitled from the government.outlook is grim. also zero + infinity just look like a dick and balls.$\rlap{\; \text{0}}{\infty}$
 >> Anonymous Wed May 9 04:16:06 2018 No.9728690 you have 1 and divide it once don't you hab 0.5 each kekekeke
 >> Anonymous Wed May 9 17:16:40 2018 No.9729907 >>9718607Wish we could cull all stirner brainlets
>>