/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #14333174

1KiB, 261x80, imagen_2022-03-24_180021.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 00:00:41 2022 No.14333174 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>14334991 >>14335114 >>14335439 >>14335498 >>14336329

proof me that is true.
or if you think that is fake, proof it

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 10:36:22 No.14334566 Report

Quoted By: >>14334575

>>14334563
They suffer from a subtler kind of illness; you're outright hallucinating, though, since you've made no attempt to establish anything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 10:37:24 No.14334568 Report

Quoted By: >>14334578

>>14334560
So you cannot prove that it exists. So why have these pointless arguments about an imaginary number?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1587689101520.jpg, 8KiB, 225x224

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 10:37:25 No.14334569 Report

Quoted By:

>>14334559
>proof left to disciple

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 10:45:25 No.14334575 Report

Quoted By: >>14334589

>>14334566
what do you want to estabilish? 1/inf = 0 by definition because 0 is the unique value which makes the function f(x,y) = x/y continuous at (x,y) = (1,inf) in the extended real number system. why is this so outrageous to you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 10:45:59 No.14334578 Report

Quoted By:

>>14334568
but you just did, again.
say something funny now

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 53243322.jpg, 67KiB, 645x729

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 10:53:33 No.14334589 Report

Quoted By: >>14334593

>>14334575
>1/inf = 0 by definition
Why even bother with this mongoloidal "proof" if you're just going to assert nonsense? 0.999...=1 by definition because it's just muh limit by definition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 10:55:24 No.14334593 Report

Quoted By: >>14334597

>>14334589
>nonsense
can you finally say where the mistake is?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 10:57:28 No.14334597 Report

Quoted By: >>14334602 >>14334620

>>14334593
>i'm right "by definition"
>where's the mistake????
Why even bother with this mongoloidal "proof" if you're just going to assert nonsense? 0.999...=1 by definition because it's just muh limit by definition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 10:58:37 No.14334602 Report

Quoted By: >>14334606

>>14334597
looks like you agree that the proof is 100% correct. otherwise just say which step doesn't follow, it's that easy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 11:01:37 No.14334606 Report

Quoted By: >>14334617

>>14334602
Looks like your "proof" relies on simply asserting the very point of contention in what you're trying to prove, you mouth-breathing imbecile. I don't know why they bother teaching sub-140-IQ midwits like you any maths. All you learn is how to play around with symbols without any comprehension of what you're doing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 11:06:51 No.14334617 Report

Quoted By: >>14334621

>>14334606
not true at all. where does the proof simply assert that 0.999... equals 1?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO cope.jpg, 28KiB, 405x205

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 11:07:26 No.14334620 Report

Quoted By:

>>14334597
>Why even bother

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 11:07:41 No.14334621 Report

Quoted By: >>14334629 >>14334636

>>14334617
Looks like you're too retarded for basic reading comprehension. Anyway, take your psychiatric medications and stop posting. This is boring.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 11:11:39 No.14334629 Report

Quoted By:

>>14334621
so, nowhere then
lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 11:18:07 No.14334636 Report

Quoted By:

>>14334621
>no argument

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 13:33:15 No.14334904 Report

Quoted By: >>14335057

>>14334482
I literally just told you, the only meaningful definition of "0.999..." is the limit of the sequence I posted. That limit is well defined to be 1.

Do you know what a limit is?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 14:15:44 No.14334991 Report

Quoted By: >>14335042

>>14333174
1 will always be more than 0.99999 repeating.
You cannot disprove this. Thus they are not equal.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 14:43:08 No.14335042 Report

Quoted By: >>14335049

>>14334991
>You cannot disprove this.
I can

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 14:46:48 No.14335049 Report

Quoted By: >>14335072

>>14335042
well?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 14:48:35 No.14335057 Report

Quoted By: >>14335067

>>14334904
a limit is not the same as being equal

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 14:54:42 No.14335067 Report

Quoted By: >>14335069 >>14335077

>>14335057
I am saying that the "infinite" decimal string IS the limit of the sequence of finite strings. That limit is 1 so the infinite decimal string is also 1 because they refer to the same thing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 14:56:28 No.14335069 Report

Quoted By: >>14335073

>>14335067
what's the biggest number which is not 0.999...?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 14:57:32 No.14335072 Report

Quoted By: >>14335167

>>14335049
$0.999\dots = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{9}{10^n} = \lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{9}{10^k} = \lim_{n\to\infty} 1-\frac{1}{10^n} = 1$

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 14:57:40 No.14335073 Report

Quoted By: >>14335217

>>14335069
There is no biggest number, are you sure you're phrasing your question correctly?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 14:59:10 No.14335077 Report

Quoted By: >>14335112

>>14335067
>"infinite" decimal string IS the limit of the sequence of finite strings

you're just misapplying what infinite string of digits really means then. No you can't just decide that it's equal to it's own limit, that's retarded, the same way you can't decide an asymptote touches a graph

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 15:11:35 No.14335112 Report

Quoted By: >>14335178

>>14335077
I'm saying that the "infinite" string of 9s is equivalent to the limit of the sequence of finite strings of 9s. Do you have a better concrete definition?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 15:11:53 No.14335114 Report

Quoted By:

>>14333174
math is not discovered ts was man made, every time you see a retarded paradox like 0^0=1 or 0/0 someone will literally made up a new rule to let it make sense(if its even important), like imaginary numbers

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 15:37:56 No.14335167 Report

Quoted By: >>14335215

>>14335072
>its true because my limited calculator gave up and said so
nice try

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 15:42:48 No.14335178 Report

Quoted By:

>>14335112
> Do you have a better concrete definition?

yes, it's the biggest number less than 1 but not equal to 1

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 16:00:09 No.14335215 Report

Quoted By: >>14335457

>>14335167
disagree? which equality is incorrect then?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 16:01:08 No.14335217 Report

Quoted By:

>>14335073
if you consider the real numbers between 0 and 1, there must be a number which is larger than any other number but is smaller than 0.999...
so what is it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 17:12:03 No.14335439 Report

Quoted By: >>14335499

>>14333174
Another one :
1=0,99999999...
1/1=1/0,999999....

Let's calculate 1/X :
1/0,9 = 1,111111111...
1/0,99 = 1,01010101...
1/0,999 = 1,001001001
1/0,999999... = 1,00000000...1

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 17:20:37 No.14335457 Report

Quoted By: >>14335539

>>14335215
whichever one that claims <1 == 1

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1555094708259.png, 87KiB, 942x530

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 17:43:32 No.14335498 Report

Quoted By: >>14335735

>>14333174
tell me how much is 1-0.9999999... first
if you write any number other than zero, it means the 9s are finite.
also kys

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 17:44:29 No.14335499 Report

Quoted By:

>>14335439
how many zeros are in the number 1,00000000...1 ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 18:01:01 No.14335539 Report

Quoted By:

>>14335457
there's none

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 18:15:02 No.14335582 Report

Quoted By:

There is no GOD but the finite GOD. As GOD is finite it follows that the Universe is finite. Since the Universe is finite everything else must be finite. Therefore infinitely recurring decimal expressions can not exist. QED.
Praise GOD!
Amen.

This message has been brought to you by the followers of the ONE TRUE FINITE FAITH.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO OK_Retard.jpg, 47KiB, 773x935

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 19:11:08 No.14335718 Report

Quoted By: >>14335984

>>14333871
>>3 * 0.333... = 1
>im fucking plying

Are you implying:
1/3 is NOT 0.333...

You Sir, are an idiot!

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 19:17:22 No.14335732 Report

Quoted By:

the limit approaches 1
there

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 19:19:01 No.14335735 Report

Quoted By:

>>14335498
Dumb college kiddies

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 19:19:17 No.14335736 Report

Quoted By: >>14335989 >>14336307

$ \displaystyle \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{9}{10^n} = \frac{9}{10} + \frac{9}{100} +\frac{9}{1000} + ... = b = \frac{1}{10}(9 + \frac{9}{10} + \frac{9}{100} +...) = \frac{1}{10}(9+b) = b \\ \frac{1}{10}(9+b) = b \\ \frac{9}{10} = \frac{9}{10}b \\ 1 = b $

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1592447508348.jpg, 69KiB, 654x639

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 20:44:09 No.14335984 Report

Quoted By: >>14336108

>>14335718
0.333... = 3/10 + 3/100 + 3/1000 + 3/10000 + ... < 1 / 3
that is to say, that no matter how many terms you extend this sum for, it will always be STRICTLY LESS than 1/3.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 20:45:42 No.14335989 Report

Quoted By:

>>14335736
acktually it equals -1/12

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 21:25:38 No.14336108 Report

Quoted By:

>>14335984
>let's pretend finite is infinite

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO proof.png, 333KiB, 730x2824

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 22:46:25 No.14336282 Report

Quoted By: >>14336289

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 22:48:28 No.14336289 Report

Quoted By: >>14336293 >>14336311

>>14336282
just because you say it in autismspeak doesn't make it true

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 123BEA95-179B-4068-B95A-B9ECCD98 (...).jpg, 32KiB, 602x578

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 22:50:05 No.14336293 Report

Quoted By:

>>14336289
Sir

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 22:53:44 No.14336307 Report

Quoted By:

>>14335736
Don't you feel like there is a problem with reinserting your variable into the equation

If b is some mathematically inoperable quantity, what you did would be wrong
You are just assuming it is

Anyway there is a branch of mathematics where 1 - 0.999.... exists and infinities are treated as actual numbers

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 22:54:58 No.14336311 Report

Quoted By:

>>14336289
>prove it
>but don't use math
lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Mar 2022 23:11:42 No.14336329 Report

Quoted By:

>>14333174
Maybe if you just used base 12 you wouldn't have such problems when dividing into thirds.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches