/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11594568

1MiB, 3840x2160, file.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

SUP 0.999 = 1 FAGS

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 12:00:47 2020 No.11594568 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11594572 >>11594590 >>11594597 >>11594639 >>11594872

okay, so the interval <0,1> includes all integers between 0,1 not including 1

aka

it includes 0.99999999999999999999999

it includes 0.999...... but not 1?

0.999...... != 1 QED FUCKERS

SHUT THE FUCK UP

FUCKING IDIOTS

WE WIN

YOU LOSE

MORON

PROVE ME WRONG

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:03:48 No.11594572 Report

Quoted By: >>11594573 >>11594852

>>11594568
>it includes 0.999...... but not 1?
Wrong. For it to include 0.999... it would have to include 1, which it doesn't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:04:54 No.11594573 Report

Quoted By: >>11594592 >>11594852

>>11594572
okay, wise man, for which number of 9s is it no longer included in the set?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:07:40 No.11594586 Report

Quoted By:

Closed intervals on the real line are undefined

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:08:48 No.11594589 Report

Quoted By: >>11594593 >>11594607 >>11594618 >>11594852

$Let \; x=0.999...$
$?10x=9.999...=(9+0.999...)=(9+x)$
$?9x=9$
Find the mistake, because there isn't one

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO mathmoRETARDS.png, 112KiB, 720x303

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:09:01 No.11594590 Report

Quoted By: >>11594852

>>11594568
HOLY BASED

ONEFAGS ETERNALLY BTFO

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:09:32 No.11594592 Report

Quoted By: >>11594599 >>11594852

>>11594573
>okay, wise man, for which number of 9s is it no longer included in the set?
Your question doesn't make sense.
0.999... only has one number of 9s, countable infinity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:09:52 No.11594593 Report

Quoted By: >>11594596 >>11594852

>>11594589
It doesnt address what op says at all? Its just some random other argument?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:11:01 No.11594596 Report

Quoted By: >>11594852

>>11594593
OP's argument only works if 0.999... < 1 but 0.999... = 1.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:11:13 No.11594597 Report

Quoted By: >>11594852

>>11594568
>0.999... is in the set of numbers smaller than 1
>therefore 0.999... < 1
I think you need to prove the first claim, mate

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:12:08 No.11594599 Report

Quoted By: >>11594605 >>11594610 >>11594611 >>11594852

>>11594592
Is 0.9 included in the set?

is 0.99 included?

is 0.999 included?

is 0.99999999999999 included?

is 0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 included?

for what number of digits does the number no longer appear in the interval <0, 1>?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:13:11 No.11594605 Report

Quoted By: >>11594608 >>11594616 >>11594852

>>11594599
aleph_0

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:14:05 No.11594607 Report

Quoted By: >>11594752 >>11594764 >>11594852

>>11594589
10x - x is not 9x if x=0.999...
You cannot subtract infinity nines

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:14:31 No.11594608 Report

Quoted By: >>11594613 >>11594615 >>11594852

>>11594605
thats right!

THERE IS NO FINITE NUMBER OF DIGITS FOR WHICH THE NUMBER NO LONGER IS A PART OF THE INTERVAL

>NOW, TELL ME, WHAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF FINITE?
NOW, TELL ME, WHAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF FINITE?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:14:39 No.11594610 Report

Quoted By: >>11594615 >>11594852

>>11594599
It is included for any number of digits. But how is that relevant? Did you never learn in elementary school that infinity is not a number?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:14:42 No.11594611 Report

Quoted By: >>11594615 >>11594852

>>11594599
Why are you asking a question I already answered?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:15:42 No.11594613 Report

Quoted By: >>11594615 >>11594852

>>11594608
>THERE IS NO FINITE NUMBER OF DIGITS FOR WHICH THE NUMBER NO LONGER IS A PART OF THE INTERVAL
that's true. what's your point ?
>NOW, TELL ME, WHAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF FINITE?
not finite

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO file.png, 27KiB, 784x351

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:17:01 No.11594615 Report

Quoted By: >>11594620 >>11594852

>>11594613
>>11594611
>>11594610
>>11594608
>>11594613

THATS RIGHT, THE OPPOSITE OF FINITE IS INFINITE!

NOW, WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF 0.999...?

Onefags BTFO

Onefags BTFO Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:17:01 No.11594616 Report

Quoted By: >>11594622 >>11594625 >>11594627 >>11594670 >>11594852

>>11594605
Then 1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1 where 1 is the alephnullth digit

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:17:52 No.11594618 Report

Quoted By: >>11594630 >>11594852

>>11594589
I will show you the problem.

Let x=SUM[k=1,k->z](9*10^-k)

10x=SUM[k=0,k->z-1](9*10^-k)=9+SUM[k=1,k->z-1](9*10^-k)

SUM[k=1,k->z-1](9*10^-k) does not equal SUM[k=1,k->z](9*10^-k)

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:19:15 No.11594620 Report

Quoted By: >>11594626 >>11594852

>>11594615
>NOW, WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF 0.999...?
1

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:19:37 No.11594622 Report

Quoted By: >>11594852

>>11594616
No. infinity is larger than aleph null.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:20:27 No.11594625 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594616
there are aleph_0 digits (as an amount), but it doesn't follow that there's an aleph_0-th digit. and there isn't. there's only n-th digit where n is a natural number.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:21:00 No.11594626 Report

Quoted By: >>11594629 >>11594635 >>11594852

>>11594620
THATS RIGHT, THE DEFENITION OF 0.999... IS A ZERO, WITH INFINITE REPEATING 9S AFTER IT

NOW THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT <0,1> DOES NOT COINTAIN 1, BUT DOES CONTAIN 0.999... WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT 0.999... DOES NOT EQUAL 1.

THANK YOU

THIS THREAD CAN BE CLOSED NOW

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:21:31 No.11594627 Report

Quoted By: >>11594637 >>11594852

>>11594616
>Then 1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1 where 1 is the alephnullth digit
Every digit in a countably infinite sequence corresponds to a natural number. Otherwise it's not countable. So that's false.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:22:25 No.11594629 Report

Quoted By: >>11594852

>>11594626
>NOW THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT <0,1> DOES NOT COINTAIN 1
we haven't

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:22:41 No.11594630 Report

Quoted By: >>11594634 >>11594852

>>11594618
You didn't define z so there is no way to verify your argument.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:23:45 No.11594634 Report

Quoted By: >>11594640 >>11594852

>>11594630
It is false for any integer z.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:23:48 No.11594635 Report

Quoted By: >>11594852

>>11594626
>THATS RIGHT, THE DEFENITION OF 0.999... IS A ZERO, WITH INFINITE REPEATING 9S AFTER IT
Then by your own argument the interval doesn't contain it.

Onefags BTFO

Onefags BTFO Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:24:18 No.11594637 Report

Quoted By: >>11594643 >>11594646 >>11594852

>>11594627
But you just said 0.9, 0.99, 0.999,... is no longer in (0,1) after aleph null steps. Choose one

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:24:37 No.11594639 Report

Quoted By: >>11594852

>>11594568
You never won, SODOMITE! We won. The faithful of the ONE TRUE FINITE UNIVERSE. With the help of ALMIGHTY GOD we defeated you time and again until our victory was final. We also sacked Constantinople, but that was quite incidental.

0.999.. does not equal 1, and, within the finite amount of time left in the Universe, never will.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:25:04 No.11594640 Report

Quoted By: >>11594661 >>11594852

>>11594634
If z is restricted to integers then x = 0.999... =/= SUM[k=1,k->z](9*10^-k)

Your argument fails from the first line.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:25:39 No.11594643 Report

Quoted By: >>11594852

>>11594637
nobody is talking about "aleph null steps". there are no steps. there is no process.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:26:38 No.11594646 Report

Quoted By: >>11594651 >>11594852

>>11594637
>But you just said 0.9, 0.99, 0.999,... is no longer in (0,1) after aleph null steps.
No, I said 0.999... has aleph null digits. And that doesn't show what you argued anyway.

Onefags BTFO

Onefags BTFO Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:29:09 No.11594651 Report

Quoted By: >>11594658 >>11594852

>>11594646
If it has aleph null digits it has an alephnullth digit. 0.000...1 has one at the alephnullth digit. Get it, tard?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:33:54 No.11594658 Report

Quoted By: >>11594680 >>11594692 >>11594852

>>11594651
>If it has aleph null digits it has an alephnullth digit. 0.000...1 has one at the alephnullth digit.
not true
there are aleph_0 rational numbers. is there an aleph_0-th rational number ?
size isn't the same thing as order

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:35:33 No.11594661 Report

Quoted By: >>11594683 >>11594852

>>11594640
Wow, you're pretty dumb, aren't you pal?

SUM[k=1,k->z](9*10^-k)

=9*10^-1 + 9*10^-2 + 9*10^-3 + 9*10^-4 +...+ 9*10^-z

=0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 + ... + 0.[z-1 zeros]9

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:38:39 No.11594670 Report

Quoted By: >>11594852

>>11594616
Look up how cardinals work before you post retarded shit like that. Go watch Vsauce or something idk

Onefags BTFO

Onefags BTFO Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:42:00 No.11594680 Report

Quoted By: >>11594686 >>11594852

>>11594658
Infinity is the alephnullth rational

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:42:48 No.11594683 Report

Quoted By: >>11594751 >>11594852

>>11594661
And for which integer z is that equal to 0.999...?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:43:43 No.11594686 Report

Quoted By: >>11594697 >>11594852

>>11594680
what is the second rational then ?
what is the tenth ?

Onefags BTFO

Onefags BTFO Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:45:15 No.11594692 Report

Quoted By: >>11594717 >>11594852

>>11594658
Also, it depends on how you count. There is no canonical way to count the rationales. 1 may be the alephnullth rational if I count it last

Onefags BTFO

Onefags BTFO Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:46:29 No.11594697 Report

Quoted By: >>11594717 >>11594852

>>11594686
See >>115946
I don't think you understand how cardinality works, friend

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:53:00 No.11594717 Report

Quoted By: >>11594730 >>11594852

>>11594692
>>11594697
a set of size aleph_0 can be ordered in many ways:

X, X, X,..... this is an infinite list without a last item

X, X, X,..., X this is an infinite list with an extra last item at the end

X, X, X,...,X, X this is an infinite list with extra 2 items at the end

X, X, X,...,X, X, X,...,this is an infinite list followed by another infinite list

all of these chains have the same size aleph_0 ("size infinity"), but they are ordered differently. some have a last element, some don't.

the single infinite list without a last element:

X, X, X, X, X,....

is the only chain which can be meaningfully used as a pattern for a decimal expansion of a real number.

real number:
0.9 9 9 9...
X X X X...

not a real number:
1.0 0 0...1
X X X...X

not a real number:
0.9 9 9.....9 5
X X X.....X X

Onefags BTFO

Onefags BTFO Thu 23 Apr 2020 12:58:21 No.11594730 Report

Quoted By: >>11594735 >>11594852

>>11594717
You're just saying shit without substantiation. Yawn

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 13:00:33 No.11594735 Report

Quoted By: >>11594746 >>11594852

>>11594730
>I don't have an argument

Onefags BTFO

Onefags BTFO Thu 23 Apr 2020 13:06:54 No.11594746 Report

Quoted By: >>11594756 >>11594852

>>11594735
Any way of indexing can be meaningfully used for decimal places. Just shows the lack of imagination of low iqs like you

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 13:11:41 No.11594751 Report

Quoted By: >>11594799 >>11594852

>>11594683
The integer set is countably infinite, you dumb bastard. so z WOULD TEND TO POSITIVE INFINITY YOU DUMB CUNT

RETARDED FAGGALOID

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 13:11:56 No.11594752 Report

Quoted By: >>11594852

>>11594607
why not?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 13:14:55 No.11594756 Report

Quoted By: >>11594765 >>11594852

>>11594746
given a string of digits in the pattern X,X,X,.. there's a way of turning this into a real number: take the limit of a certain sequence.
do you know a way how to turn a string of digits in some different pattern into a real number ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 13:19:43 No.11594761 Report

Quoted By: >>11594852

Ignore the 0.999...= 1 sodomites

Instead proclaim the GLORY OF THE ONE TRUE FINITE UNIVERSE!

Say it with me, Brothers and Sisters!

DEUS VULT! DEUS VULT DEUS VULT!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 13:20:54 No.11594764 Report

Quoted By: >>11594797 >>11594852

>>11594607
>10x-x!=9x
OK schizo

Onefags BTFO

Onefags BTFO Thu 23 Apr 2020 13:22:43 No.11594765 Report

Quoted By: >>11594852 >>11595059

>>11594756
You don't have to "turn it into" anything. 0.999... is already the number 0.999...

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 13:37:52 No.11594797 Report

Quoted By: >>11594852

>>11594764
OK bitch

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 13:37:57 No.11594799 Report

Quoted By: >>11594809 >>11594852

>>11594751
>so z WOULD TEND TO POSITIVE INFINITY YOU DUMB CUNT
That doesn't answer my question. For what integer z is the sum equal to 0.999...? If there is none, then your argument is a non sequitur.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 13:43:30 No.11594809 Report

Quoted By: >>11594852 >>11594946

>>11594799
If my argument, an expansion of the original, is non sequitur for those reasons, then the original is also non sequitur.

Thanks for your admission that 0.9999....!=1

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO file.png, 104KiB, 700x394

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 14:07:59 No.11594852 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594809
>>11594799
>>11594797
>>11594765
>>11594764
>>11594761
>>11594756
>>11594752
>>11594751
>>11594746
>>11594735
>>11594730
>>11594717
>>11594697
>>11594692
>>11594686
>>11594683
>>11594680
>>11594670
>>11594661
>>11594658
>>11594651
>>11594646
>>11594643
>>11594640
>>11594639
>>11594637
>>11594635
>>11594634
>>11594630
>>11594629
>>11594627
>>11594626
>>11594622
>>11594620
>>11594618
>>11594616
>>11594615
>>11594613
>>11594611
>>11594610
>>11594608
>>11594607
>>11594605
>>11594599
>>11594597
>>11594596
>>11594593
>>11594592
>>11594590
>>11594589
>>11594573
>>11594572
Hello op here, im trans btw, not sure if it matters

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 14:19:14 No.11594872 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594568
>all integers between 0,1
There are no integers between 0 and 1.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 14:49:04 No.11594946 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594809
>If my argument, an expansion of the original
It's not, since it can't ever say anything about 0.999...

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 15:39:52 No.11595059 Report

Quoted By: >>11595355

>>11594765
that's not true. real numbers are precisely limits of convergent sequences of rational numbers, or equivalently suprema of bounded sets of rational numbers. any symbol which denotes a real number stands for one of these.

0.999... is the number sup{ 9/10, 99/100, 999/1000 }

what is 0.00...1 ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 17:11:08 No.11595355 Report

Quoted By:

>>11595059
bu,p

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