/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5714722
>circular reasoning

>>5714679
Nice try but everyone knows why you're wrong. Just because two sequences are equal, they don't need to have the same limit.

>>5698416
0.999... is defined algorithmically. It is the symbolic string generated by appending nines ad infinitum. As I proved the result cannot equal 1.

>>5698409
My hyperintelligent reasoning cannot be transferred to the real world. The real world is discrete. The set of real numbers is purely hypothetical and does not exist in reality.

>>5698406
>There's an huge difference between .999...9 and .999...
The "huge" difference is only symbolical, a few nines.

>no finite number is any closer to infinity than any other.
Therefore 0.999... cannot be closer to 1 than 0.999...9. The distance might get smaller but the number 1 is never reached because infinitely many numbers lie inbetween.

There are infinitely many real numbers between 0.9 and 1.
There are infinitely many real numbers between 0.99 and 1.
There are infinitely many real numbers between 0.999 and 1.

Do you see the pattern? You can add more and more nines yet there will always an infinite amount of real numbers between 0.999...9 and 1. People who believe that the limit of 0.999... equals 1 do in fact believe that a single step of adding another 9 at the end can reduce an infinite number to 0. Claiming that 0.999.... and 1 are the same numbers is equivalent to claiming infinity equals 0. Absurd and illogical.

With my superior genius intelligence I came up with my own theory of everything when I was 5 years old. My theory did not only predict the creation of your theory but it also explains why you're wrong.

Here are a few reasons why 0.999... and 1 cannot be equal:

>a rational number cannot equal an irrational number
>the limit is only a hypothecial point in infinity that is never truly reached
>a number cannot have two decimal representations because decimals are a linearly ordered set
>the difference 1 - 0.999... is 0.00...01 > 0
>every "proof" of them being equal turned out to be a fallacy of circular reasoning

>>5667906
Your teacher is wrong.

>>5667917
>It is fact because it is on wikipedia
Argument by authority doesn't work in math.

>>5667921
No.

>>5176787
The value is not the limit. The limit doesn't make sense here. You're confusing different kinds of infnity and your definitions are wrong.

>>5176330
>>So, first of all, you would have to know about about series and limits
LOL

If you knew about series and limits, you'd know that the series never really reaches the limit. The limit is a hypothetical point in infinity.

>>5176309
>making assertions without proof
That's not how math works.

>>5171406
Mine is too high for any existing test.

What's wrong with you? Are you banned from google?

>>5062777
moar than one

Hey kids,
original Carl here. Keep it going. I love all of you. <3

This thread belongs to >>>/q/ and OP belongs to >>>/co/ with his infantile cartoon.

by reading books

>>5044758
>If a/0 = x. Then x*0 = a
Wrong. You can't multiply by 0.

>>5044760
See? It's infinity. Just as I told you.

>25kg = 12.5kg

looks legit

>>5039739
Because I'm browsing /sci/ in the meantime.

>>5039729
>make cereals remain crispy after being in milk for a while.

Why hasn't this been done yet?

That's the meme penguin from reddit, amirite?

>>>/q/