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

If you can see this message, the SSL certificate expiration has been fixed.
Become a Patron!

# /sci/ - Science & Math

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 241 KB, 362x480, maga_pepe_large.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

0.999... < 1

 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 04:12:04 2018 No.9733330 >>9733327dumb frogposter
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 04:20:20 2018 No.9733344 How much less than 1 is it?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 04:23:00 2018 No.9733348 >>9733344 (checked)0.000...01
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 04:24:48 2018 No.9733350 And how many zeros are represented by those ellipses?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 04:28:43 2018 No.9733353 >>9733350As many as I need to reach an infinitely small number.:^)
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 05:17:02 2018 No.9733417 File: 13 KB, 657x527, 1494486599769.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] A:0.9 + 0.1 = 1.00.99 + 0.11 = 1.100.999 + 0.111 = 1.1100.9999 + 0.1111 = 1.1110$0.\overline{9} + 0.\overline{1} = 1.\overline{1}0$B:1 + 0.1 = 1.11 + 0.11 = 1.111 + 0.111 = 1.1111 + 0.1111 = 1.1111$1 + 0.\overline{1} = 1.\overline 1$A = 1.11111...110B = 1.11111...111B > A
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 05:27:56 2018 No.9733427 File: 69 KB, 852x944, 1507780949079.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] 0.8 + 0.1 = 0.90.88 + 0.11 = 0.990.888 + 0.111 = 0.999For a < 0.89, b = 0.111...a + b < 10.88 + 0.111... = 0.99111...0.888... < 0.890.888... + 0.111... < 10.999... < 1
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 05:34:31 2018 No.9733441 File: 35 KB, 460x592, testHands.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9733417>let's pretend infinite is finite
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 05:38:04 2018 No.9733449 >>97334270.8 + 0.1 = 0.90.88 + 0.11 = 0.990.888 + 0.111 = 0.9990.88 + 0.111... = 0.99111...0.888... < 0.890.888... + 0.111... = 10.999... = 1
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 05:42:08 2018 No.9733455 What number could be between 0.999... and 1?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 05:43:19 2018 No.9733460 File: 1.97 MB, 400x332, 1469583323153.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] For a < 0.222...3b = 0.777...a+b < 10.22 + 0.777... = 0.99777....0.222 + 0.777... = 0.999777...0.2222 + 0.777... = 0.9999777...0.23 + 0.777... = 1.00777...0.223 + 0.777... = 1.000777...0.2223 + 0.777... = 1.0000777...0.222... < 0.222...30.222... + 0.777... < 10.999... < 1
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 05:44:31 2018 No.9733462 File: 5 KB, 250x174, brainlets....jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9733449> 8 + 1 = 10
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 05:46:14 2018 No.9733464 >>97334550.9999...>>9733327Obviously. Any number not 1 is either smaller or larger than 1, only indoctrinated mathtards would claim otherwise
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 05:47:02 2018 No.9733467 >>97334628+1=9you're bad at math, this one takes the cake
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 05:47:14 2018 No.9733468 >>9733455The number with countably infinite 9's.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 05:48:41 2018 No.9733472 File: 7 KB, 420x420, b36.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9733467>0.888... + 0.111... = 1>8 + 1 = 9Choose one.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 05:49:33 2018 No.9733475 >>9733348False unless you're using non-standard notation. Three dots in the middle of a string of numbers suggests a finite amount of numbers, dots at the end suggest infinite.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 05:50:57 2018 No.9733479 File: 53 KB, 600x656, 1494583116246.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >Things can be infinitet. mathtard
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 05:52:20 2018 No.9733487 >>97334600.22 + 0.777... = 0.99777....0.222 + 0.777... = 0.999777...0.2222 + 0.777... = 0.9999777...0.23 + 0.777... = 1.00777...0.223 + 0.777... = 1.000777...0.2223 + 0.777... = 1.0000777...0.222... = 0.222...30.222... + 0.777... = 10.999... = 1
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 05:53:29 2018 No.9733490 >>9733472both
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 05:53:51 2018 No.9733491 File: 73 KB, 334x319, 1508566033111-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9733487>there is a 3 in 0.222...
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 05:54:33 2018 No.9733492 >>97334913/inf = 0
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 05:55:50 2018 No.9733494 File: 1.58 MB, 250x220, 1505777384995.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9733492>there is a 3 in 0.222...
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 05:57:25 2018 No.9733497
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 05:58:10 2018 No.9733498 File: 77 KB, 1024x416, 1486593996536m.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9733497>there is a 3 in 0.222...
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 06:07:27 2018 No.9733515 >>9733348As soon as you put a 1 at the end you say you are assuming a finite number, so 0.000...01+0.999...=1.000...0999... where the 1 in 0.00...01 and the last 0 in 1.00...0999... are in the same n position, and you can make n tend to infinite but there will always be other 9s
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 06:12:59 2018 No.9733524 >>9733515second this
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 06:16:19 2018 No.9733532 >>9733479a circle is and pi is an almost infinite number
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 06:16:56 2018 No.9733536 >>97335150.9 + 0.10.99 + 0 010.999 + 0.0010.9999 + 0.00010.99999 + 0.000010.999...99 + 0.000...010.a9 + 0.b1inject equal n amount of 9's at "a" as n amount of 0's at "b"0.a9]9 + 0.b0]10.a99]9 + 0.b00]10.a999]9 + 0.b000]1$0.\bar{9}9 + 0.\bar{0}1 = 1 \\ 0.\bar{9} + 0.\bar{0} < 1$
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 06:38:56 2018 No.9733574 >>9733441I don't get this meme.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 06:42:11 2018 No.9733580 >>9733574orig is "if you sit on your hand 15min it feel like someone else if jacking you off". thats it.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 06:46:45 2018 No.9733583 >>97335360.[3 + 0.[7 = 10.2[3 + 0.7[7 = 10.22[3 + 0.77[7 = 10.222[3 + 0.777[7 = 10.2222[3 + 0.7777[7 = 10.222...[3 + 0 777...[7 = 1>after infinity0.222... + 0.777... = 0.999...
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 06:47:41 2018 No.9733585 >>9733475> m-m-muhh notationeveryone understands the answer, keep your dumb notations up your little bumholebumhole >_<
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 06:48:04 2018 No.9733586 >>9733348But, 0,(0)1 = 0.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 06:49:45 2018 No.9733590 File: 165 KB, 800x800, 1524043147486.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9733586>lying on the internet
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 06:51:02 2018 No.9733592 >>9733536So you're saying you write and infinite numbers of 0's and THEN you write a 1?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 06:52:22 2018 No.9733594 >>9733592You write the 1 first, then write an infinite amount of zeros in front of it.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 06:57:08 2018 No.9733610 >>9733594Do do that, please. I'll wait.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 06:58:27 2018 No.9733616 File: 106 KB, 383x424, 1515867206569.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9733610Not an argument.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 07:06:37 2018 No.9733633 >>9733616>resorts to shitpostingGood to know you're trolling. For a moment there I thought you were actually retarded.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 07:11:15 2018 No.9733646 >>9733633Meant for >>9733610
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 07:12:10 2018 No.9733647 $\lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{1}{x}=0$.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 07:13:14 2018 No.9733649 File: 86 KB, 384x313, s4dTtBy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9733647You don't reach infinity though.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 07:18:54 2018 No.9733654 >>9733647x has to be a real number. There is no real number x in 1÷x = 0
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 07:24:06 2018 No.9733663 What's 0.0...1 + 0.0...9 ?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 07:27:22 2018 No.9733671 >>9733649Why do you need to reach infinity? For all a > 0, there exists b > 0 such that if x > b, then |1/x| < a
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 07:28:24 2018 No.9733676
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 07:31:04 2018 No.9733680 >>9733676Makes sense desu. So you just throw away the 1 which had to be carried
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 07:32:30 2018 No.9733684 >>97336800.0...1 = 0.0...9 = 0
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 07:38:37 2018 No.9733692 >>9733684How can they be equal when they have different digits in the infinitieth place
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 07:43:39 2018 No.9733698 File: 12 KB, 331x313, 1516136334559.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9733594How is it possible to say 0.00...(infiniteamountof 0)...001
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 07:46:04 2018 No.9733703 >>9733692Infinite 0s means an unending amount of 0s
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 07:48:33 2018 No.9733709 >>9733703It's not unending because it ends at infinity
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 07:49:35 2018 No.9733711 >>9733709Infinity is unbounded. It never ends
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 07:52:42 2018 No.9733720 >>9733709What do you think "ends at infinity" means? You will never be "at infinity" so if it "ends at infinity" then it doesn't end
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 07:55:10 2018 No.9733722 >>9733720>>9733711You can define "ends at infinity" to mean that it ends at the first infinite ordinal.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 08:11:10 2018 No.9733748 >>9733722call it whatever you want, it's still unbounded
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 08:11:14 2018 No.9733749 >>9733722But you were taught the ellipses notation in school, and you know that the expansion does not mean to include limit ordinals, right? So what is the relevance?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 08:11:53 2018 No.9733750 >>97337220.0...1 and 0.0...9 are not equivalent to a cauchy sequence, so they are not real numbers. Define them as an equivalent cauchy sequence that is not equal to 0, go on
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 08:14:41 2018 No.9733757 >>97336921/inf=0
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 08:20:16 2018 No.9733763 >>9733750It doesn't have to be a real number. You can define a number like 0.0...1 to mean a function from, say, $\textomega + \textomega$ to the ordinal 10.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 08:22:02 2018 No.9733764 >>9733749You can extend the definition to include the use of ordinals though. No need to limit yourself to what was taught in middle school
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 08:36:55 2018 No.9733795 >>9733764No, you cannot meaningfully extend the definition of a decimal expansion in this way.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 08:39:53 2018 No.9733803 $\\ 0 < p < 1\\1 = p + (1-p) ~~~~~~\overset{1}{[\overbrace{=====p=====|==(1-p)==}]} \\ = p[x+(1-x)] + (1-p) ~~~~~~\overset{1}{\overbrace{\underset{p}{[\underbrace{=====x=====|==(p-x)==}]} ~~ + ~~ (1-p)}} \\\\ \dfrac{x}{p-x}=\dfrac{p}{1-p} \Rightarrow x- xp = p^2 - xp \Rightarrow x=p^2 \Rightarrow (p-x)=p(1-p)\\\overset{1}{\overbrace{\underset{p}{[\underbrace{=====p^2=====|==p(1-p)==}]} ~~ + ~~ (1-p)}} \\\\\dfrac{p^{n+1}}{p^n(1-p)}= \dfrac{p}{1-p} \Rightarrow \dfrac{p}{p}=1\\\overset{1}{\overbrace{\underset{p^2}{[\underbrace{=====p^3=====|==p^2(1-p)==}]} ~~+ p(1-p)+(1-p)}} \\$
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 08:41:41 2018 No.9733806 Let us suppose, contrary to our hypothesis, that $1=0.\overline{9}$. It follows whencely that $1-0.\overline{9}=0$ and $1-\frac{1}{0.\overline{9}}=0$. But, alas, $\frac{1}{0.\overline{9}}=\frac{1}{\sum\limits_{n\geq 1}9\cdot 10^{-n}}=\sum\limits_{n\geq 1}\frac{1}{9}\cdot 10^n \longrightarrow\infty \neq 1$; A contradiction! Hencely, $0.\overline{9}\neq 1$.Clearly, $1\not<0.\overline{9}$; and whenceforth $0.\overline{9}<1\quad \text{Q.E.D.}$.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 08:47:09 2018 No.9733815 File: 3 KB, 312x78, kek.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9733806KEK
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 09:08:12 2018 No.9733845 This is why logic is inherently flawed. You can use as many little theorums and whatnot as you want, but its less than one, It just is. Look at those two numbers. One is less than the other. A small amount is still an amount. Scientism is cancer.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 09:12:35 2018 No.9733853 >>9733646>no u
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 09:12:53 2018 No.9733854 >>9733845how much less than one is it?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 09:22:42 2018 No.9733878 >>9733854It doesn't matter. Look at the two numbers.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 09:25:07 2018 No.9733884 >>97335360.9...9 + 0.0...1 = 10.9... + 0.0... = 1
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 09:26:56 2018 No.9733888 >>9733878>lookie-lookie mathwhat's next, more kindergarten doodles?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 09:30:56 2018 No.9733894 >>9733888Go ahead and keep uselessly argueing inanities that are only allowed by following inherently flawed logic, irrespectable to reality.Idiots living in bubbles.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 09:35:01 2018 No.9733901   >>9733894>insult mathanything but a rigorous proof or even a descent citation.just another day at the /sci/ crackpot day care center
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 09:38:25 2018 No.9733905 >>9733894>insult mathAnything but a rigorous proof or even a decent citation.Just another day at the /sci/ crackpot day care center.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 09:40:07 2018 No.9733909 >>9733905The proof is there and you just ignore it, pretending like it doesn't matter.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 09:44:26 2018 No.9733917 File: 126 KB, 960x804, 59P5c6X.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9733327>Declaration: In this post everything is assumed to happen in the space of real numbers unless explicitly stated otherwise (WHY?)>Lemma 1.01: for all x < 1; we can find C > 0 s.t. (x + C) < 1 Proof: Think>Corollary 1.02: for all C > 0; 0.999... + C > 1 Proof: follows directly from Lemma 1.01>Theorem 1.03: 0.999... = 1Proof: left as an exercise for the reader. $\square$
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 09:44:58 2018 No.9733918 >>9733909Publish it, disproving all modern math & win your Fields Medal.Don't waste it on us.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 09:49:53 2018 No.9733927 >>9733918You're still missing the point completely.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 09:51:55 2018 No.9733931
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 10:01:20 2018 No.9733940 >>9733845>This is why logic is inherently flawedThen why should anyone listen to anything you have to say? By what means have you to convince them after telling them to abandon logic? Is it that you hate deduction, don't understand it, or are simply trolling?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 10:09:18 2018 No.9733948 >>9733654it's a limit dumbass
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 10:11:51 2018 No.9733952 10x=9.999....x=0.999...10x-x=99x=9x=1
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 10:12:03 2018 No.9733953 >>9733927You are the one missing the point.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 10:19:14 2018 No.9733961 >>9733952Delete this
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 10:20:44 2018 No.9733963 >>9733327three > 3
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 10:22:18 2018 No.9733967 >>9733952$1 = \dfrac{3}{3} = 3 \cdot \dfrac{1}{3} = 3 \cdot 0.\bar{3} = 0.\bar{9}$
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 10:24:12 2018 No.9733970 File: 81 KB, 624x628, 1520891976629.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] we are fucking at it again
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 10:34:52 2018 No.9733980 >>9733967What a useless proof, people that think 0.999... < 1 also think that 0.333... < 1/3
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 10:46:01 2018 No.9734005 File: 8 KB, 208x243, 456.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9733970Can you say 'again' if it never actually stopped after it began?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 10:51:58 2018 No.9734015 >>9733980no, the calculator experience is quite different
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 10:53:16 2018 No.9734019 >>97339801/3 = 3/10 + 1/30 = 0.3 + 1/30= 0.3 + 3/100 + 1/300 = 0.33 + 1/300= 0.33 + 3/1000 + 1/3000 = 0.333 + 1/3000= 0.333 + 3/10000 + 1/30000 = 0.3333 + 1/30000= 0.333... + 1/inf = 0.333... + 0 = 0.333...
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 10:54:19 2018 No.9734022 >>9734005it stopped for a at least month but resumed now maybe the master-baiter was busy
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 10:59:33 2018 No.9734034 >>9734022"it rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the rash again"
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:03:14 2018 No.9734147 >>9733967You can't prove that $\frac{1}{3}$ is functionally equal to $0.\bar{3}$. You've confused two different numbers systems to be indicative of the same thing. Fraction numbers have infinite arbitrary accuracy. Decimal numbers are bound by the tens.$\frac{1}{3}$ isn't the same value as $0.\bar{3}$
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:09:19 2018 No.9734163 >>9734147lol
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:12:23 2018 No.9734169 File: 175 KB, 600x600, 58b.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9734019So your logical fallacy belief that 1/3 = 0.333... relies on the fact you believe infinity is a real number that can be incremented to?Really makes ya think.Feel free to entertain what a value $\frac{n}{\infty}$ might be, but you're more than just a little 'tarded if you think you can increment to an infinite'th step in infinite work.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:12:30 2018 No.9734170 >>9734147>Fraction numbers have infinite arbitrary accuracy. Decimal numbers are bound by the tens.[citation needed]
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:14:40 2018 No.9734176 File: 3 KB, 635x223, r8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9734169>infinity is a real numbernope, the definition precisely says that it isn't a real numberhttps://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=infinityAn unbounded quantity that is greater than every real number.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:15:24 2018 No.9734179 >>9734169No, it doesn't rely on infinity being a real number that can be incremented to. 0.333... = 1/3 can be shown using the definition of repeating decimals
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:17:06 2018 No.9734183 1/9 = .11111...8/9 = .8888...9/9 = .9999...9/9 = 1This is how it was explained to me and I don't see how you can argue against it...
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:18:31 2018 No.9734186 >>9734183You don't understand, fractions and decimals are 2 different number systems, you are confusing the 2 to be indicative of the same thing
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:19:39 2018 No.9734187 >>9734186>You don't understandlol
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:20:32 2018 No.9734190 >>9734187Thanks
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:20:45 2018 No.9734191 >>9734186What does this even mean, actually? Because it sounds like you're saying decimals and fractions and two different types of math that can't connect to each other.Which sounds so retarded that I simply must be misunderstanding something.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:21:17 2018 No.9734193 >>9734147To be cear, by infinite i mean unlimited here. There is no false fraction, the truthfulness only comes from trying to evaluate it to a different number system.A number $\frac{1}{3}$ is perfectly fine just being "one third". It doesn't need to be evaluated to a decimal to even perform arithmetic. We can all do $\frac{1}{3} × 3 = \frac{3}{3} = 1.0$, and this is a truthful evaluation since $\frac{n}{n} = 1$. What is a false evaluation is $\frac{3}{3} = 0.\bar{9}$, because therre exists no mode or method dividing a sole 3 into another sole 3 which returns any amount of 9's.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:21:50 2018 No.9734195 >>97341861/4 isn't 0.25 u see dey has mystical difference
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:22:29 2018 No.9734196 >>9734176Hmm... did you uh... read the post you replied to? Or are you a bot?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:22:53 2018 No.9734198 >>9734190your welcome, the citation earned it
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:23:57 2018 No.9734201 >>9734196ty for your contribution
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:25:16 2018 No.9734204 >>9734193word salad bullshitcitation needed
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:26:31 2018 No.9734211 >>9734204You are confused. I didn't ask a question or post my opinion. I posted a statement
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:26:38 2018 No.9734212 >>9733327$\displaystyle 0.999\dots = \sum_{n = 1}^\infty 9\bigg(\frac{1}{10}\bigg)^n = \frac{\big(\frac{9}{10}\big)}{1 - \frac{1}{10}}$Sage. Stop arguing about this nonsense, take calc 2.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:27:59 2018 No.9734215 >>9734211citation needed
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:29:07 2018 No.9734219 >>9734212Oh no, sage, the downvote of 4chan :O
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:29:56 2018 No.9734221 >>9734219>i have no argument
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:30:45 2018 No.9734224 >>9733806>reciprocal of a sum is the sum of the reciprocals(You)
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:31:28 2018 No.9734226 >>9734221You're the retard that fell for this stale bait
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:32:42 2018 No.9734231 >>9734204>it's you againDid your ban expire? Weren't you humiliated enough in your last thread? Or did you want more punishment?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:32:54 2018 No.9734233 >>9734212>$\displaystyle 0.999\dots = \sum_{n = 1}^\infty 9\bigg(\frac{1}{10}\bigg)^n = \frac{\big(\frac{9}{10}\big)}{1 - \frac{1}{10}}$cool. where did you learn about this one?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:35:12 2018 No.9734238 >>9734233infinite geometric series
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:35:21 2018 No.9734240 >>9734231Can you link me to who you think I am from the last thread?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:36:19 2018 No.9734245 >>9734238neat ive never seen it before,. thanks!
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:36:22 2018 No.9734246 >>9734240I got lazy and quoted you when I wasn't sure. I'm referring to the OP of the last thread since you were kind of talking like him. He's in here somewhere for sure.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:38:14 2018 No.9734249 >>9734246Why would the OP from last thread argue against 0.999... < 1 if he started the thread?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:38:42 2018 No.9734250 File: 42 KB, 562x437, hahaha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9734224fucking kek you are hilariousrun n up to 10 and see how bad you are at math
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:39:05 2018 No.9734252 >>9734233Here's an explicit limit for the curious[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]Note that the triple equals sign indicates a definition, this is actually how a repeating decimal is defined.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:39:36 2018 No.9734255 inf - (inf - 1) =/= 0inf - (inf - 1) = 11 - 0.999... = 1/inf1/inf =/= 0
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:40:17 2018 No.9734256 >>9734249because logic is for pussies
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:40:36 2018 No.9734257 >>9734250Lol you're such a retard, you don't even know
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:41:20 2018 No.9734260 >>9734255sound like fapping under a blanket
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:41:34 2018 No.9734261 File: 8 KB, 363x295, (You).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9734250In case you thought i was agreeing with the green text statement, I was mocking it.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:42:00 2018 No.9734263 >>9734257actually he's right. i posted the proof so im pretty sure its correct.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:42:54 2018 No.9734266 >>9734263Lol no, your proof is wrong
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:43:17 2018 No.9734268 >>9734266i think i would know if my proof was wrong faggot
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:43:27 2018 No.9734270
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:44:48 2018 No.9734274 >>9734268No you wouldn't because you're a retard
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:46:01 2018 No.9734275 >>9734261>you thought i was agreeing with the green textt'was so, good then, good *puts wet trout down*
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:46:03 2018 No.9734276 >>9734268a/(b+c) != (a/b)+(a/c)
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:46:47 2018 No.9734278 >>9734195You are dumb and didn't learn how to perform division and don't understand the concept of a remainder. 1 ÷ 4 = ???1 - 4 1(0) - 4×[2] = 2 <----2 - 42(0) - 4×[5] = 0 <----1÷4 = 0.250 - 40(0) - 40(00) - 40(000) - 4$\frac{1}{4} = 0.25\bar{0}$ This value has terminating zeros. It is a unique result indicative of final precision.1 ÷ 3 = ???1 - 31(0) - 3×[3] = 11 - 31(0) - 3×[3] = 11 - 31(0) - 3×[3] = 1...1 ÷ 3 ≈ 0.333......$\frac{1}{3} \approx 0.\bar{3}$The value lacks terminating zeros. It is not in final precision.Now for something really funny, cause higher math is gay and retarded.Lets switch this up a little and go back to pretending an infinite'th step in infinite work is achievable (it really isn't, but we'll pretend for the mathlets)$\sum{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{3}{10^n}$You imply that at n=infinity, $\frac{3}{10^{\infty}}$ is equal to 0.Well guess what, you just got your final precision didn't you. You know what else you got? A unique number. You multiply $0.\bar{3} × 3 = 0.\bar{9}$ and what you have is an infinite string of 9's with a final 0 at the end, which makes it a seperate and unique number that clearly isn't 1. Even if we simply rounded on the last possible digit, it's just a zero so it rounds down unchanging instead of rounding up to 1.Since infinite sums are not how most people craft numbers or assume to perform division, we can just assume an infinite sum identity of 3/10^n is not really the same as 1/3. But dang, is it close!
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:47:19 2018 No.9734279 >>9734276how about when a=b=c=1 then?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:47:59 2018 No.9734280 >>9734278There you are, I was wondering when you'd show up. You fucked the latex up again, give up.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:48:19 2018 No.9734281 >>9734278and the mustaches and sombreros? where did they go?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:48:32 2018 No.9734284 >>9734279It's not true for all real a,b,c, only in some cases. a=b=c=1 is not one of those cases
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:48:50 2018 No.9734285 File: 9 KB, 211x239, 1513971000563.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9734260>numbers emit sound
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:50:48 2018 No.9734291 >>9734280shitlatexman is a legenda kind of crazy 4chan petgive him a crumb every now and then and he'll bark happily all day
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:52:03 2018 No.9734294 >>9734291I know>that time he argued that $0.\bar{3} \neq \frac{1}{3}$ because floating point numbers aren't precise enough.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:53:02 2018 No.9734297 >>9734278>infinite string of 9's with a final 0 at the endmy sides
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:53:26 2018 No.9734299 >>9734270i have seen it>>9734274please do not call me the word RETARD. thank you
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:54:26 2018 No.9734301 >>9734297What's the problem, brainlet?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:54:50 2018 No.9734303 >>9734299ok, Mr Retardo
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:55:26 2018 No.9734304 File: 26 KB, 400x462, 1408468454253.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] 0.3 + 0.7 = 10.2 3 + 0.7 7 = 10.22 3 + 0.77 7 = 10.222 3 + 0.777 7 = 10.2222 3 + 0.7777 7 = 10.22222 3 + 0.77777 7 = 10.222222 3 + 0.777777 7 = 1...$0.\bar{2}3 + 0.\bar{7}7 = 1$>b-but n-nothing comes after infinity...$0.\bar{2} + 0.\bar{7} \stackrel{\neq}{<} 1$
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:55:54 2018 No.9734306 >>9734301my sides, can't you read?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:57:49 2018 No.9734312 >>9734306Ok, brainlet
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:58:15 2018 No.9734313 File: 211 KB, 748x600, 1500764868775.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9734294The decimal system isn't precise enough you concave skulled mongoloid. LmaoWtf does it have to do with floating point. Computers print results in the decimal system just like you do.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:58:49 2018 No.9734315 >>97343040.2...3 + 0.7...7 = 0.2... + 0.7... = 0.9... = 1good boy! you got one right!
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 12:59:35 2018 No.9734316 File: 159 KB, 890x768, 1518128911776.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9734313AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:00:26 2018 No.9734320 >>9734315You're off by 0.000...1
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:01:11 2018 No.9734322 >>9734315Oh dang looks like you got that wrong cause you don't read too good. Must have missed the obvious unequal and lesser than signs.I'm sure if you read the post at least 7 more times, you'll find them.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:02:56 2018 No.9734324 >>97343200.0...1 = 0.0... = 0another one!patpatpat
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:04:35 2018 No.9734327 >>9734322>unequal and lesser than signssorry, won't touch your shitlatexhaven't got any dogpoo baggies with me
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:09:13 2018 No.9734335 >>9734327Latex confuses you?Damn buddy. You might be on the wrong board.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:11:12 2018 No.9734342 >>9734335AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAplease keep going, this is fucking hilarious
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:11:56 2018 No.9734344 >>9734335Math confuses you?Damn buddy. You might be on the wrong board.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:13:11 2018 No.9734345 File: 124 KB, 600x570, 060.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9734344You're the one who thinks 2 + 7 = 10
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:14:12 2018 No.9734347 >>9734324Still off by 0.000...1
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:14:19 2018 No.9734349 >>9734345in base nine it does
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:14:50 2018 No.9734352 File: 15 KB, 251x242, 6dBt2Oj[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9734345oh my god, you can't be this dumb, i refuse to believe itAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:15:23 2018 No.9734354 >>9734345>0.222... = 0.2
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:16:05 2018 No.9734356 >>9734349Ye, well computers don't print in base 9 and neither does the world. We use the decimal system. Decimal, you knowDECbase 10
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:17:15 2018 No.9734360 File: 189 KB, 1462x1462, 1445716929351[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9734356>computers>relevant to this conversations*breathes in*
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:17:21 2018 No.9734361 >>9734356You're a real nigger, aren't you?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:17:44 2018 No.9734362 >>9734356your iq, can see why you're attached to it
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:19:12 2018 No.9734368 >>9734354Be a good little girl and learn to do mathLeft to right, add each element vertically0 . 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ...0 . 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 ...___________________I'll start you off sweetie, no curveballs.0 . [2] 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ...0 . [7] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 ...____________________0 . 9 - - - - - - - -Can you fill in the blanks, honey?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:19:45 2018 No.9734370 >>97343680.999...
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:20:35 2018 No.9734372 >>97343681.00000000000000000000000000000000
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:21:06 2018 No.9734374 >>9734224Why am I surprised that a brainlet like you would be lost in the delicacies and intricate subtleties of my clever proof. Here's a proof that even a little brainlet like you might comprehend one day (it took me 5 minutes): Allow us to define $\operatorname{f}(n)=\underbrace{0.999\cdots 9}_{n\text{ times}}$. Using induction on $n$, proceed. Basis of induction: most certainly $\operatorname{f}(0)=0<1$.Induction hypothesis: suppose thus: $\operatorname{f}(n)<1$ for all $k\leq n$.Induction step: henceforthwith $\operatorname{f}(n+1)=\operatorname{f}(n)+\underbrace{0.000\cdots 0}_{n\text{ times}}9$. Hark! $\operatorname{f}(n+1)<1+\underbrace{0.000\cdots 0}_{n\text{ times}}9$. However; $\underbrace{0.000\cdots 0}_{n\text{ times}}9\longrightarrow 0$ and thence $\operatorname{f}(n+1)<1$ as required. $\mathbf{Q.E.D.}$
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:22:43 2018 No.9734379 $0 \rightarrow \infty = \overbrace{\underbrace{0,1,2,3,4,\cdots}_{\infty \text{ elements of } \mathbb{R}}, \underbrace{\infty}_{\text{not in } \mathbb{R}}}^{\text{all possible elements}} \\ \text{Mapped between 0.9 and 1} \\ 0.9 \rightarrow 1 = \overbrace{\underbrace{0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999, \cdots}_{\infty \space \mathbb{R} \text{ elements of the map}}, \underbrace{1}_{\text{not in the }\mathbb{R}\text{ map}} }^{\text{all possible elements}}$ If there exists a value to bridge the gap between 0.999... and 1 thus allowing 0.999... = 1, there also exists a value to bridge the gap between real numbers and infinity, thus allowing infinity to be equal to a real number. If there exists no value to bridge the gap between 0.999... and 1 thus assuming 0.999... = 1, there also exists no value to bridge the gap between real numbers and infinity, thus assuming infinity to be equal to a real number.Because the value does not actually exist and infinity cannot be reached, there is no possible value to add to 0.999... to make it reach 1; it will never reach 1. No amount of increments in the reals will reach infinity, so no mapped amount of increments between 0 and 1 will reach 1. 0.999... is not "infinitely close" to 1. It is actually infinitely far away from 1. Any arithmetic that shows 0.999... = 1 is therefore flawed by making inconsistent and mistaken assumptions about the construction of a repeating decimal extended from a poor interpretation and implementation of infinity, because infinity has classically always been poorly interpreted and implemented.$0.\bar{9} \neq 1$
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:22:48 2018 No.9734380 If there is not value in between 0.999... and 1, does that really mean that they are equal?There is no integer between 3 and 4, but 3 doesn't equal 4.I understand the 'proof'x = 0.999...10x = 9.999...9x = 9.999... - 0.999... = 9x = 1Would this be more intuitive in another base?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:23:08 2018 No.9734381 File: 87 KB, 300x318, beautiful.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9734374>let's pretend infinite is finite
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:23:51 2018 No.9734383 >>9734381and where did i do that
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:24:19 2018 No.9734384 >>9734379>1 not in Rkek
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:24:37 2018 No.9734385 >>9734374Congrats, you have proven that 0.999...9 < 1 for any n amount of 9s where n is a natural number
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:26:25 2018 No.9734386 >>9734383"n", "n times", "n+1"
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:27:09 2018 No.9734388   >>9734374This is a correct proof, but not of 0.999... < 1. Your original proof >>9733806 is still wrong
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:29:49 2018 No.9734393 $\\\frac{3}{3} = 1\\\\\frac{1}{3} = 0.333...\\\\\frac{2}{3}=0.666...\\\\\frac{3}{3}=0.999...  >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:31:32 2018 No.9734397 >>9734374>delicacies and intricate subtleties of my clever prooflol, delusional retard see >>9733815  >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:31:52 2018 No.9734399 >>9734393Tfw to smart too latex properly  >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:35:38 2018 No.9734404 >>9734385Since attaining infinity is impossible, any attempt at doing so only gives you a real number. Not him btw but you should be smart enough to know you can't increment to a value equivalent to infinity. Whenever you decide to give up, there's your real number.  >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:36:25 2018 No.9734407 File: 34 KB, 670x702, Screenshot_20180511-183454.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9734393>>9734399Here is my proof ur all faggots and these threads should be banned  >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:37:42 2018 No.9734411 >>9734407that is not a proof. it is four statements presented as equalities  >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:38:38 2018 No.9734414 >>9734411Dont caare mathtard  >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:38:37 2018 No.9734415 File: 57 KB, 1080x1920, Screenshot_2018-05-11-10-38-32.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9734407>[math]\frac{3}{3} = 0.999$Hm.. which calculator did you use to determine this? Mine just says it's 1.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:39:48 2018 No.9734417 >>9734415Microsoft Word
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:40:00 2018 No.9734419 >>9734415Calculators are too brainlety to realise 0.999... = 3/3
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:40:59 2018 No.9734421 >>97344151/3 = 0.3...+2/3 = 0.6...=3/3 = 0.9...
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:41:32 2018 No.9734425 >>9734374This is an absolute garbage induction proof. You haven't shown that f(n+1) < 1.0.000...09 goes to 0 as n goes to infinity doesn't prove your induction step
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:42:38 2018 No.9734428 >>9734404Which is why induction doesn't work here, retard
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:44:11 2018 No.9734431 File: 678 KB, 1200x758, 1519462627866.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:45:05 2018 No.9734434 >>9734374Agreed, 0.999...9 with n number of 9s is less than 1.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:45:05 2018 No.9734435 >>97344211/3 = 0.3 ?Since when?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:47:53 2018 No.9734440 >>9733344It's 1 - 0.999... less than 1.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:50:46 2018 No.9734445 File: 28 KB, 600x600, 5d6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:50:53 2018 No.9734446
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:54:26 2018 No.9734452 >>9734446Oh so you meant 1/3 = 0.33 ?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:55:58 2018 No.9734453
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:56:05 2018 No.9734454
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:56:34 2018 No.9734455 >>9734393>>9734399I'm beginning to think your computer doesn't render latex if you see a lot of \\
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:57:47 2018 No.9734458 >>9734453Ah. Ok. 1/3 = 0.333I'm pretty sure thats still wrong though. 1/3 is larger than that.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 13:59:32 2018 No.9734459 >>9734458You are wrong, 1/3 is exactly 0.333
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 14:00:02 2018 No.9734461 >>9734393>$\\\frac{3}{3} = 1\\\\\frac{1}{3} = 0.333...\\\\\frac{2}{3}=0.666...\\\\\frac{3}{3}=0.999...$im beginning to think it wont render if you dont close your tags
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 14:00:34 2018 No.9734462 >>9734461Nah, it renders fine for me
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 14:00:40 2018 No.9734463 >>9734458right. inf=3patpatpat
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 14:01:48 2018 No.9734466 File: 33 KB, 500x500, 1506140326977.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9734459But that means 0.333 × 3 = 0.999And if 1/3 exactly equals 0.333, and 1/3 × 3 = 1, then 0.9991 > 1Hmmm...Something smells fishy.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 14:03:23 2018 No.9734470 >>9734463Infinity is a number amount, right?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 14:04:13 2018 No.9734471 >>9734466Our intuition isn't already right
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 14:07:04 2018 No.9734477
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 14:08:26 2018 No.9734480
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 14:12:36 2018 No.9734487 >>9733350The same number as those many nines are represented by those ellipses.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 14:21:41 2018 No.9734502 >>9734463$\frac{1}{3} = \frac{11}{33} = \frac{111}{333} = \frac{1111}{3333} = \frac{11111}{33333}$The number amount of 1's over 3's here doesn't matter. You can remove 4 factors of work from $\frac{11111}{33333}$ to get $\frac{1}{3}$ and the problem has not changed.You can remove all but one of the infinite factors of work from 0.222... + 0.777... = 0.999... to get 0.2 + 0.7 = 0.9the same work was performed on each piece of the equation.Infinite 2's were removed from 0.222...Infinite 7's were removed from 0.777...Infinite 9's were removed from 0.999...The problem has not changed because each part of the equation was equally transformed. 0.2 + 0.7 = 0.90.2 + 0.7 < 10.222... + 0.777... = 0.999....0.222... + 0.777... < 1Now remember, the problem has not changed.0.999... < 1Some problems never change.1/3 > 0.31/3 > 0.331/3 > 0.3331/3 > 0.33331/3 > 0.333331/3 > 0.3333331/3 > 0.33333331/3 > 0.333... It doesn't matter how many extra 3's there are. If you can only ever append more 3's, there will always be a remainder, and if theres a remainder it's always unequal in flat decimal, and if it's always unequal then this evaluation only produces a result that is less than the fraction.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 14:24:34 2018 No.9734506 >>9734477Well if infinity isn't a number amount then what're we crying about. It means 0.999... doesn't have infinite 9's.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 14:30:10 2018 No.9734516 File: 38 KB, 655x552, DDhvQLSXsAI6fNh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >tfw you graduate as a math major
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 14:34:20 2018 No.9734525   >>97345020.33 < 1/3 < 0.340.333 < 1/3 < 0.3340.3333 < 1/3 < 0.33340.33333 < 1/3 < 0.33334$0.\bar{3} < \frac{1}{3} < 0.\bar{3}4$
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 14:38:53 2018 No.9734530 File: 38 KB, 381x353, 1525709316565.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >infinity exists
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 15:10:16 2018 No.9734578 >>9734506inf isn't inf*retards clapping*
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 15:14:39 2018 No.9734583 >>9734502you took a strange leap from a partial sum to a limit of an infinite series there.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 15:33:53 2018 No.9734616 1/3 in a base system that's divisible by 3 doesn't have to be represented with repeating digits. We should someday teach all of society to use a base with more small prime divisors. We shouldn't worry about the larger one's since these idiots won't ever find them anyways.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 15:48:28 2018 No.9734641 >>9734233University?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 15:48:45 2018 No.9734642 >>9734502>you can only ever append more 3'sinfinity isn't a real numberget your head out of your ass already
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 15:49:36 2018 No.9734646 >>9734252Glad to know theres still people that actually have studied higher maths here in /sci/
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 15:51:22 2018 No.9734650
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 15:57:49 2018 No.9734659 File: 25 KB, 641x530, 1525933785037.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] Infinity doesn't exist.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 16:01:37 2018 No.9734670 >>9734659since you're just an asshole, which is nothing but a hole - you don't exist
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 16:03:51 2018 No.9734676 File: 8 KB, 250x228, 1504078810397.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9734670Yet I can post here.Can infinity do that ?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 16:06:55 2018 No.9734683 >>97346760.999...=11 shitposter detectedit just might
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 16:17:00 2018 No.9734718 >>9734530>existence existsHah
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 16:17:20 2018 No.9734720 >>9734659If the math world yes, in the real world no.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 16:25:33 2018 No.9734769 >>9734459False
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 16:45:07 2018 No.9734862 >>9734404>I don't understand what numbers can be real numbers
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 16:49:43 2018 No.9734880 >>9734659Last time I Iectured elliptic curves, infinity certainly existed for each curve. You have new information?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 16:51:10 2018 No.9734886 >>9733967the mental gymnastics played here
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 17:02:14 2018 No.9734909 >>9734886awww, it's retarded
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 17:13:05 2018 No.9734931 >>9734374You literally assumed infinity is a natural number hereidiot
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 17:17:14 2018 No.9734938 >>9734646that's not higher math but thanks anyway anon
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 17:29:15 2018 No.9734949 >>9734720Infinity doesn't exist in any world. Making up a googoogaga fantasy term doesn't mean it exists in any way but the most granted that saying a word means the word exists. Infinity as a number isn't really a thing, much likes elves and orcs and the one ring are not really things. Keep your LOTR fictional fantasy math to yourself and out of the education system.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 17:31:54 2018 No.9734954 >>9734949why are preteens allowed here, send this brat back to mommy
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 17:32:39 2018 No.9734955 why do we waste our time shitposting about this time and time again?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 17:35:02 2018 No.9734957 >>9734384If you map each integer 0 to infinity to be real numbers between 0 and 1, there is no amount of incrementing in the map between 0 and 1 which will reach 1, so 1 is not in the real map. If you're not a total brainlet, you should already be able to tell that this is the equivalent of mathlet's calculus "converging to 1", aka diverging to infinity.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 17:36:25 2018 No.9734959 >>9734957WrongProof: $\text{Think}$
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 17:50:05 2018 No.9734973 >>9734959WrongProof: thinkAnyone can eyeball what 9/10th's of an apple looks like. Even though an apple isn't a number, it still has volume and size which means it can be measured and divided.What is 9/10ths of infinity?Doesn't exist. Infinity has no knowable size or length or volume.What is 9/10ths of 1?Well thats easy, its 0.9So if you have the sum $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{9}{10^n}$ this value approaches 1 but cannot reach 1, just like $\sum_{1}^{\infty} 1$ approaches infinity but can't reach infinity.What your atrophied sac of shit brain fails to understand is that the limit is an analog for infinity. If your limit is 1, all possible values exist under 1, and none exist at or beyond 1. You've confused the analog for the literal real number 1 that naturally preceeds 2 and 3 and 4 and the rest of all real numbers.But you didn't know that, did you?Cause you don't think about the things you were taught. You just absorbed them like a janitor's mop soaking up the piss and shit you leave in the public bathroom. You absorbed them and regurgitated them when asked to provide answers on indoctrination tests. Here's your B+, you were a good goy swallowing all that garbage and puking it back up. Good little retard.So again my dirty little beaner brained boy wonder, what is 9/10ths of infinity?The answer is: (You)'re a subhuman, subanimal fucking hellbound mongoloid commanding an existence less substantial than a pebble.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 17:50:54 2018 No.9734975 >>9734959Thanks Professor Layton
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 17:55:03 2018 No.9734983 >>9734973>this value approaches but cannot reach 1correct, but it can be made as close as you want to one, for any level of precision, i can give you a partial sum that is precise enough. This means that it never "reaches" one but can get arbitrarily close to 1. We call that number that it cannot reach but can be made arbitrarily close to the "limit". The infinite sum isn't saying we're adding up an infinite number of terms, it just asks "what's the limit?" which is 1. Do you understand why it's called a "limit" now?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 17:57:12 2018 No.9734985 >>9734973The sum symbol doesn't say "add up terms until it reaches one" it says "what's that number that it can't reach but can be as close as we want to?" and that number is 1, as you said. The series is DEFINED to be that number it cannot quite reach, a series is not an infinite sum of terms, it's a convenient way to represent that limit.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 18:01:36 2018 No.9734986 >>9734983You're evaluating wrong by all accounts if if you believe the infinite sum limit of 9/10^n isn't solely just 0.9 repeating.Again, what is 9/10ths of infinity?What is 0.99999... of infinity?What don't you get here fag?You're confusing the analog of infinity, the limit of 1, with the real number 1. Its not the real number 1. Its an analog of infinity. You are not getting close to 1, you're only getting close to 0.999....You can't get arbitrarily close to infinity. It doesn't exist, jose.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 18:02:59 2018 No.9734987 File: 34 KB, 474x821, .png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 18:05:23 2018 No.9734988 >>9734973your $\sum_{1}^{\infty} 1$ isn't a well defined statement. Where's your index of summation?>>9734986Wrong.Due to the Archimedean property of $\mathbb{R}$, there is no difference between $0.\bar{9}$ and $1$. To assert that there is a difference you would violate the definition of $\mathbb{R}$
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 18:08:56 2018 No.9734993 File: 11 KB, 229x221, index.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9734986Please keep posting, this is comedy gold.Dance monkey, dance.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 18:15:29 2018 No.9735000 >>9734938I meant higher as in above highschool level.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 18:27:41 2018 No.9735023 >>9734986>Again, what is 9/10ths of infinity?$\infty$What is 0.99999... of infinity?$\infty$ $\text{Why?}$>analog of infinitynonsense>infinite sumno such thing, it's a series, not a sum. It's a limit, not an addition of infinite terms (because that's not possible)>Its not the real number 1Wrong>you're only getting close to 0.999....Which happens to equal 1.>You can't get arbitrarily close to infinity.Reals can be made arbitrarily large, this fact is trivial.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 18:37:45 2018 No.9735040 >>9735023Close how?How close?Lets take a sum of partials sums over 9/10^n up to an arbitrary point0.9999...99 <---- n-1, previous 0.9999...999 <---- n, current0.9999...9999 <---- n+1, nextSo how close to 1 are you? It's certainly not within 1 element. So is it 2 elements?10?How close do you actually think you are to 1?Are you confusing infinite arbitrary accuracy with knowable accuracy? Like are you confusing that if 10 decimals are required, 0.999999999 is arbitrarily close to 1?Do you not understand there is no implement of required decimal accuracy, and that the only limit of work is the balue to which n increments to, which is fucking infinity aka never ending?You dont have to fill 10 decimalsYou have to fill infinite decimalsHeres you:0.9999999999Heres the fucking requirement:0.9999999999xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx...Fill in all the fucking decimal places nigger. Then you can start talking about "being arbitrarily close" to 1.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 18:44:35 2018 No.9735053 File: 16 KB, 498x467, 1512340128839.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9735023>"9/10ths of infinity exists">"it's infinity"I can hear your neurons screaming from here.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 18:46:18 2018 No.9735057 >>9733344It's infinitely close to one but does not reach one.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 18:47:26 2018 No.9735058 >>9735040>How close?arbitrarily>So how close to 1 are you?arbitrarily close>Are you confusing infinite arbitrary accuracy with knowable accuracy?this question is nonsensical, try again>You have to fill infinite decimalsWrong, all I need to do is show that for any degree of accuracy I can provide a finite string of 9s that is at least that accurate.>>9735053[eqn] \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} n = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{9}{10}n [/eqn]
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 18:54:46 2018 No.9735067 >>9735058You are desperately, desperately confused.$\sum_{n=1}^{5} \frac{9}{10^n} = 0.99999$This is what happens if change your max iteration to a real. Doesn't look so arbitrarily close to 1 now, does it. If you did it to 6 instead of 5, but still only used 5 decimals of accuracy, you're still just getting 0.999999 and you're still just making it 0.99999you are using some made up fantasy rules for truncation that I know you didn't learn in an educatiom environment, so if you're digging that deep still trying to justify your garbage education then I will elect on your behalf to bow out of this argument.Honestly dude, you're shameful.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 18:58:11 2018 No.9735072 >>9735067>You are desperately, desperately confused.False.>This is what happens if change your max iteration to a real.That has nothing to do with this argument.>Doesn't look so arbitrarily close to 1 now, does it.Of course, that's a finite number. But I can choose a finite sequence that is as close to 1 as i want it to be, and I can do that for any degree of accuracy.>you are using some made up fantasy rules for truncationWhy are you truncating an infinite decimal? Your CS brainlet operations are irrelevant.>Honestly dude, you're shameful.I'm not the one posting nonsense on the internet like a fool.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 18:59:01 2018 No.9735074 >>9735057What exactly does it mean for a number to be infinitely close to something?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:00:12 2018 No.9735076 This is why I hate math. Logically it should be the .999... should not equal 1.0. It is extremely close but will not reach zero.However, mathematically .999...= 1 because of how extremely close they are.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:00:12 2018 No.9735077 >>9734931i would never assume such a thing
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:00:13 2018 No.9735078 true
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:01:26 2018 No.9735081 Ah fuck, typo.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:03:14 2018 No.9735085 >>9735076There are an infinite amount of 0.999... values greater than 0.999... and less than 1. Thats not really close at all. There are a literal infinite amount of values between 0.999... and 1.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:04:17 2018 No.9735086 File: 248 KB, 814x500, 2018-05-11 16.01.54.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:04:52 2018 No.9735088 >>9733468>countably infinite gr8 b8
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:06:26 2018 No.9735092 >>9735076If you use your usual field axioms and order axioms (for real numbers), it's perfectly logical.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:06:44 2018 No.9735094 >>9735074Here's the definition of infinitely closeFor $f\colon \mathbb{R} \mapsto \mathbb{R}$$\forall{\epsilon > 0} \, \exists{\delta}$ such that $x >\delta \implies |f(x) - y| < \epsilon$
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:07:46 2018 No.9735095 >>9735094where $f(x) = y$
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:08:04 2018 No.9735096 File: 787 KB, 998x1056, Ahuh.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>97350940.999... does not satisfy that.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:10:30 2018 No.9735098 >>9735094Nice to see you passed calculus 1, anon. How's calc 2 going for you?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:11:45 2018 No.9735099 >>9735098Can someone good at analysis give a better definition please? I'm too brainlet
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:12:47 2018 No.9735102 >>9735086Not an argument
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:18:59 2018 No.9735110 >>9735102>finite 9's = infinite 9's = 1>implying your skull isn't collapsing at this very moment
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:20:16 2018 No.9735113 >>9735110Wrong, is english not your first language? Learn to read.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:20:50 2018 No.9735115 >>9734993I imagine if you had enough money to attend school, you'd really enjoy it. Every class would make you laugh your ass off.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:22:46 2018 No.9735118 >>9735115>he paid to attend schoolLOLexactly how dumb are you? What's it like living with a disability?
 >> The Lord Fri May 11 19:25:23 2018 No.9735120 File: 22 KB, 480x216, CUBE___r97dsf35g3jh.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9735099I develop a framework transfinite analysis here>The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model which shows that 0.999<1, but you can find everything about that part of it in what are already called hyperreal numbers
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:26:05 2018 No.9735121 >>9735120Cranks never fail to entertain>couldn't even get on arxiv
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:29:26 2018 No.9735126 >>9735113> I can choose a finite sequence that is as close to 1 as i want it to be>all I need to do is show that for any degree of accuracy I can provide a finite string of 9sYou are actually retarded dude. You wrote this. You keep arguing 0.999... = 1 and now you've just said twice in two posts that you're only presenting a finite string of 9's.Dont you have a fucking social worker care taker or something? A parent? They need to pull you off the computer. You are a squirmy, creepy, pathological liar and an absolute stubborn prick when it comes to learning useful and new information. I know underage ban is a thing but what about bans for an underage mental proficiency? Cause you're truthfully only behaving the way an autistic 14 year old would.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:30:37 2018 No.9735127 >>9735126Since I can provide a finite string for ANY degree of accuracy, the limit exists. This is not a difficult concept.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:31:36 2018 No.9735129 >>9735118Ah, you're european. That explains a lot. Socialized education kek
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:31:39 2018 No.9735130 >>9735126>Dont you have a fucking social worker care taker or something? A parent? They need to pull you off the computer. You are a squirmy, creepy, pathological liar and an absolute stubborn prick when it comes to learning useful and new information. I know underage ban is a thing but what about bans for an underage mental proficiency? Cause you're truthfully only behaving the way an autistic 14 year old would.lmaoThis would make good copypasta
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:34:16 2018 No.9735136 >>9735129Ever heard of a scholarship? I'm american, european schools are a joke
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:34:32 2018 No.9735137 >>9733487>0.222... = 0.222...3U wot m8
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:37:39 2018 No.9735141 >>9735136Scholarships aren't free rides unless you spend the pittance on the cheapest of shitty schools. If that is what you're admitting you've done, you're a retard for wasting your scholarship.Also you have to be smart to get a scholarship so who do you think you're fooling?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:38:10 2018 No.9735142 >>9735141Ivy league schools have the most generous scholarships anon, only brainlets pay to go.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:39:33 2018 No.9735146 >>9735141>you have to be smart to get a scholarshiplolno
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:40:35 2018 No.9735149 >>9735142Right. You're an ivy league graduate who rode a generous scholarship cause you're so smart, and now you spend all day fucking up basic calculus on 4chan...Right...So where is your social worker...? Do they only check on you twice a day or something?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:42:10 2018 No.9735153 File: 81 KB, 315x360, 1511761761718.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:42:13 2018 No.9735154 >>9735149Your reddit spacing and weird references to social workers gives you away as that crank that keeps saying $0.\bar{9} \neq 1$. Opinion discarded.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:44:02 2018 No.9735155 File: 314 KB, 1102x580, 1510087893604.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9735154>reddit spacing
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 19:46:04 2018 No.9735159 >>9735155Stupid crank
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 20:01:54 2018 No.9735181 >>9733348Okay, sure.But what's between that number and 0?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 20:17:10 2018 No.9735202 >>9733348No such number in $\mathbb{R}$, due to the Archimedean property.
 >> The Lord Fri May 11 20:28:08 2018 No.9735223 >>9735121Your destruction will entertain me.>couldn't even save his friends and loved ones
 >> The Lord Fri May 11 20:30:08 2018 No.9735225 >>9735202$^*\mathbb{R}$ are the droids you're looking for
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 20:37:02 2018 No.9735235 >>9735225Crank-kun, I said that there's no such number in $\mathbb{R}$, of course there's such a number in $^* \mathbb{R}$
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 20:48:52 2018 No.9735254 Why are we still arguing this? 0.999... < 1Even though the Earth is close to a perfect sphere it's not a perfect sphere.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 21:31:28 2018 No.9735297 >>9735254Provably wrong.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 22:20:26 2018 No.9735343 >>9735126Go hang out with the flat earthers, you'll feel right at home.How does this equality make you feel? Stupid crank.[eqn] \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^2}=\frac{\pi^2}{6} [/eqn]
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 22:27:43 2018 No.9735345 >>9733344>the easiest thing to say that shuts down all retards claiming 0.999... < 1. Suppose it is strictly less than 1. What's the difference?
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 22:29:48 2018 No.9735348 >>9735345They'll say 0.(0)1, they'll never listen.One of them said it's "because of computers"
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 22:55:28 2018 No.9735375 nobody with the 1/3 * 3 """demostration""""" yet?
 >> The Lord Fri May 11 23:00:54 2018 No.9735386 >>9735235You are going to be 10/10 surprised at what happens when I get my hands on you. I don't like it when you call me crank.
 >> The Lord Fri May 11 23:02:13 2018 No.9735391 File: 372 KB, 590x958, The_Cup_of_the_Wrath_of_the_Living_God.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9735235>>9735386>>9735386you... or the engineer that wrote your software.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 23:26:55 2018 No.9735417 >>9735297but it's still not 1 because it's smaller, no matter how much repeating numbers it has. It's getting close, but no dice.
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 23:39:22 2018 No.9735434 >>97349739/10 * inf = inf
 >> Anonymous Fri May 11 23:45:36 2018 No.9735443 >>9735417>treating inf as a real numberget out of the field, there's a game going on there
 >> Anonymous Sat May 12 00:10:06 2018 No.9735479 File: 194 KB, 591x462, 1523871650315.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9735434Then 9/10 of 1 when the limit is 1 is just 19/10 = 1Great job you fucking ape.
 >> Anonymous Sat May 12 00:14:16 2018 No.9735495 >>97354799/10s of an unbounded quantity is an unbounded quantity, what's so hard to understand?
 >> Anonymous Sat May 12 00:16:31 2018 No.9735501 >>9735343WARUHNGOOD GOD what is $\frac{\pi^2}{6}$ good for.Absolutely nothinSAY IT AGAIN
 >> Anonymous Sat May 12 00:21:18 2018 No.9735508 >>9735495[eqn]\sum_{n=1}^{1} \frac{9}{10^n} = 1[/eqn]
 >> Anonymous Sat May 12 00:32:09 2018 No.9735525 >>9735479so you're saying 1 = inf*retards clapping*eat some more crayons
 >> Anonymous Sat May 12 00:38:24 2018 No.9735532 >>9735375>i can only count using crayons and sock puppets
 >> Anonymous Sat May 12 00:58:39 2018 No.9735566 >>9735525No, limit = infinityWhen you have a limit, no value can reach or exceed the limit. Much like when you have access to the range of all numbers, no value can reach or exceed infinity.The limit is an analog for infinity.Did you learn something today or are you going to keep putting your faith on the eternally unobtainable.
 >> Anonymous Sat May 12 01:19:50 2018 No.9735585 >>9735566lim x, as x->1where was inf again?>try the pink crayon, it's delicious
 >> Anonymous Sat May 12 01:32:25 2018 No.9735595 File: 97 KB, 1200x675, 3a1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9734986>What is 9/10ths of infinity?$9\overline{0}$>What is 0.999... of infinity?$\overline{9}$
 >> Anonymous Sat May 12 01:33:54 2018 No.9735599 >>9735585AnalogYou can remember the word better next time by thinking of anal and your scheiße porn.
 >> Anonymous Sat May 12 01:35:34 2018 No.9735601 >>9735599>he ate the brown one, get him his pills
 >> Anonymous Sat May 12 04:08:42 2018 No.9735722 >>9733464Why do you think 0.999... is not representative of 0.9999...?
 >> Anonymous Sat May 12 04:21:41 2018 No.9735738 >>9735722Not him but why do you think 0.999... is representing a final equivalence of absolutely infinite 9's of which there can be no greater amount of 9's, when you already know infinity as a final step is unachievable. of course the obvious way of seeing 0.999... is just realizing there always exists another number greater than it by at least one more 9. Truly, there are an infinite amount of these numbers with more 9's that come between 0.999... and 1, and any attempt to imply invocation of the absolute final infinite'th value in this infinitely long set is reducing infinity to a finite real number and disregarding the intentionally incomprehensible nature of infinity by substituting an extremely truncated arbitrary value that truthfully is no less vague in execution than infinity itself already was: an otherwise entirely needless and facetious attempt at rationalizing infinity without actually making it any easier to understand, or a brainlet's trap of hubris.
 >> Anonymous Sat May 12 04:52:12 2018 No.9735779 >>9735738Okay, I see where you're going with that. Approaching the situation that way would bring a person a back to where they started. Thank you for giving some insight.
 >> Anonymous Sat May 12 05:08:40 2018 No.9735797 File: 229 KB, 627x720, 1477003285630.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9733594>You write the 1 first, then write an infinite amount of zeros in front of it.
 >> Anonymous Sat May 12 06:02:59 2018 No.9735861 File: 962 KB, 171x172, 1510121687680.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Sat May 12 18:40:14 2018 No.9737048 >>9733327This is math, not retard-ville. Prove that .999...=/= 1. Show a number that is strictly between the two.
 >> Anonymous Sat May 12 18:50:02 2018 No.9737061 >>9737048>Show a number that is strictly between the two.(inf-1)/inf
 >> Anonymous Sat May 12 22:04:25 2018 No.9737389 >>9737061=inf/infundefined
 >> Anonymous Sat May 12 23:24:22 2018 No.9737499 >>9737389>undefinedwhy?
>>