/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9726977]

Why is math so full of bullshit?

>pic related
I understand the reasoning and 'proof' for both so I know that both are wrong. It's just mathematical bullshittery where random idiots come up with new definitions to create illogical constructs.

[Anonymous No.9726983]

>>9726977
>I understand
har de har har

[Anonymous No.9726986]

>>9726977
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuIIjLr6vUA

[Anonymous No.9726987]

>>9726983
shitposting idiots like you should fuck off from /sci/

[Anonymous No.9726989]

>>9726986
>linking numberphile
fuck off with this trash. only people who look like your pic related watch that

[Anonymous No.9726993]

>>9726989
>didn't even read title of video
it's not numberphile

[Anonymous No.9726994]

>>9726987
>HAR SAHT PASTAJNG IDATUS FQCK AFFF

[Anonymous No.9726996]

>>9726989
it's a debunking of numberphile retard

[Anonymous No.9727022]

>>9726993
its about numberphile

[Anonymous No.9727092]

>>9726977
>you again
>"I understand"
No you don't, come back when you graduate high school and hopefully passed calc, you underage retard.

[Anonymous No.9727165]

>>9726977
Divergent infinate series can't have a definite value because they continue to infinity. Generally, unless your are just dealing something like 0+0+0... Your don't know the sum. What you are looking at is the partial sum, and a partial sum with a very strange definition. You can definite your partial in sum different ways. Your posted example involves a very different partial sum then what most people use when dealing with infinite series.

It honestly blows my mind that retards like you come to this board to spout off nonsense you should have learned in Calc2.

[Anonymous No.9727503]

>>9726977
[Math] \displaystyle \sum_{n = 1}^\infty n \implies \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} n = \infty [/math]
So the first one cant converge by any means, the -1/12 is just pop-math nonsense they sell to normies to make them feel smart.
Also: [eqn] 0.9999 \dots \displaystyle \sum_{n = 1}^\infty 9\bigg(\frac{1}{10}\bigg)^n = \frac{\big(\frac{9}{10}\big)}{1 - \frac{1}{10}} = 1 [/eqn]
Havent you taken calc 2? Are you under 18?

[Anonymous No.9727507]

>>9727503
I hate being a dirty phone poster.
[math] \displaystyle \sum_{n = 1}^\infty n \implies \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} n = \infty [/math]

[Anonymous No.9727557]

>>9727165
This post looks like it was written on a mobile device, but anon is correct. 1+2+3...!= -1/12. In fact it isn't equal to anything. However, it can be associated with a value using partial sums.

>>9727503
>>9727507

Same with this guy. You learn this in calc 2. It all has to do with what definition is used for the "partial sum".

[Anonymous No.9728004]

>>9726977
The first one is an out of context result from analytic continuations. The equals sign should have quotation marks around it.
The second one is 100% correct, and you are a retard for not understanding it AND confusing your inability to comprehend it as "evidence" that it's wrong.

[Anonymous No.9728010]

>>9726977
>Ramanujan summation is a technique invented by the mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan for assigning a value to divergent infinite series. Although the Ramanujan summation of a divergent series is not a sum in the traditional sense, it has properties which make it mathematically useful in the study of divergent infinite series, for which conventional summation is undefined.

[Anonymous No.9728020]

>>9727507
That implication is nonsensical. Do you even know what an implication is?

[Anonymous No.9728039]

>>9728020
The implication is fine.
A series is a sum of a sequence.

[Anonymous No.9728047]

>>9728039
No it's not, retard. An expression cannot imply anything, it has no truth value. Can't even tell what you were trying to go for with that implication

[Anonymous No.9728056]

>>9728039
Is this what you're trying to say? Because that implication makes no sense
[math]\sum_{n = 1}^\infty n = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} 1+2+3+\cdots+n = \infty[/math]

[Anonymous No.9728077]

>>9726977
>I understand

so anon where did you do your phd?

[Anonymous No.9728080]

>>9726977

Its not bullshit in the traditional sense. It is, if anything, a demonstration of how fatally flawed the basic,the very most basic foundations, of mathematics are.

At question here are the fundamental axioms, the basic concepts about what a number is and what it means. Normies cant into this level of shit, so they just parrot the proofs and try to sound all smart and learned.

You think the guys who come up with things like -1/12 and 0.999...= 1 are doing anything else but trolling the normies of the maths world?

The thing is they are pointing out the absurdities. They know its bullshit and here they are just saying:

"Look at the bullshit I can create and there is nothing you can do to stop me! Because I can provide proof within the whole mathematical system you guy think is infallible in and there is no mathematical proof that can contradict me! Go suck a dick! LoL"

Look, its like this, the dumbasses, like engineers and IT techs, just accept this shit becasue it sort of works for their purposes and get all antsy if anyone questions it. It upsets them to even think deep deeply about it. The true smarts take note of this sort of mental buffoonery and acknowledge that there are yet many conceptual breakthroughs the Human race needs to make before it marches a step closer to the truth.

[Anonymous No.9728081]

>>9728080
Wrong. See >>9728010. 0.999... = 1 is nothing special, just how real numbers and repeating decimals are defined

[Anonymous No.9728084]

>>9728080
oh look a faggot

[Anonymous No.9728262]

>>9728080
Imagine being this dumb
>the axioms are wrong because my monkey brain doesn't like infinity
>math is flawed xD dumb normies
I don't know about the "normies" but as a mathematician I have the intelligence to recognize a valid proof when needed, and I'm not so pea-brained that I can't even comprehend limits. The expression is well defined as follows, if your high school offers Calculus 2 I suggest you take it.
[eqn].\bar{9} \equiv \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{9}{10^n}=9\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{1}{10}\right)^n=\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}\frac{9}{10} \frac{(1- \frac{1}{10^k})}{1-\frac{1}{10}} = \frac{\frac{9}{10}}{1-\frac{1}{10}}=1[/eqn]

[Anonymous No.9728285]

>>9728081
it's not special by definition lol you are literally one of the normies that parrot proofs like that guy was talking about

[Anonymous No.9728296]

>>9728285
>that guy
samefag
>parrots proofs
As opposed to what? Making shit up on the fly because it coincides with your intuition? You're absolutely right to question axioms and etc but understand that math is not concerned with reality, that these concepts are well formed and consistent, and that alternative formulations are considered from time to time by mathematicians. All integers have two decimal representations, one finite and one as a repeating infinite decimal. This is by design because this is the only sane and consistent way to define repeating decimals. If you don't like the notation take comfort in that it is easy to convert a repeating decimal into a fraction via geometric series (see above). If you can't accept what I've just laid out for you, then you're just trying to be obstinate because you want to feel smarter than the mathematicians, and you're not cut out for academia. Go flip some burgers kid.

[Anonymous No.9728310]

>>9728296
you sure did write a lot of stuff

[Anonymous No.9728314]

>>9728296
also not that guy, as crazy as it seems, at least 2 people disagree with you on the internet

[Anonymous No.9728315]

>>9728310
>(You)

[Anonymous No.9728321]

>>9728310
>>9728314
So you disagree with the definition of an infinite decimal [eqn]a_0.a_1a_2a_3... \equiv \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{a_n}{10}[/eqn]
How would you define it? I'm curious. It may be something that captures your intuition while also being consistent. There are systems with infinitesimals and stuff, but what I've written is the standard definition of an infinite decimal. You'll be happy to know that for the rational case you can avoid the notation you hate so much merely by evaluating that geometric series. You don't have to use infinite repeating decimals if you don't like the idea of infinity being used that way, of course you'll still have to use infinite decimals for the irrationals.

[Anonymous No.9728323]

So you disagree with the definition of an infinite decimal
[eqn]a_0.a_1a_2a_3... \equiv \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{a_n}{10}[/eqn]
How would you define it? I'm curious. It may be something that captures your intuition while also being consistent. There are systems with infinitesimals and stuff, but what I've written is the standard definition of an infinite decimal. You'll be happy to know that for the rational case you can avoid the notation you hate so much merely by evaluating that geometric series. You don't have to use infinite repeating decimals if you don't like the idea of infinity being used that way, of course you'll still have to use infinite decimals for the irrationals.

[Anonymous No.9728327]

>>9728323
fucking latex
[eqn] a_0.a_1a_2a_3... \equiv \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{a_n}{10} [/eqn]

[Anonymous No.9728332]

>>9728323
no one is disagreeing with that working out

[Anonymous No.9728333]

So you disagree with the definition of an infinite decimal
[eqn] a_0.a_1a_2a_3... \equiv \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{a_n}{10^n} [/eqn]
How would you define it? I'm curious. It may be something that captures your intuition while also being consistent. There are systems with infinitesimals and stuff, but what I've written is the standard definition of an infinite decimal. You'll be happy to know that for the rational case you can avoid the notation you hate so much merely by evaluating that geometric series. You don't have to use infinite repeating decimals if you don't like the idea of infinity being used that way, of course you'll still have to use infinite decimals for the irrationals.
>tfw had to delete my post 3 times because of latex
I guess you have to put spaces between the text and the [eqn]

[Anonymous No.9728336]

>>9728332
So if you let [math] a_0 = 0 [/math] and [math] a_n = 9 [/math] where [math] n \in \mathbb{N}[/math] and [math] n > 0[/math], you arrive at the definition [math] .\bar{9} \equiv \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{9}{10^n} = 1 [/math]
This is the standard definition, you don't have to like it.

[Anonymous No.9728341]

>>9728047
>>9728056
That was someone else, not me. I was defending him. The implication was a clarification from his previous post.

It literally parses as
If the series diverges, then the sequence defining the series diverges.

Jesus christ you guys should take intro yo proofs before you bitch.

[Anonymous No.9728343]

>>9728341
There's no helping those who refuse to learn.

[Anonymous No.9728345]

>>9726977
Both equalities in the pic are "possible" because of a very poor implementation of the concept of infinity in math, and made "probable" by the fact that human intelligence has decreased so much while hubris and pride increased that the obvious problem with infinity in math wont be corrected or fixed, and professors will continue to teach it as truth, as if they were realities of the universe revealed by maths akin to the golden ratio rather than the truth that its literal fantasy retard math with zero practical real world applications.

Ramanujan's solution to [math]-\frac{1}{12}[/math] and the fudged equality of [math]0.\bar{9}, 1[/math] both require infinity to be defined such that is a goofy wacky arbitrary value that can arbitrarily change however the author of an equation sees fit, even going as far as changing mid-equation which is abused to the effect of getting the aforementioned completely-retarded equalities which wouldn't otherwise show up in normal math that normal people learn instead of the self-referential liberal retard arithmetic known as higher maths.

So the reason this garbage "math" shows up is cause liberals are brainlets and think their shit doesn't stink. They wont admit they're wrong, they wont fix their stupid retard shit, and we're setting up for another babel event.

[Anonymous No.9728348]

>>9728047
>An expression cannot imply anything, it has no truth value.
Holy shit, this is one of the dumbest posts I've ever read, you should be embarrassed.

[Anonymous No.9728352]

>>9726989
mathologer is based af

[Anonymous No.9728355]

>>9728345
The [math] \frac{-1}{12} [/math] thing is obviously not the sum, but instead an analytic continuation of that variety of series. You're right that it requires playing fast and loose with the concept of infinity. However, [math] 0.\bar{9} [/math] is perfectly well defined, not arbitrary, and cannot change how the author sees fit. It is provably equal to one, by the definition of a repeating decimal. Stop conflating some brainlets playing with divergent series and a perfectly well defined problem. It's not the same.
>the math is wrong cause liberals
Lmao at ur life

[Anonymous No.9728357]

>>9728345
Do you always lash out in anger when you don't understand something? Do you honestly believe higher math is a conspiracy by the liberal boogeyman? It must be hard living with schizophrenia. I hope things look up for you soon.

[Anonymous No.9728360]

>>9728355
>an analytic continuation
on the complex plane
https://youtu.be/sD0NjbwqlYw?t=10m

[Anonymous No.9728362]

I feel like 0.999999... approaches 1 from the left, but isn't exactly equal to it.

[Anonymous No.9728367]

>>9728360
Yes? Of course, this fact is elementary and anyone should know that.
>>9728362
It's not possible to approach from the right in this case (how would that even work), so the limit is defined. A limit is a number and not a process (they do a poor job emphasizing this in traditional calculus classes), the limit is equal to 1. You're thinking the right way, I applaud you for that.
>>9728345
>math that uses infinity doesn't have applications
HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA
>what is calculus
You have to be 18 to use this site.

[Anonymous No.9728381]

>>9728345
Literally all useful math has infinity. In fact, the math that is useless or barely useful is the finite stuff (barely useful in the sense that anyone can do it with a basic calculator, so elementary it's barely worth considering).
Probability theory, statistics, differential equations,real and complex analysis, linear algebra, functional analysis, the list goes on. All of these use the concept of "infinity" extensively. Without an understanding of infinity you could never make the computer that you're using to vomit garbage out into the world.

[Anonymous No.9728386]

>>9728367
hardly anyone knows that

[Anonymous No.9728388]

>>9728367
>>9728362
Wait, then does that mean 1.00000000... also = 0.999999..... ?

[Anonymous No.9728390]

What exactly is the point of saying that 0.999... equals 1 other than to annoy people?

[Anonymous No.9728392]

>>9728357
Its not a conspiracy, its just retarded.
The people interested in further education are brainlet narcissists who pride themselves in an idea of being smarter than other people, even though they gauge this by how good their grades are or how big their paycheck is, not by how many real problems they solve, which wont be much because they aren't learning to use math as a communicative language capable of creating ideas, but instead merely choke on the cocks of their professors towards mindlessly absorbing blatantly flawed knowledge. In the end, these people who pride themselves on their extensive education and assumed intelligence are usually more retarded than the general public for having abandoned communcation and logic for an autistic encyclopedic cornucopia of worthless information that they themselves don't actually understand because they didn't reason through math as language.

[Anonymous No.9728396]

>>9728381
None of that math is useful and all computer math is explicitly finite. You are a dumb faggot because you decided to learn more about arbitrary math than practical applications of math like computer science or engineering. You are an autistic hunk of shit surving off a university stipend allowance for your mental disability.

Also dicks dont go in your ass, faggot.

[Anonymous No.9728405]

>>9728362
[math]0.\bar{9} \approx 1 \\ 0.\bar{9} \neq 1 \\ $0.99 \approx $1.00 \\ $0.99 \neq $1.00[/math]
its pretty simple to figure out. You dont need someone to lie to you and tell you an extra cent doesn't matter. Jews make their money by nickel and diming.

[Anonymous No.9728410]

>>9728388
Yes, they're both referring to the same limit.
>>9728390
Because it's necessary to keep decimal notation consistent. It's less to say that .999... = 1 and more to say "If we define this infinite decimal, what should it equal" to which the only answer is 1.
>>9728392
Your issue seems to be with academia, wherein math is one of the few fields that is still sane. Take your crusade over to the social scientists, they're fucking up much harder.
>>9728396
>all computer math is explicitly finite.
Wrong.
Do you know what a derivative is, anon? What about an integral? Do you realize that these are infinite constructs which can be defined and solved exactly by a computer, with no "approximations" necessary? Do you know about computer algebra systems, where computers evaluate limits and other infinite structures exactly? Please educate yourself or stop posting. I know you have a chip on your shoulder because you failed math, but there's no need to make a fool of yourself too.

[Anonymous No.9728411]

>>9728405
dumb frogposter

[Anonymous No.9728412]

>>9728396
Why the homophobia? Also I am a mathematician and "computer scientist", computer science is a subset of math.

[Anonymous No.9728414]

>>9728355
[math]0.\bar{9}[/math] is perfectly defined as a decimal number with unlimited repeating 9's which makes it a unique identity from rational numbers, just like literally every other repeating decimal.

The existence of a repeating decimal inherently carries an aspect of approximation, explicitly because a remainder always exists. There is no final equality end-point to equations with a repeating solution. Its fair enough to admit that a certain amount of decimal accuracy is good enough for a means, but that doesn't mean the inherent property of approximation has suddenly vanished. 0.9repeating simply does not equate 1. It merely approximates to 1.

[Anonymous No.9728423]

>>9728412
>computer science is a subset of math.
Other way around.

[Anonymous No.9728431]

>>9728414
Your intuition can be formalized using infinitesimals, and I suppose it's fine to disagree with it on a philosophical level. But the definition I gave for repeating decimals is the standard. Can you agree with that? If you take issue with the standard that's fine, but in general, infinite things don't carry "approximations". 0.9 repeating is an expression that is defined to be the number a finite string of 9s can be made arbitrarily close to, this number is 1. It doesn't matter that it never reaches it, this is what the expression is defined to represent.

[Anonymous No.9728432]

>>9728412
>>9728410

If you actually understood anything about computers, you wouldn't be sitting here spouting out obviously retarded shit like assuming computers work infinitely with arbitrary accuracy. The basics of endianess prove you wrong. The basics of $8 solar calculators prove you wrong.

A calculator will give you 1 ÷ 3 = 0.3333333, ×3 = 1

a calculator will also give you 0.3333333 × 3 = 0.9999999

and i already know you don't know enough about the logical mechanics of computing and calculating to explain why this is the case, so again, you don't know what you're talking about. You spent too much time on irrational study than learning practical real world uses of math.

[Anonymous No.9728436]

>>9728410
>>9728388
So, where is the flaw in the following logic?

If the limit of x as x approaches 1 from the left yields a different output from the limit of x as x approaches from the right, then the limit does not exist.

The limit of 1 / (1-x) as x approaches 1 from the left is the number infinitesimally smaller than 1 plugged into the function, so 1 - 0.99999... is a number infinitely small, but still positive. So here, 1/(1-x) = infinity.

BUT, when approaching from the right, where x is infinitesimally greater than 1, 1-x approaches 0 as well, but this time from the left side, giving a negative infinitesimally small number, and 1 divided by that infinitesimally small AND NEGATIVE number yields a Negatively infinite number.

So because the limit does not exist, 0.9999999.... is NOT equal to 1.00000..., as if they were, the limit would exist.

[Anonymous No.9728442]

>>9728431
There is no such thing as being close to infinity, brainlet. 0 and +googolplex are the same equal distance away from infinity. There is literally no such thing as "close" to infinity. The very basic fundamental of infinity is that it is unreachable and unattainable. It doesn't matter if you spend eternity counting by 0.1's or by googols, you'll never reach infinity. Infinity is equidistant from all values including null.

[Anonymous No.9728446]

>>9728432
Yes, those are approximations given by a calculator. Your first example literally proves your entire point wrong. You just proved that a calculator can "remember" the infinite nature of the decimal and output the limit instead of an approximation. Do you know what CAS (computer algebra systems) are? They're tools that can evaluate limits and derivatives exactly and analytically. You're wrong, give up and go to sleep, you have school tomorrow.
>>9728436
The problem is the actual limit is defined in terms of the sum I gave above, which is unambiguous. The operations you're performing on those decimals are naive and incorrect.
>>9728442
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number
Please think before posting in the future.

[Anonymous No.9728454]

>>9728446
Uh no. Its cause calculators and computing have invisible buffers.

You do 1÷3 into a calculator and it prints 0.3333333
what is actually stored is
0.3333333]3
continued for one more byte.
this rounding buffer then allows that multiplying it by 3 rounds up
0.3333333]3 × 3
0.9999999]9[math]\uparrow[/math]
=
1.0000000

This is further proven as the literal case when taking this value and mulitplying by 2 instead of 3
0.3333333]3 × 2
0.6666666]6[math]\uparrow[/math]
=
0.6666667

stop running your dumb faggot mouth. Infinity is not actually utilized in real math.

[Anonymous No.9728467]

>>9728454
>infinity is not actually utilized in real math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity#Instantaneous_velocity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_(mathematics)

Here's a good one, very important in computer science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation
Better get to reading you fucking mongoloid.

[Anonymous No.9728475]

>>9728454
What kind of shit calculators are you using that can't even handle symbolic manipulations?
>hurr durr everything is floating point
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_algebra_system

[Anonymous No.9728476]

>>9728446
When you define a decimal output ought to have infinite arbitrary accuracy, what you're saying is that infinite decimal places must be filled in order to get your limit of work and accuracy. Because infinity is unattainable, the idea that there might exist infinite repetition in a repeating decimal inherently means that you will never completely fill all infinite decimal elements of the solution.

Literally retarded you had to go reach for wikipederast instead of just reasoning through this.
0.999... is not close to 1. It is infinitely far from 1. It is as far from 1 as 0 is, in terms of the concept that 0 is a unique number that does not arbitrarily equate to 1, and too so is 0.999... a unique number that doesn't arbitrarily equate to another number.

[Anonymous No.9728482]

>>9728476
We're not talking about floating point, we're talking about math.
[eqn] .\bar{9} \equiv \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{9}{10^n}=9\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{1}{10}\right)^n=\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}\frac{9}{10} \frac{(1- \frac{1}{10^k})}{1-\frac{1}{10}} = \frac{\frac{9}{10}}{1-\frac{1}{10}}=1 [/eqn]
Note that the triple bar indicates a definition

[Anonymous No.9728487]

>>9728467
The IEEE floating-point standard (IEEE 754) specifies the positive and negative infinity values (and also indefinite values). These are defined as the result of arithmetic overflow, division by zero, and other exceptional operations.

There u go champ.

You still don't know what you're talking about and instead are just frantically searching for references to infinity within computing without following your own advice; actually reading up on it.

Infinity is a literal real number in computer math. There are specifications for bit switching a numerical value to equal infinity when it gets too big beyond a literal real finite number limit. It isn't the unrealistic, arbitrary or romantic implement of infinity on pen and paper, its usually just an arbitrarily large real number that most normal math does not approach.

[Anonymous No.9728490]

>>9728446
>>9728436

I still don't understand where i'm wrong, so I'm going to attempt to be more rigorous with my claims.

So exactly which premise is incorrect? I shall label them with numbers.

1. An infinitesimal amount less than 1 = 0.99999.....

2. An infinitesimal amount more than 1 = 1.00000....

3. Subtracting a number that is amount A less than X from X itself is equal to A more than 0.

4. Subtracting a number that is amount A more than X from X itself is equal to A less than 0.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. From premise 3, subtracting a number an infinitesimal amount less than 1 from 1 itself is equal to an infinitesimal amount more than 0.

6. From premise 4, subtracting a number that is an infinitesimal amount more than 1 from 1 itself is equal to an infinitesimal amount less than 0.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. From premises 1 and 5, subtracting 0.99999..... from 1 itself is equal to an infinitesimal amount more than 0.

8. From premises 2 and 6, subtracting 1.00000.... from 1 itself is equal to an infinitesimal amount less than 0.

I have a feeling my flawed logic is somewhere in here. Which of these statements am i not allowed to make?

[Anonymous No.9728496]

>>9728454
So this is the retarded code monkey stereotype I keep hearing about

[Anonymous No.9728497]

>>9728487
Floating point numbers != real numbers
they teach you this in day one of intro comp sci
I see your hangup now, let me say this again
Floating point numbers are not equal to [math] \mathbb{R} [/math]. Everything you have said is true in floating point numbers and false in [math] \mathbb{R} [/math].
>>9728490
Premise 1, 2, 3, and 4 are incorrect in conventional mathematics. There are no infinitesimals in [math] \mathbb{R} [/math]. The rest fail due to the first 4. Infinitesimals are merely a convenient device for understanding limits but you've demonstrated exactly why they aren't rigorous, they lead to absurd results. You're messing around with undefined intuition rather than the clear cut infinite series definition. Your intuition is captured in non-standard analysis but even there [math] 0.\bar{9} = 1 = 1.\bar{0} [/math].

[Anonymous No.9728500]

>>9728496
I see him more as a victim of wherever he got his "education" from. They forgot to explain what floating point numbers are to him. It's pitiful.

[Anonymous No.9728505]

>>9728496
Technically mathematicians are the retards if they're so fucking gullible that they actually thought a poorly, vaguely defined idea like infinity could actually be mechanically computed in real time, to the effect of using computers and calculators while believing infinite truthful accuracy was literally occurring.

Jesus christ. If computers had somehow come about in any other way unrelated to math, there'd have never been this hard invocation of infinity in computers. It exists explicitly to accomodate the feelings of mathlet brainlets who believe in infinity and would otherwise refuse acknowledging anything that doesn't implement it, even if its just a skin-deep facade implement which they obviously wouldn't know the better of determining cause they're too fucking retarded in the first place.

Infinity is not real. Infinity is not actually used.

[Anonymous No.9728512]

>>9728497
Computers dont operate on [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] you stupid fucking mongoloid. It is actually kind of ironic that Real Numbers would be labelled as such when they aren't practically used in the actual real world. A true misnomer, much like imaginary numbers.

[Anonymous No.9728519]

>>9728505
projecting this hard

>Infinity is not real.
Nobody ever said it was real
>...could actually be mechanically computed in real time
And nobody said it could be computed in real time; It can't by its own definition anyway
>Infinity is not actually used.
Have you never taken babbys first calculus course or what

[Anonymous No.9728523]

>>9728519
Do a fourier transform on pen and paper you stupid bitch. Tell me how much infinite work you accomplished.

You're too fucking retarded to realize you're just being belligerent at this point.

[Anonymous No.9728528]

>>9728487
Also let me add, you can believe that floating point numbers are more "real" than Real numbers. The set [math] \mathbb{R} [/math] is no more real than any other numbers.
>>9728505
Listen you code monkey piece of shit, computers are irrelevant. You can make deductions about infinite constructs on pen and paper, and there are algorithms to allow computers to analytically evaluate infinite things.

Here's an example.
Let [eqn] f: \mathbb{R} \mapsto \mathbb{R}[/eqn] be a function such that [math] f(x)= x^2 [/math].
Then the derivative [math] f'(x) [/math] is defined as follows: [eqn] f'(x) = \lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \frac{f(x+h)- f(x)}{h} [/eqn] provided the limit exists.
Note that this limit is equivalent to [eqn] \lim_{h^* \rightarrow \infty} \frac{f(x+\frac{1}{h^*})- f(x)}{\frac{1}{h^*}} [/eqn] further demonstrating the infinite nature of the limit.
Now this limit evaluates to [math] 2x [/math] , [math] \forall{x} \in \mathbb{R} [/math]. A computer algebra system can compute this limit exactly, both by definition and using the power rule for derivatives of polynomial functions. No floating point numbers involved. Therefore computers can compute infinite things. Please read a book you stupid code-monkey, I'm sorry that you had to drop out of your coding bootcamp when you couldn't pass calculus. Fuck you for making me type all this out.

[Anonymous No.9728529]

>>9728523
>I can't refute counterarguments so I will just call him a stupid bitch
>t-that will show him

Also I only responded to your post once. There are just too many people who can clearly see your sheer ignorance, stupidity and absolute lack of manners.

[Anonymous No.9728533]

>>9728528
Yeah, you're so dumb that you arbitrarily changed from computing infinity to computing expressions in finite steps.

Donkeyshit is smarter than you, goalpost moving faggot.

[Anonymous No.9728536]

>>9728533
Wrong. You're the one who brought up computers when they're irrelevant. No, computers cannot add an infinite amount of numbers, that fact is trivial. They can however work with infinity in an exact sense in the way I demonstrated. Don't you have a java app to write, pajeet?

[Anonymous No.9728540]

OP ticks all the boxes of a pretentious highschooler who thinks himself as a genius (not really) and can't hold basic arguments without name calling

You know you need to be over 18 to post here

[Anonymous No.9728542]

>>9728540
He strikes me more as someone who wanted to be a code monkey but couldn't pass calc 1 for babies, and now is really really mad at numbers.

[Anonymous No.9728555]

>>9728362

[math] 0.99999... = 9\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{10} = 9 \times \frac{1/10}{1-1/10}=9\times \frac{10}{9(10)}=9\times\frac{1}{9}=1 [\math]

Therefore, if you have an infinite decimal 0.9999....... Then it is the same thing as 1.

[Anonymous No.9728557]

>>9728536
Computers were brought up to demonstrate the fact that there exist no real implement of infinity, in the world we live in where computer supplemented calculation is relied on for all practical and impractical needs be it engineering or video games, movie playback or audio playback.

Your arguement is that infinity is used and is useful, despite this being a lie. You argue you provile your retarded viewpont true when expressions are transformed into other espressions, which goes more towards the points that you do not understand infinity and you don't understand math as a language to be smart enough to determine how expressions are manipulated.

(You) < donkeyshit < flies <<< normal people

[Anonymous No.9728558]

>>9728555
use a forward slash for "[/math]"

[Anonymous No.9728559]

>>9728557
I'm sorry we couldn't come to an understanding. I'm going to do something more productive with my time and speak to people willing to learn. Good luck.

[Anonymous No.9728564]

>>9728559
No one is willing to learn impractical bullshit. Even millenials need to tweet about something real. Neither luck or logic are on your side, so enjoy that boulder Sisyphus.

[Anonymous No.9728565]

>>9728564
>no one is willing to learn impractical bullshit
tell that to the gender studies majors kek

[Anonymous No.9728566]

>>9726977
0.99999... != 1 is just one stop before flat earth in troll town. The best bait catches the most fish.

[Anonymous No.9728571]

>>9726977
>be pure math fag
>think that 0.999... = 1 and the range 0.999... < x < 1 both are valid statements

No wonder they're all unemployed

[Anonymous No.9728579]

>>9728454
>doodles
back to the kindergarten you go, take your crayons with you

[Anonymous No.9728612]

>>9728345
Coming back to my original post and how both OP equalities abuse the vaguely, poorly defined implement of infinity to achieve their solutions, we will now prove it.
The common and incorrect proof for 0.999r = 1 is as follows
>x = 0.999...
>10x = 9.999...
>10x - x = 9
>9x = 9
>x = 1
This relies on an abused concept called decimal shifting. Shifting is also used in ramanujan, we'll get to that. More to the point, calling it shifting is actualy sleight of hand misdirection.

In a normal number like 0.99, when we try
x = 0.99
10x = 9.9
what we actually did was shift the decimal over. There are still two promary 9 elements both before and after the shift multiplication.

in the failed solution for x= 0.999..., instead of actually shifting what is instead occurring is an extra 9 is being invented out of thin air, roughly equivalent to
>x = 0.99
>10x = 9.99
where there now exists one more primary 9 element that didn't exist before.
Aside from misdirection, it's also literally just shit retarded math. Its objectively incorrect.
0.99 × 10 is NOT EQUAL to 9.99
defacto

Where they had infinite 9's in x=0.999..., after 10x they suddenly have infinity+1 total 9 elements in the solution, instead of the trailing 9's after the decimal now properly having one less 9.

This literal same exact fucking retarded method is used by ramanujan in his proof of [math]-\frac{1}{12}[/math], where he assigns
>A: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + . . .
>4A: 4 + 8 + 12 + 16 + . . .
>faggoty "shifting"
>A : 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ...
>4A:0 + 4 + 0 + 8 + 0 + ...
>A-4A = 1 -2 + 3 - 4 + 5 - ...
Which is already fucked up but he continues to do it in further steps. He presumes adding 0's doesn't change the self-contained sum, yet then defies this logic by misdirection to the fact he is comparing set element partial sums between the unaltered original set of sums 1+2+3+4+... to his arbitrarily altered mid-equation retard sum of 0+4+0+8+...

Same exact deceit occurs and is entirely disingenuous and wholly invalid

[Anonymous No.9728630]

>>9728612
Fair, but harsh.

[Anonymous No.9728643]

>>9728612

[Anonymous No.9728645]

>>9728643
Its not a joke. Ramanujan was literally just an average, retarded, shit-in-street pajeet indian scamartist.

Marvel in this dumb shitskin's arithmetic and beg to know why such obviously flawed and desperately incorrect math was ever taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.9728647]

>>9728612
>used concept called decimal shifting
ok genius, what is 9.999.../10
is it <1, =1 or >1 ?

[Anonymous No.9728649]

>>9728647
Why are you pretending its okay to have more than infinite elements in a value set.

Nothing comes after infinity.
9.999... is not a real number. It has infinity+1 9's in it.

[Anonymous No.9728657]

>>9728649
why are you not answering the question

what is 9.999.../10
is it <1, =1 or >1 ?

[Anonymous No.9728663]

>>9728657
Why are you making up fake numbers that can't exist?

What is halibut ÷ 10? Answer.

[Anonymous No.9728671]

>>9728663
:-) loser

[Anonymous No.9728685]

>>9728663
absolute retard

[Anonymous No.9728689]

>>9728671
>>9728685
>infinity+1 exists

[Anonymous No.9728726]

>>9726977
First one is obviously just a partial sum like people mentioned.
And the second one - doesn't it all just fall back to infinitesimally small number being exactly zero (or not)?

It sort of makes sense when you think about it.
1 - 0.999... = a tiny part of an infinitely large number = 1/infinity = such numbers CAN be represented by zero "=?" zero

So for 2nd equality to hold (0.999... = 1) we have to assume 1/infinity = 0, otherwise we can use this subtraction as a proof of inequality and thus it becomes false.
I take it this is the part people are fighting in this thread? There's two camps, one assumes 1/infinity IS zero while the other assumes 1/infinity it's not (undefined, or otherwise "muh math is flawed!!"),
and they just jump at each others' throats without it even crossing their mind that they may be disagreeing on a priori assumptions.

[Anonymous No.9728729]

>>9728689
just like halibuts do too

[Anonymous No.9728732]

>>9728726
Technicallt infinity is not a number, so 1/infinity is meaningless as a number ÷ a non numerical element.

theres more of an innate problem with measuring infinity to have occurred. Its very function is to be intentionally elusive to the point it cannot be achieved. This is confused with the concept of "infinite repetition" which assumes an infinite amount of repetition has been accounted for, that infinity has been grasped and thereby going against the granted idea that infinity is not supposed to be attained. What is truthfully presented in "infinite repetition" is instead an arbitrary but finite limit of repetition, where you can count how many repeats there are, but you will also stop counting at some point too, thereby giving a finite evaluation. In this sense, because infinity is never achieved, 1/infinity is never addressed too, so whether or not it would equal 0 is irrelevant as whichever truthful finite point is counted, there then simply exists a real smallest part of 1/that-finite-point

Theres no good reason to believe in infinity.

[Anonymous No.9728733]

>>9728689
[math] \infty + 1[/math] exists and is well defined in [math] \mathbb{S}[/math], the set of all surreal numbers.

[Anonymous No.9728735]

>>9728732
Infinity is a number in the hyperreals and surreals.

[Anonymous No.9728741]

>>9728733
>>9728735
Double breihnlettes merge into form of mega breihnlette

[Anonymous No.9728746]

>>9728741
Here's a helpful diagram for you.
These are the hyperreals.
Only big brain phenotypes can understand it.

[Anonymous No.9728755]

>>9728741
Also you'll be happy to know that you can consider [math] 1 - 0.\bar{9} = \varepsilon[/math] in [math] \mathbb{R^*} [/math] where [math] \varepsilon [/math] is an infinitesimal.

[Anonymous No.9728759]

>>9728746
Your belief system relies on infinity already being consistently well defined, despite being undercut by the simple fact infinity is pure balogna.

M e g a
B r a i n l e t

Go back two spaces, you're ahead of yourself.

Remember, use logic and reason, not indoctrination bullshit :^)

[Anonymous No.9728765]

>>9728759
>indoctrination bullshit
Here's a construction of the hyperreals:
https://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/VIGRE/VIGRE2009/REUPapers/Davis.pdf
You'll find that they're perfectly well defined. If you have the right phenotype of course. If you can't understand it then I get it, life is hard for people with room-temperature IQ like yourself.

[Anonymous No.9728771]

>>9728765
I said think for yourself, you know, make your own brain work, instead of posting links to indoctrination docs.

You're so mentally challenged you chose to avoid thinking and working out that atrophied sac of shit you call a brain, choosing to again simply post more indoctrination.

[Anonymous No.9728773]

>>9728771
Did you read the pdf?

[Anonymous No.9728775]

>>9728771
t. neet loser who failed calculus

[Anonymous No.9728776]

>>9728773
You didn't read my post so you're not in a position to expect me to read yours.

G'night, dumb fag.

[Anonymous No.9728778]

>>9728776
I did. You said I was indoctrinated and told me to think. I then asked you if you read the pdf, which would imply a good faith effort to share knowledge and conduct a debate. Of course, you've failed to do that, so you lose this argument. There's nothing in that paper that I linked that I couldn't come up with myself, but why reinvent the wheel? Aren't you all about practicality?

[Anonymous No.9728780]

>>9728776
Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.9728821]

>>9728020
I didn't really mean it as an actual implication. More as a "lets test the sequence of the series" thing.
You understood what I meant, quit being a pussy.

[Anonymous No.9729070]

My thread got a ton of replies. I will address all the good ones once I have time. Stay tuned.

[Anonymous No.9729084]

>>9726977
>>pic related
The first equation is obviously false and the second is just the definition of 1 written down.

>I understand the reasoning and 'proof' for both
You certainly don't.
The first one doesn't have a proof and the second one is just the definition.

> It's just mathematical bullshittery where random idiots come up with new definitions to create illogical constructs.
Partly yes.

[Anonymous No.9729096]

>>9728341
>>9728348
That implication is read as:
>sum of all natural numbers implies that limit as n goes to infinity diverges
Tell me how this implication makes sense

[Anonymous No.9729104]

>>9728780
Why the Islamophobia?

[Anonymous No.9729110]

>>9728341
>If the series diverges, then the sequence defining the series diverges
Even this implication, which is not the original implication, is still wrong. If the limit of the sequence is not 0, then the series diverges. Or the contrapositive, if the series converges then the limit of the sequence is 0. A series can diverge, but still have its sequence converge to a number

[Anonymous No.9729115]

>>9728341
>If the series diverges, then the sequence defining the series diverges.
Nope,
[eqn]\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n} = \infty[/eqn]
but
[eqn]\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n} = 0[/eqn]

[Anonymous No.9729125]

>>9729115
>=∞
No, Infinity is not a number.

[Anonymous No.9729131]

>tfw mathtards are so indoctrinated that they need to pretend that any value less than 1 is equal to 1 because their retarded Axioms told them so
Literally the same as physictards talking about dark matter TOPLEL

[Anonymous No.9729133]

>>9729125
I know, it's just notation for the series diverges. 0 is a number tho

[Anonymous No.9729136]

>>9729133
>I know, it's just notation for the series diverges.
But that could have many other meanings 1 0 1 0 1 0 certainly isn't "= ∞".


>0 is a number tho
I have no doubt that your other limit is correct.

[Anonymous No.9729138]

>>9729131
Who's pretending that any value less than 1 is equal to 1?

[Anonymous No.9729140]

>>9729131
>mathtards are so indoctrinated that they need to pretend that any value less than 1 is equal to 1
Where?

[Anonymous No.9729144]

>>9729140
In the real world.

[Anonymous No.9729149]

>>9729136
I was wrong, "= ∞" is notation for "for all M > 0, there exists N > 0 such that if n > N, then a_n > M"

[Anonymous No.9729150]

>>9729144
>In the real world.
I have never seen a single mathematicians or mathematical paper suggesting that.

[Anonymous No.9729169]

>>9726977
>muh result derived from the analytic continuation of the Riemann zeta function, represented in a stupid deceiving manner
>muh [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] is a complete space

[Anonymous No.9729173]

>>9729169
Anon, if the people here knew what these words meant they wouldn't be arguing for 130+ posts.

[Anonymous No.9729362]

>>9728778
In what wacky fucked up world do you pretend to understand someone by immediately disobeying them?

You're retarded, man. You can't actually think. Your brain is atrophied. If you could accomplish even a basic normal level of thinking, you'd easily understand that infinity is poorly defined, and further easily understand that most everything based in or around infinity is even moreso poorly defined towards the literal point of actually being illegitamate, which is further proveable by the fact infinity is not used for any single real life real world applications.

Its plain fucking english. Its all straight forward. There is absolutely zero room to argue against this and absolutely no fucking reason to post dumb bullshit about
>b-b-but t-thats not what I l-learned in school, h-heres a link....
Cause that isn't thinking, that is fucking indoctrination.

Again, people like you who pretend to be so smart, who pride yourselves on your further education, are LITERALLY less intelligent than the general public. Literally ANYONE but your peers as dumb as you could tell you infinity has no practical applications, because EVERYONE else actually hold the jobs that keep the world turning instead of leeching off society like you do as a mathlet living off a virtual disability allowance.

[Anonymous No.9729369]

>>9726986
This mathologer video was actually beyond retarded given that his point can be summarized as "its not actually a true sum". Additionally I wanted to sock the idiot in the background in the face. Numberphile actually has a good video on -1/12.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Oazb7IWzbA

[Anonymous No.9729371]

>>9726977
>I understand the reasoning and 'proof' for both so I know that both are wrong
No you dont, because the proofs are all correct.
>It's just mathematical bullshittery where random idiots come up with new definitions to create illogical constructs.
It would be if not for the extensive use of infinite sums in QFT.

In short you are probably 16 and should be working on your 500 word sandwich essay.

[Anonymous No.9729384]

>>9728523
>the amount of paper used is relevant
This implies the symbol for infinity cant be written because it doesnt consume infinite space. You should stop trying to understand infinity and start trying to understand the premise of abstraction.

[Anonymous No.9729385]

>>9729371
>literally making up fantasy lalaland bullshit

Fucking stupid cunt.
The fact you're referencing quantum anything at this point just makes you the maths equivalent of a subhuman intelligence christian buying into Televangelism. You have a strong and deeply misguided faith in the most obvious of lies.

[Anonymous No.9729389]

>>9729169
People get wildly mad about things they dont understand, just skim this thread.

[Anonymous No.9729393]

>>9729385
qft is a massive success story

you not understanding it just strengthens the case against you

[Anonymous No.9729400]

>>9729385
>deeply misguided faith
What the fuck are you talking about? Mathematicians create tools that I use to model the natural world, partial sums and analytic continuation are two of said tools. They allow us to create accurate predictive models. If your principal point is that these tools in the strict context of mathematics are flawed have at it, however the claim that they and by extension infinity isnt useful is demonstrably false.

[Anonymous No.9729405]

>>9729393
Yeah, like what. What has QFT accomplished in thr past 10 years.
You said it's successful. There have been a lot of qauntum field and quantum computing advancements in the past decade, but which of any of them have actually produced a result. You should be able to solve this, so don't run away now. It's time to prove you know more about science than popsci internet clickbait.

[Anonymous No.9729408]

>>9726977
The top is really an analytic continuation of a series. The original series diverges if summed to infinity.

The bottom is just a fancy limit.

[Anonymous No.9729410]

>infinite non-converging series
>being such a brainlet to even bother

[Anonymous No.9729413]

>>9729400
Infinity isn't used is the point. With the example of asking for a fourier transform, can you begin to understand how a computer solves fourier transforms? They're solved by changing the method entirely to FFT, which is objectively finite in scope. Without FFT, digital audio would not exist. We'd all be sitting around listening to beeps and boops and harddrive clicking if not for FFT. You can argue FFT required FT to exist, but FT is not fucking useful, FFT is the actually useful method. This is one of literallt every case where something "theorized" by a mathlet brainlet to invoke infinity, is actually then transformed to actually be useful in real life by abandoning the aspects of infinity.

[Anonymous No.9729415]

>>9729405
>As he posts using technology directly exploiting quantum effects

Just fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9729418]

>>9729413
Let me lay out your argument in a more formal system so you can see how utterly idiotic and semantic your point is.
x isnt useful
y is useful
x directly leads to y
QED x is useful

[Anonymous No.9729423]

>>9729415
I said something produced results. Quantum computing doesn't produce results. Quantum computing has already boiled down to a moore's race of just trying to pack more qubits into smaller packages, but nothing is functionally occurring to the benefit of anyone via implementation of quantum computing. It's basically just really slow computing at this point, with a self-admitted concept that standard computers can do everything anyone needs to accomplish faster than a quantum computer, and that quantum computing is simply theorized to be designed at solving problems a normal computer wont, even though it requires imaginary programmers thinking in arbitrary rules to create these unthinkable methods which have yet to be done.

Like i asked, deliver something actually fucking useful and not based in liberal fantasy horseshit.

[Anonymous No.9729428]

>>9729418
infinity isn't useful
Real numbers are useful
>vis-à-vis, ergo, concordantly, therefore Infinity is useful
This is your post.

Tire fire is your destiny.

[Anonymous No.9729432]

>>9726977
first one is obviously false
second is legit, you are the retard if you disagree

[Anonymous No.9729441]

>>9729423
>>9729423
>with a self-admitted concept that standard computers can do everything anyone needs to accomplish faster than a quantum computer
>For now.
Please die in a fire with your nasty attitude. The topic youre talking about is way more nuanced than you make it appear.

>Fun fact: did you know that the first organised automobile races went so slow and had so many cars breaking down that one of the spectators yelled "get a horse".

[Anonymous No.9729452]

>>9729441
You just finished proclaiming QFT has been successful and i asked for an example in the past decade and you have none.
Would the past 20 years be more allowable?

How about literally anything after the 70's.

Hell, lasers probably could have come about under any different way of thinking to not give credence to quantum at this point.

Success story my ass, it got lucky once and then never again.

[Anonymous No.9729475]

>>9729405
>Yeah, like what.
Q.E.D.

[Anonymous No.9729485]

>>9729428
Well you got the abstract part right, but you didnt follow through with any argument whatsoever. In addition to you your evident anti intellectualism im going to surmise you have no classical education in mathematics, physics or engineering.
Opinion discarded.

[Anonymous No.9729494]

>>9729423
No one said anything about quantum computing, the doped semi conductors that enable you to post your nonsense directly exploit quantum effects. Some more examples:
NMRI
Lasers
Electron Microscopy
LEDs
USB memory sticks
Nearly every piece of modern electronics

Some more abstract exmaples
Superior understanding of :
Superfluidity
Supercondductivity
Quantum cryptography
Electron orbitals
Black body radiation
Several biologcal processes

You represent the worst combination of willful ignorance and arrogance, educate yourself before forming conclusions. Moreover if you want to be taken seriously stop using political buzzwords.

[Anonymous No.9729497]

>>9728367
>It's not possible to approach from the right in this case (how would that even work)
lim 1 + 1/n

[Anonymous No.9729660]

>>9729497
That's not the limit, the limit in this case is [eqn] \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{9}{10} \frac{1-\frac{1}{10^n}}{1-\frac{1}{10}} [/eqn]
which trivially equals 1. Also that's not what approach from the right means anyway, you cannot approach [math] +\infty [/math] from the right.

[Anonymous No.9729661]

>>9729423
Oh boy, the brainlet is back at it. Haven't you been humiliated enough already?

[Anonymous No.9729673]

>>9729497
What is your limit approaching? what you've written there is completely meaningless.It's not my job to guess your intention.
This is a limit approaching from the right:
[math] \lim_{x \rightarrow \infty^+}\frac{1}{x} = \infty [/math]. This is a limit from the left [math] \lim_{x \rightarrow \infty^-}\frac{1}{x} = -\infty [/math] and finally [math] \lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{x} [/math] is undefined due to the above limits not being equal.

[Anonymous No.9729679]

>>9729673
Are you retarded? All of those limits approach 0

[Anonymous No.9729680]

>>9726977
so if 0.999...=1, does that mean that if you approach c closely enough, you are actually moving at c?

[Anonymous No.9729681]

>>9729673
Correction: [eqn] \lim_{x \rightarrow 0^+} \frac{1}{x} = \infty [/eqn]
[eqn] \lim_{x \rightarrow 0^-} \frac{1}{x} = -\infty [/eqn].
[eqn] \lim_{x \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{x} [/eqn] does not exist.
I should get more sleep

[Anonymous No.9729682]

>>9726977
0.999... = 1 because infinitesimals aren't included int he concept of real numbers. If you want 1 - 0.999... =/= 0 you have to introduce a set of numbers that includes things that are smaller than any (positive) real number but still larger than 0.

[Anonymous No.9729683]

>>9729679
Sorry I just woke up and didn't have my glasses on, so I mixed up my infinities a bit. I corrected it above.

[Anonymous No.9729703]

>>9729679
I'm pretty sure [eqn] \lim_{x \rightarrow \infty^+} [/eqn] does not exist in general, please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Anonymous No.9729719]

>>9729661
I have never been humiliated by visiting /sci/

Knocking over you autistic internet tryhards is free wins for me. /sci/ is essentially a bunch of popsci clickbait idiots who don't have functional working knowledge about the topics they discuss, but instead only have a belief that what they read is true, making you all no different than some dumb nigger bitches sending their entire minimum wage salaries to peter popoff for prayer lottery or whatever the fuck. If anything, your blind faith is even worse than religion.
Blind faith regardless the belief is a brainlet endeavor, but at least religious folks dont go around pretending to be smarter than everyone else.

Free wins. You're nowhere fucking near as intelligent as you hope to think you are. You people deserve the rotten attention too.

[Anonymous No.9729722]

>>9728645
the 3 dots is also Alister Crowley occult symbol

[Anonymous No.9729728]

>>9729719
fuck off schizo, not everything is a conspiracy
>>>/pol/
Just because you're too oblivious to realize you've been humiliated doesn't mean you haven't been humiliated.

[Anonymous No.9729730]

>>9729494
>no one said anything about quantum computing
Seriously are you so broken that this is how you believe conversation is supposed to occur?
Please fucking tell me why quantum computing is a topic in this reply chain. It couldn't possibly be because no one was talking about quantum computing, right?

Fuckin worthless retard. You are retarded.

[Anonymous No.9729731]

>>9729719
Please continue

[Anonymous No.9729734]

>>9729719
>NEET argues with PhD mathematicians and gets blown the fuck out
Just another day on /sci/

[Anonymous No.9729738]

>>9729734
Mathologer submit to me in comment chain on his -1/12 video so who cares. If mathematicians can admit they're wrong, that's good enough for me.

[Anonymous No.9729739]

>>9729738
>He misunderstood mathologer's trademark sarcasm for agreement
LOL

[Anonymous No.9729742]

>>9729739
Sarcasm is for the weak and dumb. Sarcasm didn't rule the world. Stoicism did.

Eat shit, brainlet. Mathematicians have subhuman IQ.

[Anonymous No.9729747]

>>9729730
You assumed quantum computing is the only application of QFT because you are a philistine.

[Anonymous No.9729749]

>>9729742
>Sarcasm is for the weak and dumb. Sarcasm didn't rule the world. Stoicism did.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Is calling people fags part of stoicism? Please keep posting, this is fucking hilarious.

[Anonymous No.9729758]

>>9729749
Is crying when your feelings are hurt and your intelligence ridiculed part of stoicism? Keep it up, bitch. Shut up and take the beating, don't push it off. It's no one's fault but your own that your knowledge is worthless. Take responsibility for your life and your losses.

[Anonymous No.9729759]

>>9729730
By the way quantum computing came up only once prior to your post >>9729423
in >>9729405 damn dastardly search function exposing you as an illiterate.

[Anonymous No.9729763]

>>9729758
LOL
Please keep it up, I haven't been this entertained in weeks.

[Anonymous No.9729772]

>>9729719
Every time you open your mouth in any intellectual forum is a humiliation for you. The best possible scenario here is that you created to and posted in this thread as bait. Much more likely is that you are actually that stupid.

[Anonymous No.9729806]

>>9729772
Every post i've made here bar none has destroyed every reply.

>>9728345
>>9728392
>>9728396
>>9728414
>>9728432
>>9728442
>>9728454
>>9728476
>>9728487
>>9728505
>>9728512
>>9728523
>>9728533
>>9728557
>>9728564
>>9728612
>>9728645
>>9728649
>>9728663
>>9728689
>>9728732
>>9728741
>>9728759
>>9728771
>>9728776
>>9729362
>>9729385
>>9729405
>>9729413
>>9729423
>>9729428
>>9729452
>>9729719
>>9729730
>>9729738
>>9729742
>>9729758

Read em and weep. Yes, its been solely just me who has been blasting your bare ass beat red this whole time.

[Anonymous No.9729820]

>>9729806
Everyone already knew you were one person you dolt.
>Read em and weep. Yes, its been solely just me who has been this retarded and wasted this much time.
Fixed it for you.

[Anonymous No.9729826]

>>9729806
Holy shit, you should write a book. Just compile all your posts, it would be a comedic best seller.

[Anonymous No.9729834]

>>9729806
>infinity isn't well defined because computers can't count to infinity
AHAHAHAHAHA
You literally have a kindergartners view of the world. You're so dumb you're not even capable of the most basic level of abstract thought. I'm glad people like you exist, I need monkeys to write my programs for me. Just keep your mouth shut and do as you're told.

[Anonymous No.9729842]

>>9729834
You are a shining example of
>>9728732
You are too dumb to understand the programs you use and you trust they're givinf you answers to your satisfaction anyway.

Don't you feel ashamed to pretend knowing the things you talk about for no good reason?
It'd feel a lot better if you actually understood how anything works.

[Anonymous No.9729847]

>>9729842
Infinity is a number in [math] \mathbb{R}^* [/math], so I don't know what that guy is talking about.
>>9729842
Using the tools of math I can prove the correctness of the programs you monkeys write. Someone with an advanced phenotype like myself doesn't waste his time with trivial things like programming. That's for people like you.

[Anonymous No.9729866]

>>9729847
Not him, but people used to calculate the movement of the planets using epicycles and a geocentric model. But that didn't stop Copernicus from questioning Ptolemaic axioms, even when Copernicus' initial calculations were far from correct.

[Anonymous No.9729927]

>>9726977
Math is not full of bullshit. The world is just full of idiots who don't understand it.

[Anonymous No.9730017]

>>9729806
Imagine being this starved for attention

[Anonymous No.9730053]

>>9729927
Golden ratio and fibonacci sequences are revelations of the real world unhidden by math discoveries.

[math]\infty = -\frac{1}{12}[/math] and [math]0.\bar{9} = 1 [/math] are not. They're wholly artificial and wholly useless.

[Anonymous No.9730577]

>>9730053
Golden ratio is hardly anything special, and does not occur in nature like people think. People just fit seashells and shit to golden spirals when they could be fit to archimedean spirals for example just as easily.

[math] \infty = -\frac{1}{12} [/math] is false. The analytic extension of the riemann zeta function implies that the series in the OP can be associated with that quantity, not that the numbers add to that equality. A series is not a sum of infinite terms, that's just a convenient way to think of them.
[math] 0.\bar{9} [/math] is wholly useless, but when brainlets ask what it equals, it is prudent to tell them that it can only equal 1. By the definition of a decimal representation of a number. Only a brainlet would confuse a number and its representation.
A decimal is defined as follows:
[eqn] a_0{.}a_1a_2a_3... \equiv \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{a_n}{10^n} [/eqn] which converges if [math] a_0 \in \mathbb{Z} [/math] [math] a_n \in \mathbb{N} [/math] is between 0 and 9 inclusive, [math] \forall{n} \in \mathbb{N}[/math].
Using the definition of a decimal number, you can ascertain the value of the repeating decimal [math] 0.\bar{9} [/math].
[eqn] 0.\bar{9} \equiv \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{9}{10^n} = \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \frac{9}{10} \left(\frac{1-\frac{1}{10^k}}{1-\frac{1}{10}}\right) = \frac{\frac{9}{10}}{1-\frac{1}{10}} = 1 [/eqn]
These equalities hold in the real numbers and may not hold in alternative number systems (including floating point, if that absolute retard is still here). So I hope you learned something today, I agree that it's useless, but it's well defined and so when people try to debate it, that's the answer, provided we're working in [math] \mathbb{R} [/math].

[Anonymous No.9730841]

>>9729806
Wow, the images you post are a goldmine. I checked out warosu for a number of them and you pretty much post this retarded shit once a month. Back in december you said
>"What is this convergance bullshit we aren't rounding this isnt fuckin 5th grade."
Which is embarrassing. You also posted a "proof" of P[math] \neq [/math]NP which is beyond retarded. You can see some of his bullshit here. >>/sci/?task=search2&ghost=&search_text=&search_subject=&search_username=&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=1514403883630&search_datefrom=&search_dateto=&search_op=all&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_capcode=all&search_res=post

And you fucked up your LaTeX so much that you gave up in later threads LOL. Thanks for being so retarded, this made my evening.

[Anonymous No.9730893]

>>9730841
>>/sci/thread/9538843#p9540485
Here's another thread by our resident "genius". It's like a window into the mind of a schizophrenic. It's fascinating.

[Anonymous No.9730902]

Look at this cute scribble he keeps posting:
>>/sci/image/AEyqfC7kQCPfICBDXuTf1Q
pic related, it's you after drawing it

[Anonymous No.9730966]

>>9730841
Half those posts aren't me but whatever bro. You aren't very good at using warosu and warosu doesn't display latex, fucking idiot.

Also you are a literal delusional fucking mongoloid if you think P = NP is possible, but you're more a fucking retard for having no working knowledge of applied math in computers so you probably don't even really understand that PNP is solely a computer science problem.

I don't get it faggot, what was the point of your post here? Did you think me quoting all my posts in this thread was somehow indicative that I were trying to hide something?
I mean, yes. You did believe that. Much like the rest of your shit for brains beliefs though, they aren't reflected by real life.

Kys

[Anonymous No.9730982]

>>9730902
When you try to draw lines on a touchscreen, they often come out pretty retarded.

If all you have is insults against whether or not some lines are straight, it's exceedingly self evident that you're a defeatest brainlet without real arguments.

[Anonymous No.9731015]

>>9730893
Lol i remember that thread. There were multiple people arguing with me becausr they didn't know "vector" was a word that existed.

Stopped visiting sci after that idiocracy moment. You self-proclaimed mathematicians have a vocabulary on par with koko the gorilla and its no wonder why you can't use math as a language when the concept of language itself escapes you.

Literally less intelligent than the general public. Unmistakably.

[Anonymous No.9731033]

>>9730966
>warosu doesn't display latex
That doesn't mean I can't read it faggot
>he can't even read markup languages prior to rendering
>>9730982
>they come out pretty retarded
much like yourself
>>9731015
you still don't know what vector means

[Anonymous No.9731037]

>>9730966
>half those posts aren't me
so someone chose to copy the exact filename 1514403883630.jpg for your brainlet image?
The posts i linked contain images which correspond to images you've posted, and have the same file name. You've been caught brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9731049]

>>9731033
Jesus, of course only an argumentative retard from that thread would be an argumentative retard in this thread too.

This is some stupid meta shit going on right now. I already blasted your ass in that thread from february cause you didn't know vector was a word, and all I have to do to blast your ass again is just repost what I posted before.

What is your problem? Why do you do this to yourself? What is your desired goal here? Is it really so difficult to accept you aren't smart and should probably stop replying so you stop being made a fool of? Is it just a masochism thing where being treated like dirt gets you off?

[Anonymous No.9731054]

>>9731037
Believe it or not, renaming files is not rocket science.

[Anonymous No.9731058]

>>9731054
Dictionary definitions are not mathematical definitions. Thank you for displaying your ignorance again. A vector is an object that is a member of a vector space. Not necessarily an arrow floating in space. A Polynomial like [math] x^2 [/math] is a vector for example.
>>9731054
Of course, but you believe that someone purposefully used your filename to discredit you? I suppose that's consistent with your /pol/tard conspiracy attitude. Take your meds son.
I wasn't in that february thread.

[Anonymous No.9731069]

>>9730982
Holy shit, that pic was made with a touch screen? Do you have parkinson's? Not to mention it makes about as much sense as the frantic scribblings of an insane man.

[Anonymous No.9731076]

>>9731049
>Stop disagreeing with me just because I'm wrong retard!!1!!!!!11
This isn't your safe space.

[Anonymous No.9731079]

>>9731069
Are we just pretending touchscreens are accurate now or what.

Oh right, you don't have any functional real world knowledge. Can't forget who I'm talking to.

Words exist outside of math terminology you subsaharan subhuman.

[Anonymous No.9731080]

>>9731079
>has discussion about math
>uses definitions from other fields
wat
Also nice reddit spacing you asshole
>>>/r/The_Donald

[Anonymous No.9731085]

>>9731080
The ever elusive field of English is a bit much, isn't it pajeet?

Vectot is a word. I am confused why you don't believe it is. It's almost like you believe the math terms related to vector were created before the word vector.

Your shits all retarded, man.

[Anonymous No.9731088]

>>9731085
Of course it's a word. What are you talking about? Who the fuck said it's not a word?

[Anonymous No.9731089]

>>9731085
Vector is a word.*

Typing words is also terrible on touchscreens.

[Anonymous No.9731094]

>>9731089
>he uses a touch screen for typing and talks of functional real world knowledge
LOL
why not use something more efficient?
Here's an example of a real world application:
Summations of the form [eqn] \sum_{k=c}^{n}a_k [/eqn]
Are used extensively in science and engineering to approximate less tractable functions like [math] \int \frac{\sin x}{x} [/math]. The sum above is an example of one of those finite sums you love so much. However, to prove its convergence to the value we want, we must use a infinite limit of partial sums. That way we can define a radius of convergence and a measure of the error of our finite approximation. If you fail to do this, disaster can occur, as in many engineering disasters caused by carelessness. Now tell me how this isn't an application of infinity. There is not a single finite method of guaranteeing convergence, and if you can't guarantee convergence, your stupid bridge you're building may fall down and kill some people.

[Anonymous No.9731095]

>>9731088
Apparently you when you become a raging chimp when I say Infinity is best described as a vector.

You go on a tangental tirade about vector fields and vector space and unrelated bullshit towards the most simple understanding of the word "vector". Fuckin drop it dude. Doing this for three months is embarassing. Vector has always existed as a word with well defined usage that was apparently outside your scope since you don't seem to have general education but instead an autistic railroad of pure maths. You didn't win then and you're not winning now. Learn the fucking word already.

[Anonymous No.9731097]

>>9731095
Not the same guy, get a grip, you're becoming paranoid.

[Anonymous No.9731100]

>>9731097
>>9731033

[Anonymous No.9731104]

>>9731094
[math]\sum_{n=1}^{50}[/math] is more like anything that is practically used. You're so weird, you know. You're very dumb.

[Anonymous No.9731111]

>>9731104
WRONG, FUCKING WRONG
Listen, if you don't prove the convergence of your sum then you don't know if your approximation is accurate, if your approximation is inaccurate people fucking die. Also the sum I linked is finite anyway, let c = 1 and n = 50. For fuck's sake, learn to read. Do you want people to use approximations that just "feel right" without actually knowing they're correct? that's how people get killed asshole.

[Anonymous No.9731116]

>>9731104
It's much easier to prove a sum converges than it is to actually find the value. So here's what engineers do:
1. Find your approximating sum, there are many ways to do this (most involve calculus)
2. Prove your sum converges to the function you wish to approximate using any of the simple convergence tests.
3. If the proof works out, you take your approximation and you build your bridge or computer chip or whatever, if it doesn't you go to step 1 again.
So the finite values are used, they'll choose to stop the sum at something like 50 terms. If NEED to prove that your sum works before you use it, otherwise things could get very bad. And again, you need limits to prove said convergence.

[Anonymous No.9731121]

>>9731111
>>9731116
So which fantasy world was infinity utilized to solve these hypothetical engineering problems...?

[Anonymous No.9731137]

>>9731121
A general sum is of the form:
[eqn] \sum_{n=0}^{k}a_n[/eqn]
The bigger your [math] k [/math] is the better your approximation will be.
Here's an example:
The Taylor series of a function about a point a is as follows:
[eqn] f(x) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{f^{(n)}(a))(x-a)^n}{n!} [/eqn] where [math] f^{(n)} [/math] is the nth derivative of [math] n [/math]. This series is found using derivatives and limits. You can stop at a certain number of terms, like replacing the infinity with 5. But you must do so carefully, because if the value you're approximating is outside the radius of convergence you get nonsense answers. The radius of convergence is often found by evaluating the limit [eqn] \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \left| \frac{a_n}{a_{n+1}}\right| [/eqn] where [math] a_n [/math] is the summand.
So there you have it, an infinite limit. You must prove the convergence of your series before using it. There is no way around this. If you don't prove it, you get nonsense results and people get hurt. This is forgetting the fact that you find it using infinite concepts in the first place. So now you have some insight into how your calculator generates finite approximations of functions. I gave an easy function because it's a pain to write out the harder ones, but there are some very complicated functions in engineering that can only be approximated that way, not to mention its applications to differential equations. If we threw out taylor series and the rest of the infinite concepts we would have to go back to living in caves because shit around us would be breaking all the time due to garbage data. Is that what you want, you stupid luddite?

[Anonymous No.9731140]

>>9731137
Correction: [math]f^{(n)}[/math] is the nth derivative of [math]f[/math].

[Anonymous No.9731161]

Oh look, the brainlet got btfo so hard he stopped posting

[Anonymous No.9731182]

>>9731137
1. Glad you're admitting it is approximation. Only took an entire thread but g4u. Convergence is balogna and not indicative of equivalence, just approximation.

2. Infinity didn't occur, try again

[Anonymous No.9731191]

>>9731182
Convergence is necessary to show that the approximation is valid. It's a lot easier to prove convergence using limits and then approximate than it is to find it directly. Without the limits we couldn't prove convergence, which would be disastrous. Please stop posting until you learn to read. Have you ever spoken to an engineer?

[Anonymous No.9731196]

>>9731182
The partial sums are approximations, but the series is exact in the limit provided it converges. Kill yourself. You have no understanding of engineering. Go talk to a working engineer and try to argue about infinity with him,you won't get far because you failed calculus, engineers have to learn more advanced math than that. Also remember that time you pretended to have a Ph.D? That was pathetic. (I know you'll deny it, but we both know you did, so you can't escape the shame.)

[Anonymous No.9731198]

>>9731191
Have you ever used infinity.

Did you miss earlier where convergence was shown to just be divergence under infinity? That convergence and divergence are the same method? That infinity is not accurately or well defined? That things requiring infinity, and requiring infinity to be accurately and well defined, are therefore useless? Such as convergence?

This thread isn't going anywhere and even when it's gone from sci it'll be on warosu, so really - take some of your time and just read through it. Convergence and divergence are not utilized outside of you getting a good grade on a test with your professor. Much the same as infinity.

Don't reply. You have nothing to convince me of anything. Just read the thread.

[Anonymous No.9731202]

>>9731196
You are a psychopath and an idiot. Everything in that post is wrong. You're just fishing for (You)'s at this point. You're a sad little retard. If someone with a Ph.D. berated you too, theres a good fucking chance you're an actual dunce.

[Anonymous No.9731204]

>>9726977
Because math is a construct and infinitism is bae

[Anonymous No.9731372]

>retard only goes no u and purposefully uses the terminology wrong
>somehow made it to 224 replies
Not sure why, but you guys got a lot of free time

[Anonymous No.9731696]

>>9731198
delusions are a symptom of mental illness
trolling is a symptom of retardation
which are you

[Anonymous No.9731705]

>>9731372
I don't have any summer classes this year, what else should I do but argue on the internet?
>>9731202
>finally gets btfo irreparably
>puts fingers in ears and screams "nananananananana"
I'm LMAOing at ur life.

[Anonymous No.9731716]

i could understand not getting the first one but 2nd is easily accessible even for brainlets

[Anonymous No.9731735]

>>9731015
Please continue to stop visiting sci. You will never convince a single person here because you're incoherent on every level. stupid summerfag. Even if you think you're right why waste your time yelling into a void, we're obviously too "indoctrinated" to care.

[Anonymous No.9731806]

>>9731735
Hammering the tallest nail is how I make a living, and i mean it entirely metaphorically. For every self-assumed genius like yourself, many people will just skim the thread and realize that maybe they don't want the kind of education you have when you come out of it at a net loss of general intelligence. It takes someone like me to help people like you get comfortable with the fact that you don't seek education because you feel you can handle it, but because you're desperately overcompensating for just how truly dumb you are. You should be comfortable in your skin, else you turn out to be a retarded liberal with mental disorders. You have absolutely nothing to prove to anyone and if you honestly respected education even in the slightest, you wouldn't make these insane efforts to attempt redefining the basics of logic itself solely just so you can attempt to poorly communicate ideas that exist only on the tip of your tongue rather than embedded in your soul as ideas are when they're passionately studied and perfected. You are actually a brainlet, you are overcompensating for your brainletism by molesting your own mind with information you can't handle, then you reduce the quality of your own life as well as the lives of others whom you attempt to "teach". People like you are the reason the world has gone to fucking shit, so the only goal is a world with less people like you, and making people like you feel less like the self they feel cornered into by society. Here's a tip: normality does not exist. You have nothing to prove to anyone, because anyone who you might want to prove something too is probably more degenerate than you in a way that if you knew, you would never give them the time of day. Their hidden behaviour when you're not around would twist your spin and knot your guts. When you find out how fucked up the world is, are you going to roll with it or are you going to go shoot up a german nightclub.

Being taught does not make it true.

[Anonymous No.9731814]

>.999999...9 = 1
.999999...8 = .999999...9

[Anonymous No.9731817]

>>9731814
0.999...8 = 0.999...

[Anonymous No.9731831]

>>9731806
I sometimes wonder how America became such a trainwreck and then I remember people like this guy exist and ostensibly can vote.

[Anonymous No.9731880]

>>9731817
0.98 = 0.99 = 1.00

[Anonymous No.9731888]

>>9731831
America is the last bastion of civilization on this godforsaken planet. Liberals want it to be as shitty as the rest of the world.

[Anonymous No.9731894]

>>9731880
>I'm Donald J. Trump! The J stands for Genius

[Anonymous No.9731929]

>>9731806
I think u need a hug fren.

[Anonymous No.9731935]

0.9 + 0.1 = 1.0
0.99 + 0.11 = 1.10
0.999 + 0.111 = 1.110
0.9999 + 0.1111 = 1.1110
0.99999 + 0.11111 = 1.11110
...
[math]0.\bar{9} + 0.\bar{1} = 1.\bar{1}0[/math]

0.9 + 0.1 = 1.0
0.99 + 0.01 = 1.0
0.999 + 0.001 = 1.0
0.9999 + 0.0001 = 1.0
0.99999 + 0.00001 = 1.0
...
[math]0.\bar{9} + 0.\bar{0}1 = 1.0 \\ \\ 0.9 < 1 \\ 0.99 < 1 \\ 0.999 < 1 \\ 0.\bar{9} < 1 \\ 0.1 > 0 \\ 0.01 > 0 \\ 0.001 > 0 \\ 0.\bar{0}1 > 0 [/math]

[Anonymous No.9731938]

>>9731888
As a man who is pregnant (with ideas!), I strongly disagree!

[Anonymous No.9731949]

>>9731938

[Anonymous No.9731953]

>>9731935
>you're learning, but
0.9...<1 wrong
0.0...1>0 wrong

keep trying

[Anonymous No.9731954]

>>9731888
Whites do have it better dipshit. Average family wealth for whites is 10x that of blacks. Property ownership/college attendance the past two generations is responsible. I bet you love thinking it's because whites are inherently better though. Lazy amoral faggots.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/federal-reserve-wealth-survey-1.4309933

[Anonymous No.9731963]

>>9731954
Wtf are you talking about race for, nigger.

[Anonymous No.9731965]

>>9731888
>>9731949
>>9731954

fuck off back to >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.9731969]

>>9731963
that guys using those blue niggers on me what the fuck am I supposed to do?

[Anonymous No.9731970]

>>9731953
You're confused. The post was a statement, not a question or an opinion.

[Anonymous No.9731986]

>>9731970
I know it's a statement, it's a false statement

[Anonymous No.9731997]

>>9731953
Yo. Pay attention.

A1: 1 + 0.1 = 1.1
A2: 1 + 0.11 = 1.11
A3: 1 + 0.111 = 1.111
A4: 1 + 0.1111 = 1.1111
A5: [math]1 + 0.\bar{1} = 1.\stackrel{\infty}{\bar{1}}[/math]

B1: 0.9 + 0.1 = 1.0
B2: 0.99 + 0.11 = 1.10
B3: 0.999 + 0.111 = 1.110
B4: 0.9999 + 0.1111 = 1.1110
B5: [math] 0.\bar{9} + 0.\bar{1} = 1.\stackrel{\infty -1}{\bar{1}}0[/math]

B1 < A1
B2 < A2
B3 < A3
B4 < A4
B5 < A5

[Anonymous No.9732008]

>>9731997
That last statement is wrong

[Anonymous No.9732016]

>>9732008
Its not an opinion. Facts can't be wrong. You keep misunderstanding the format of presented information. It is not debateble that 1.11 is a larger value than 1.10

[Anonymous No.9732021]

>>9732016
I only said your last statement is wrong. 1.11 > 1.1 is correct. Your last statement is not a fact, facts must be true statements which it is not

[Anonymous No.9732034]

>>9731970
I wouldn't have called it wrong if I didn't know it was a statement, questions and opinions don't have truth values and can't be wrong

[Anonymous No.9732064]

>>9732021
Claiming something is false places the burden of proof on yourself. At which point of adding 9's to 0.9 did it suddenly become equal to 1.0+0.111...?

You claim the last one?
So you're saying there were infinite cases where A > B, but only one case where B = A? Don't you think, even if you were correct, that can only mean a ~100% guarantee that the different case isn't the correct one?

But thats if you were right, which you aren't. The last case of B5 is objectively equal to [math]1.\bar{1}0[/math] which is not the same number as A5's [math]1.\bar{1}[/math]. B5 has less than infinite 1's following the decimal. A5 has infinite 1's following the decimal.

A5 is clearly larger than B5.

Your confusion probably stems from believing the overline is intended to mean infinite repetition, rather than the more granted and obvious fact the overline only invokes pattern recognition without any predetermined amount of required repetition. Would different symbology help you?
[math]A: 1.0 + 0.\overline{1} = 1.\overline{1} \\ B: 0.\overline{9} + 0.\overline{1} = 1.\underline{1}0 \\ A > B \\ A \neq B[/math]

[Anonymous No.9732073]

>>9732034
Hm. Questions are answered right or wrong. Opinions are accepted or argued. You don't seem to understand the basic fundamentals of language and may be a pathological liar.

[Anonymous No.9732080]

>>9732073
Answers to questions may be right or wrong, but not the question itself. Opinions may be accepted or rejected, but cannot be right or wrong

[Anonymous No.9732083]

>>9732064
So when you use the bar you don't mean infinite repetition, but rather finite repetition? Then you are right

[Anonymous No.9732094]

>>9731997
a5=b5=10/9

[Anonymous No.9732103]

>>9732080
So is it an opinion when your employer fires you? Or is it a statement? Do you think your acceptance or denial of it bares any weight on the idea you aren't being paid anymore?

Questions can be wrong. Asking children what gender they want to be is wrong.
Opinions can be wrong. Whether you like scheiße porn doesn't change the deadly diseases you will contract by engaging in the act. Statements can't be wrong. Statements are not opinions or questions, and portraying an opinion as a statement is not valid communication, much like your attempt at calling the evaluations wrong. "Wrong" is not a statement, a question, or an opinion. It is not even an argument.

[Anonymous No.9732105]

>>9732094
9/9 = 1
9/9 != 0.9999...

You have severely fucked up your math if 9/9 gives you 0.999...

[Anonymous No.9732112]

>>9732105
[eqn] 0.\bar{9} \equiv \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{9}{10^n} = 1 [/eqn]
Proof: Think

[Anonymous No.9732114]

Why do you think that question is wrong? Are you using the word wrong in the moral sense rather than the wrong as in false that I'm using? If you believe that certain porn can affect what deadly disease you might catch, that's belief in the truthfulness of a statement, not an opinion. "Wrong" is a statement and is equivalent to "your statement is false".

[Anonymous No.9732115]

>>9732083
Infinite is finite. There is no number greater than infinity. It's very self-evidently a finite ceiling. Rephrase your post?

[Anonymous No.9732119]

>>9732115
>infinite is finite
(You)

[Anonymous No.9732121]

>>9732115
Can you explain what you mean by that? Infinity is by definition not finite

[Anonymous No.9732122]

>>9732112
I dont understand why you just arbitrarily added an equality to 1 at the end of that. You were fine enough with just:
[math]0.\bar{9} = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{9}{10^n}[/math]

[Anonymous No.9732128]

>>9732122
So you agree that 0.999... = 1?

[Anonymous No.9732129]

>>9732121
No, infinity by definition is a value greater than any number.
No value can be greater. That means it is a hard ceiling, and therefore finite.

[Anonymous No.9732130]

>>9732128
No.

[Anonymous No.9732131]

>>9732129
Something that is larger than any number is unbounded, as in does not have a hard ceiling. Anything with a ceiling is finite

[Anonymous No.9732132]

>>9732122
Not arbitrary
[eqn] 0.\bar{9} \equiv \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{9}{10^n} = \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \frac{9}{10} \frac{1-\frac{1}{10^k}}{1-\frac{1}{10}} = \frac{\frac{9}{10}}{1-\frac{1}{10}} = 1 [/eqn]
>>9732130
Then find the flaw in my derivation above.

[Anonymous No.9732136]

>>9732130
Do you agree that 0.999... equals that sum?
Do you agree that that sum equals 1?

[Anonymous No.9732140]

>>9732131
If infinity isn't finite, you can't count to it and you can't know it exists.
If infinity isn't finite, there would exist values greater than infinity, of which infinity can not be greater than any other number.

It is pure 100% math-major delusion to believe infinity is well defined.

[Anonymous No.9732146]

>>9732140
You're right, you can't count to infinity

[Anonymous No.9732149]

>>9732140
>you can't count to it and you can't know it exists.
Infinity doesn't "exist", it's an abstraction.
https://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/VIGRE/VIGRE2009/REUPapers/Davis.pdf
Here's a construction of the hyperreals in which multiple infinities are defined rigorously. If you can't understand the pdf then you're brain-dead and you shouldn't be allowed at a computer.

[Anonymous No.9732156]

>>9732136
The sum equals 0.999..., but not 1.
The sum is no different than the creation of a decimal using the steps
>0.9
>0.99
>0.999
>0.9999
>0.99999
>0.999999
>...
which in plain english is just "put another 9 after it", over and over.

Its clearly not 1. Anyone can tell you that so you're strange to act like this is somehow a novel interaction. This is neither the first or last time you will be told you're wrong so there's no real reason to assume you're right ahead of time.

[Anonymous No.9732158]

>>9732156
false, why are you ignoring my proof?
>>9732132

[Anonymous No.9732166]

>>9732156
Apply the infinite geometric series summation formula to that series and you get 1. Do you want a proof of the geometric series formula too?

[Anonymous No.9732171]

>>9732105
1/9 = 0.1...
+
8/9 = 0.8...
=
9/9 = 0.9...

[Anonymous No.9732178]

>>9732158
See >>9731970

[Anonymous No.9732180]

>>9732158
Its not a proof, its just an equation which equals nothing but 0.999... maybe you're using wolfram or something? Reduce your limit to a real number and you'll just get the 9's. Extrapolate the obvious that infinity is supposed to be unobtainable and that any value you plug in will always be a real number, so you really have just a real number of finite 9's, or more romantically, you have infinite 9's, which is just [math]0.\bar{9}[/math] but not 1.0

You're weird.

[Anonymous No.9732188]

>>9732171
1/9 > 0.111...
8/9 > 0.888...

1/9 + 8/9 = 9/9 = 1.0
0.111... + 0.888... = 0.999... != 9/9

Two different number systems dude.

[Anonymous No.9732192]

>>9732188
>your number system

[Anonymous No.9732196]

>>9732180
[eqn]\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{9}{10^n} = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} 9 \cdot (\frac{1}{10})^n = 9 \cdot \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} (\frac{1}{10})^n = 9 \cdot \frac{\frac{1}{10}}{1-\frac{1}{10}} = 1[/eqn]

[Anonymous No.9732204]

>>9732188
lol

[Anonymous No.9732212]

>>9732180
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
are you fucking serious. A series is defined to be the limit of partial sums, I even gave you an explicit limit for the partial sums. the [math] \frac{1}{10^k} [/math] term vanishes in the limit.
>he actually doesn't understand elementary calculus
>he actually thinks I used fucking wolfram for an elementary limit
AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.9732225]

>>9732180
Thinking an infinite number of decimal places is a distinct number requires an even less rigorous infinity.You're saying that there's a special number that's infinitely close to but not equal to one, that requires a massive violation of your finitist views. A mathematician recognizes that infinite decimals, a byproduct of the prime factorization of 10, can be resolved into a finite number using a geometric series, which removes all concept of infinity from the statement. To insist that [math] 0.\bar{9} [/math] stops short of 1, one must accept the infinite, rather than realizing that it's just a fancy way of writing 1.

[Anonymous No.9732258]

>>9732212
You have remained incorrect about how to treat infinity for the duration of the thread. I dunno what to tell ya brug. You just don't get it. You're too indoctrinated to understand basic math.

[Anonymous No.9732260]

>>9732258
Wrong. Take your pol shit somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.9732268]

>>9732225
Even though 0.333... × 3 = 0.999... so its not really that difficult of a value to happen along onto within common arithmetic. Nah. This is the part where you realize you're aiming for less accuracy than more. This is the part where you realize engineers want values that are exact, not rounded up via mathlet's convergence.
0.99999999 is more accurate that 1.0

You are dumb. Eat more fruit.

[Anonymous No.9732275]

>>9732268
fuck off retard
whens the last time you talked to an engineer? do they normally talk to people who failed pre-calc?
underageb&

[Anonymous No.9732583]

>>9731965
thanks for your extremely convincing argument

[Anonymous No.9732617]

>>9731191
>Convergence is necessary to show that the approximation is valid
Nitpicking, but that's not true, anon. Partial sums of divergent series, asymptotic expansions, can be perfectly valid approximations.

[Anonymous No.9732647]

>>9732617
shh, i know
You can't expect me to teach an entire course in mathematical modeling in one post, I had to make a few simplifying assumptions. But we both know a more thorough explanation would be even worse for his argument

[Anonymous No.9732657]

>>9726977
x = 0.999999...
10x = 9.99999...
10x - x = 9
9x = 9 so x = 1
>>out

[Anonymous No.9732736]

>>9728645
What is the meaning of that difference if not combining the terms 1 to 1? Couldn't you make it literally any number you want by combining the terms in a certain order?