/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11509590
>1) why would you

Even if you had a perfectly tolerant society, being gay would still be a pain in the ass.
- Your number of potential mates is much lower, so it is harder to find a life partner.
- Having kids and raising a family gets more complex.
- Increased risk of growing old with no relatives to take care of you.
- Social norms are designed for the more common group, and don't fit your needs well.

I find it very unlikely that anyone is "choosing to be gay".

>>11506508
>3 will repeat indefinitely.

Thus you never FINISH dividing and never truely reach an answer.

>Do you even understand how significant figures work?
Yes. Not like that.

Lets try it this way:
First step:

x < 3
x+y < 3

Do we agree on what y is?

>>11497488
>does the existence of 0.999... require placing a digit at the ∞-th position of a decimal expansion of some number ?

If you want it to equal one it does. Otherwise there are a finite number of 9s and it is unambiguously less then one.

>>11497394
>no, it doesn't at all

Prove it.

>>11497179
>this is not what the post was saying AT ALL. read it once again carefully.

It's saying that the "last digit" can't exist. But the same logic PREVENTS .999... from equaling one.

>>11485498
>What do you write instead of the "?"?

Let me turn that example back at you. The other infamous "proof" that this is paired with makes the opposite assumption:

1 .9
2 .99
3 .999
4 .9999
5 .99999
6 .999999
...
? .999...

What do you write instead of the "?"?

In the .000...1 example, you say that expression is meaningless because you can't assign it a natural number. But .999... can't be assigned a natural number in this format either. I see this alot in these discussions. "Infinity only works when we want it to." There is just no rhyme or reason to how infinity is applied.

>>11484497
>You can’t have infinitesimals given the usual construction of the reals.

And you can't have fractions given the usual construction of the naturals. That doesn't prove that 1/2 doesn't exist. It is obnoxious to insist that the discussion take place in a number set that is DESIGNED to omit the correct answer.

>>11351707
>None cause it doesn't exist and isn't science.

"Isn't defined" is different from "Doesn't Exist."

>>11345749
>because the sky reflects its color on its surface

Water is blue when seen from an airplane. Why would this stop at higher altitudes?

>>11339466
>because 1/9 is 0.1111111
>So 0.999999 is 9/9 is 1
>>11339510
>It's sad that people are literally too stupid to understand this simple concept :(

What is sad is that people don't recognize circular logic when they see it.

Who says that .111... is exactly 1/9? Prove it. You'll see it is the exact same question in a different form, so by bringing up 1/9, you have answered nothing.

>>11337053
>white pepo bad.

I see it as a form of quality control. Even if you support the left, which I do, that doesn't mean you ignore all their faults. If either party had done reasonable quality control in 2016, we'd have a far better president today.

>>11335645
>There were a host of debilitating social issues that went unsolved during the 1960s

The space race tackled a problem WE KNEW HOW TO SOLVE, and in so doing, advanced technology dramatically. That technology then went on to help us understand and address many other problems. Meanwhile on the social issues, it seems like we still don't know what really works long term.

>>11336550

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:0.999.../Arguments/Archive_11#Time_to_face_reality

Time to face reality.

Base infinity:

.999... = .999... = 1@-1
1+2+3+4+5+... = 1;(-1/12)@
...999 = 1;-1@
(.999...+1)/2 = 1@-.5

> A random number generator will output a real number between 0 and 1:

Chance of .5 = @1
Chance of 2 = 0

>>11334724
>Is the universe expanding at the same rate in every direction?

It appears to be, yes. The appearance that Earth was dead center of the expansion was a major tell that the expansion was actually of space itself, and not objects fleeing a central point.

>>11330676
>This is the future I want

Me too.

>>11332324
>If there are no numbers between 0.999... and 1, then what is their sum divided by 2?

It depends on whether or not you find it useful to keep count of infinitesimals to that level of detail or not. If you don't find that necessary then half of an infinitesimal is meaningless, like asking what 1/2 means in the set of Whole numbers.

If you want to keep track of such things then you can define an infinitesimal number line. Then:

.999... = 1@-1
(.999...+1)/2 = 1@-.5

with @ being like a decimal point marking the transition between Real and Infinitesimal values. You can also include ; to mark infinite and sub-infinitesimal quantities if you want.

(1@-1)/0 = 1;-1@0

>>11333211

Then what?
Then what?
Then what?

I suppose it would qualify as "Gravity" since gravity is how objects interact with the fabric of spacetime.

>>11332288
>>11332293

What is the slope of line BZ? How is it different from BW? If you have two different lines with the same slope, then hasn't your number system failed?

>>11331532

If .999.. = 1 then 1=0.

>>11332102
>>If you want to accomplish something, you should lobby the government to do it for you

How is that private moon landing going? Or the private internet. (Compuserve? AOL?) Or free market water and sewers?

>>11033648
>you couldn’t comprehend a 4D language.

Math.

A, B