/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4280738
>so you never lose
>$1000
pick one

>>4280695
This

Also, this system requires that you have infinite monies.

>>4280037
>>4280026
For example

>>4280026
If you split it into an infinite number of parts, then you can't take any slices. You can split it into an infinite number of parts and then take half of it and have half of a pizza though. It's weird like that.

>>4279974
>all fields utilizing calculus or geometry are precisely the nonsense I'm talking about

>>4279976
Yes it does.

>>4280011
>I can into math

-maths*
-You can into arithmetic. You cannot into anything beyond that level.

>>4279963
>implying I have trolled at any point while using this trip

>>4279957
Yes, OP doesn't get that if infinitesimals don't exist it isn't even possible for 0.999... and 1 to have a number in between them

>>4279955
0 with an infinity of 9 does not work like 0 with a finite recursion of 9. 0.999... does work like 1, differentiating it from all other decimals beginning 0.

>>4279945
Have you ever taken calculus, or perhaps statistics? With a normal distribution, what is the probability of any one event? 0. What is the probability of all the events possible? 1. Infinity *does not work like other numbers* as is widely recognised in fields beyond arithmetic.

>>4279928
>(1/inf)*inf = 0*inf

>2012
>treating infinity like a rational number

Shit ain't gonna fly.

>>4279910
>1/inf = 0
>then
>1 = 0

Explain

>>4279901
see
>>4279901

>>4279886
>derp what's begging the question

>>4279875
OK, let's start with the idea that 0.999... and 1 are different numbers and use that to prove that they're different numbers. Yeah, great plan bro!

>>4279869
You can't prove something that isn't true.

>>4279832
New version

>>4279837
Yes, without application of IST

>>4279828
Wat

Besides, 1/inf IS 0

OP cannot into proofs
Hey OP, if 0.999... !=1 why does the sum to infinity of the series 9*(1/10^{n})=1?

>>4279755
shit, I'm an asshole.

>make this thread
>while nothing's happening, post to r/askscience
>mfw I got to 62nd on all of reddit

>>4279675
It was considered bad because it was assumed/observed at some early point that homosexual relationship were less stable. Evidence came to light this was not the case, and people therefore got rid of it.

>>4279665
>The point was that illnesses were based on societal norms and ideas.
But that's *not* the case with homosexuality.

>>4279642
Electro- >>4279643

I have no problems with it, it sees to help in a lot of cases.

>>4279619
>>4279631
From the sounds of it, you're both you.
>>4279633
Also, this. The declassification of homosexuality was very much evidence based