/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11612986

3KiB, 473x156, 1*DvSQ5Ok_cFxhWwf9u-I4Cg.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Why do people struggle so much with the idea that .999...=1?

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 17:38:26 2020 No.11612986 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11613031 >>11613042 >>11613084 >>11613087 >>11613109 >>11613125 >>11613186 >>11613218 >>11613316 >>11613619 >>11613669 >>11613908 >>11614973 >>11615413 >>11615487 >>11616498 >>11617448 >>11617904 >>11617966

Is it a mental limitation? Not being able to conceive of infinity? It's been settled math for over a century now.
I remember a conversation I had with my daughter in the car when she was starting out with algebra...
>Me: Is 9.999... the same as 10, or is it just really close to 10?
>Kid: Really close. It never gets all the way there.
>Me: Well then how close? What do you get when you subtract 9.999... from 10?
>Kid: (pause) An infinite number of zeroes. . .and then a one. . .wait, you can't do that.
>Me: Right. You just have an infinite number of zeroes. Which is zero.
>Kid: (pause) Oh, that's mind-blowing.
Even a child can come to acknowledge the infinite, it's all quite trivial really, but apparently still too much for lesser minds. *sigh*

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 17:54:07 No.11613031 Report

Quoted By: >>11613632 >>11613638 >>11613641 >>11614204 >>11615453

>>11612986
If you can't algebraically represent a number then what's the point of having a way to express this concept? in other words: 0.999... is meaningless.
If you want to explain what a limit is, then explain what a limit is, don't create some magical lexical device to impress some dull kids.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 17:57:24 No.11613042 Report

Quoted By: >>11617579

>>11612986
LISTEN TO ME YOU FUCKING ATHEIST FUCK, STOP MAKING THIS SHIT THREAD ALREADY. 1 = 0.99999... . NOW PLEASE LEAVE.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 18:06:24 No.11613074 Report

Quoted By: >>11615399

Infinity is not real

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 18:08:01 No.11613084 Report

Quoted By:

>>11612986
>settled
Whenever someone says terms like "settled science" you know they're spewing bullshit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 18:08:53 No.11613086 Report

Quoted By:

Infinity doesn't make sense if you try to analyze or justify it beyond the gradeschool assumption that "it is the biggest number"; so your story is retarded fake and gay bullshit OP.

0.999... isn't 1 no matter the circumstance. "Close enough" is a measure of finiteness.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 18:09:04 No.11613087 Report

Quoted By: >>11614002 >>11617797

>>11612986
Less than 1 is not the same as 1.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Eternity.jpg, 3MiB, 1280x9898

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 18:13:47 No.11613109 Report

Quoted By: >>11613116 >>11614118 >>11614211 >>11616913

>>11612986
It is indeed a mental limitation and it's in the heads of those who believe "0.999..." is the same as 1. The core of the mental problem in their minds is as follows:

Their inability to comprehend that ".999..." isn't the same as "1" is directly tied to their inability to grasp eternity and infinity. Their minds have basically been programmed to believe eternity and infinity are impossibilities. Over the course of many generations of indoctrination into an alien worldview, their parents and their parents etc gradually "learned" to be unable to comprehend it and this "learned disability" was inherited, and encouraged/fueled by various external factors from the echoing modern culture.

So basically, they're mentally damaged.

This difficulty they have with eternity/infinity shows up in many different fields, from math to astrophysics.

This mental handicap is inherited directly from the (((Abrahamic))) religions, more specifically (((Christianity))) for us Westernerns. In it's origin, the inability to understand infinity and eternity is 100% Judaic in thought/philosophy. In contrast, the non-Jewish man; the Pagan man, at least the /European/ Pagan man, never had any problem with infinity and eternity. (((Christianity))) introduced into the minds of people the idea of life and the world/universe being linear, starting from point A and ending at a point B, whereas in the Native European worldview everything is an infinite circle.

That's why many people today can't understand that .999 repeating forever will never reach 1 - they refuse to accept the idea of an infinite/eternal repetition. Saying "it's 1" is their method of escaping from the uncomfortable (and to them insurmountable) challenge which the concept of infinity/eternity is to their Judaically-induced mental disease.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1566523934222.png, 71KiB, 696x1072

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 18:14:54 No.11613116 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613109
Very related. A slip-up from one of the "less than 1 is the same as 1" promoters, showing he can't mentally accept that infinity/eternity is real.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 18:16:52 No.11613125 Report

Quoted By: >>11613207

>>11612986
>Why do people struggle so much with the idea that .999...=1?
because people don't understand that strings of digits are not literal numbers, they're just notation which we use. they think that 0.999... = 1 means "two distinct numbers are actually equal" which is obviously paradoxical.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 18:24:47 No.11613157 Report

Quoted By: >>11613186

Stop shitposting

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 18:35:31 No.11613186 Report

Quoted By:

>>11612986
See: >>11613157

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 18:43:37 No.11613207 Report

Quoted By: >>11614125

>>11613125
Repeating digits are indeed not real numbers in decimal. They often exist perfectly fine in fractions or otherwise rendered as an identity outside of decimal. For example $\pi$ doesn't actually proveably exist. There are plenty of indications to assume it exists, but the unlimited degree of accuracy required to accommodate that pi symbol in Decimal are distinctly greater than the finite degree of accuracy acquireable. You only need about 10 digits of pi to accurately accommodate virtually any measurement involving pi, but pi isn't actually 10 digits; nor is it actually 50 trillion digits. It likely has more digits than can possibly be discovered in either sense of having a Large Number amount of decimal places or an "infinite" unlimited amount.

Extend this process to whether "1÷3 = 0.333..." is actually a true or false statement. It obviously requires it to be false; the Fractional identity $\frac{1}{3}$ is clearly greater than any string of Decimal 3's in "0.333..."
The issue is that this problem has long been passed, ignored, taken for granted, and incorrectly asserted into education, and we find ourself in a world of hard decimal cutoffs integrated into calculators and computers. Not only are aspects of infinity relative to numbers ignored (as it should be), most calculations don't make it past 15 digits for virtually anything. Not just obviously finite, but finite to a degree that even children can easily comprehend.

Calculators and computers merely carry one more digit than necessary and use it to round a final answer. Explicitly rounding with explicitly finite digits easily accommodates "0.999... = 1"; and literally nothing less than explicitly rounding with explicitly finite digits.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 18:45:25 No.11613218 Report

Quoted By:

>>11612986
Because 0.999... is not 1

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 18:46:05 No.11613219 Report

Quoted By: >>11613268

I'm so glad you retards made ANOTHER thread about this to samefag to bump limit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 18:55:47 No.11613268 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613219
It's not unlikely that an apocalyptical event occurs that could have been avoided had greater decimal accuracy been accommodated; which wasn't available because history ignored the task of reforming maths and insisted it was fine enough to just cutoff decimals and round after spending half a fucking breath to write out or compute a mere handful of digits.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 18:56:59 No.11613275 Report

Quoted By: >>11613293 >>11613342 >>11613344

if 0.999 is equal to 1, then, in R, are open intervals topologically the same as closed intervals?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:02:50 No.11613293 Report

Quoted By: >>11613304 >>11613403 >>11613963

>>11613275
0.999... doesn't exist inside R unless 0.999... strictly has some finite amount of decimals.

Cantor was a brainlet btw.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:07:03 No.11613304 Report

Quoted By: >>11613342 >>11613417

>>11613293
I'm not a mathematician, but isn't 0.999... a real number? Why? Actually, if 0.999.. =1 then it surely belongs to R.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:09:54 No.11613316 Report

Quoted By: >>11613428

>>11612986
Why is /sci/ so much more shit than HN?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23004086

But GJ for spamming this so hard for so long that it's gained traction, I guess.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:13:01 No.11613329 Report

Quoted By: >>11613342 >>11613357 >>11613428

Not a single person in this thread exhibited a coherent idea surrounding this topic. Go learn basic real analysis.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:14:01 No.11613335 Report

Quoted By:

A lot of people just struggle with the notion that any given number can be expressed in different ways that are completely equivalent.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:14:05 No.11613337 Report

Quoted By:

Because they're think of it as a process rather than a value.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:14:35 No.11613342 Report

Quoted By: >>11613384

>>11613329

can you please answer my genuine questions, then? not trying to bait: >>11613275
>>11613304

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:14:53 No.11613344 Report

Quoted By: >>11613374

>>11613275
Explain how that would follow (it doesn't). I'm just curious to see what you're reasoning is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:17:20 No.11613357 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613329
>noooo people don't respond to troll threads seriously!!!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:21:12 No.11613374 Report

Quoted By: >>11613377 >>11613400

>>11613344
Well, I never studied topology beyond glancing at wikipedia for definitions of stuff that was mentioned when I was studying other subjects, so it's expected that I might be saying something stupid.

For me 0.999... is the perfect analogue of the left border of an open interval like $]1,x], x\in R and x>1[\math]$

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:22:15 No.11613377 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613374
btw, fuck javascript

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:23:27 No.11613384 Report

Quoted By: >>11613403 >>11613418

>>11613342
0.999.. is a real number yes, because the real numbers are closed and contain all of its limit points: 0.999... is by definition the limit of a sequence of partial sums (it is in particular a geometric series).

I dont know how to answer your question about open and closed sets. If there existed a homomorphism between a closed set and an open set, both sets would be forced to be open and closed because open maps take closed sets to closed sets and open sets to open sets. Since R is connected, there are no proper open and closed sets.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:29:14 No.11613400 Report

Quoted By: >>11613418

>>11613374
I don't understand. What do you mean by analogue of the left border? Are you suggesting [0.999... x] = (1,x]? If that were true, then every open set is also closed, making the default toplogy on R totally disconnected. Actually, I'm glad you raised this point. You can draw the above absurdity if 1 isn't 0.999...

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:30:00 No.11613403 Report

Quoted By: >>11613435

>>11613384
I understand your reasoning on the mapping from open set to closed set cannot be possible with a homomorphism, and it makes sense to me.
However, what was meant by this, then >>11613293 just bait and/or ignorance?

>Since R is connected, there are no proper open and closed sets.
Isn't the notion of open set a generalization of an open interval in R? Or does the word proper have some significance here?

Also, it's seems really weird to me that everyone in mathematics knows about this curiosity of 0.999...=1 but hasn't thought about it in terms of topological boundaries.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:32:21 No.11613417 Report

Quoted By: >>11613427

>>11613304
Difference between "the set of real numbers" and what a real number actually is.

"The set of real numbers R" is a dumb niggerbrained meaningless concept made up by cantor but his shitty dumbass definitions and axioms basically require that every element in an infinite set must be, itself, finite; else infinity itself is an element contained within the set and presumes infinity is a literal real number.

0.999... isn't a real number in the sense that it actually contains an infinite expansion of 9's unless infinity is strictly a real finite number itself; or rather that "0.999..." only contains a finite expansion.
In the technical sense of accommodating infinity, "0.999..." is not even a real actual number, so whatever it's supposed to be may as well just be 1.

If 1-to-infinity were scaled down between 0-to-1, 0.999... is equivalent to "infinity minus 1", which is indeterminable nonsense because infinity isn't supposed to actually be a number. But infinity itself is also indeterminable nonsense as a number, and so "(infinity - 1) = infinity" is analagous to "(0.999...) = 1"

"0.999..." doesn't exist in R if the assumption is "0.999..." contains an infinite expansion of 9's. Any other finite expansion of 9's could exist in R though.

Its all busybody nonsense. In one case, 0.999... doesn't actually "equal" 1 because 0.999... doesn't actually exist.
In many other cases, 0.999... equals 1 because "0.999..." somehow implicitly assumes a finite degree of accuracy and rounding.

The problem with 0.999... not being a real number is one that stems from more basic and easily understood concepts. For example: Nothing lasts forever in this universe.
No real number contains an infinite expansion of decimals because nothing real lasts forever here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:32:34 No.11613418 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613400
Yes, that is precisely what I mean, and what >>11613384 already answered in the same way you did. Thank you both.
It makes sense to me now. It's actually a neat way to prove this by absurdity, I guess.

I write ] instead of ( because I learned with the French notation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:33:54 No.11613427 Report

Quoted By: >>11613438

>>11613417
I don't see why a number that has infinite digits cannot be rational.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 71ISqljcSfL.jpg, 254KiB, 1140x1758

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:34:21 No.11613428 Report

Quoted By: >>11614007

>>11613329
>Go learn basic real analysis.
Go learn basic witchcraft, then you'll see that my crystals have healing powers.
>>11613316
>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23004086
>all those idiot techies using the shit-tier algebraic "proof" and being smug about it
They really need to stick to writing webshit Javascript

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:35:57 No.11613435 Report

Quoted By: >>11613478 >>11613488

>>11613403
Proper just means it's not all of R or empry. R and the empty set aren open and closed sets (by definition), so saying there are no proper open and closed sets is the same thing as saying the empty set and R are the only open and closed sets.

I dont think mathematicians like to waste their time arguing about this. It is just such an obvious thing to anyone who has studied analysis. The only reason I'm still here is to answer your questions, and you're not being aggressive.

I'm not sure if that's bait or ignorance, but the statement itself is wrong. So yes, it's one of those things.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:36:49 No.11613438 Report

Quoted By: >>11613448

>>11613427
Infinity as a concept related to numbers is irrational.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:38:12 No.11613448 Report

Quoted By: >>11613504

>>11613438
As clever as that pun may be, you've just given yourself away. I do give you brownie points for that

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:41:17 No.11613464 Report

Quoted By:

By the way, just to be pedantic, I guess what I actually meant when I was initially talking about the open interval was defining a number such that
x = 1.000000000...1
and then for all other y>x in R if it was the case that
[x, y] = ]1, 0], so I was actually approaching this from the wrong side, I should have thought this from the right side of the interval, so that for example
[0, 1[ = [0, 0.999...]
but I understood your points, anons

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:43:52 No.11613478 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613435
Ok, thanks. It's not something I would spend a lot of time on, it's just that I was curious because it popped to my head and I took the chance that people that had studied this might be able to clarify it simply for me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:47:13 No.11613488 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613435
and also, that makes sense because you can define a homomorphism to the null set or to R itself, so I understand the need for saying that

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:50:10 No.11613504 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613448
It really is truly as simple as that though.
Infinity has never once been clearly defined to properly work within mathematics in a consistent way. It started strictly as a philosophical concept related to ponderings about the magnitude and scope of God by latin romans over a millenia ago. Had nothing to do with numbers or math til recent history. Cantor failed to properly define it even with his Axiom of Infinity, and postmodern usage of it in the age of computers just makes it the biggest number that can be addressed in a datatype, aka a big specifically finite number; "the biggest number". There are many different and contradicting interpretations of infinity in math.
All of them at least share how unnecessary and trivially pointless it is.
Like trying to describe God with numbers.
Trying to describe something that doesn't exist through a medium that doesn't acknowledge it in the first place.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 19:58:51 No.11613537 Report

Quoted By:

"Infinity" being hijacked to describe the unlimited nature of countable numbers is basically the same as fags hijacking the rainbow to mean gay sex.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 20:24:32 No.11613619 Report

Quoted By:

>>11612986
>hy do people struggle so much with the idea that .999...=1?
because they haven't taken basic real analysis where they construct the reals.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 20:28:20 No.11613632 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613031
>If you can't algebraically represent a number then what's the point of having a way to express this concept? in other words: 0.999... is meaningless.
$0.999... = \limsup_{n \to \infty} {0.9, 0.99, \dots, a_n}$ , where $a_n = \sum_{k = 1}^n \left( 9 \cdot 10^{-k} \right)$ .
>>Kid: (pause) Oh, that's mind-blowing.
>with my daughter in the car when she was starting out with algebra...
things that never happened. there are better ways to make a point, undergrad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 20:29:28 No.11613638 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613031
*
$0.999... = \limsup_{n \to \infty} \{0.9, 0.99, \dots, a_n \}$
where
$a_n = \sum_{k = 1}^n \left( 9 \cdot 10^{-k} \right)$

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 20:30:50 No.11613641 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613031
>If you can't algebraically represent a number then what's the point of having a way to express this concept? in other words: 0.999... is meaningless.
$0.999... = \limsup_{n \to \infty} \{ 0.9, 0.99, \dots, a_n \}$
where
$a_n = \sum_{k = 1}^n \left( 9 \cdot 10^{-k} \right)$
>>Kid: (pause) Oh, that's mind-blowing.
>with my daughter in the car when she was starting out with algebra...
things that never happened. there are better ways to make a point, undergrad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 20:40:50 No.11613669 Report

Quoted By: >>11613676 >>11614021

>>11612986
>Why do people struggle so much with the idea that .999...=1?
because I can imagine them as being distinct. Can you?
>reality > imagination hurr durr durr
This btw does not answer my question.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 20:42:53 No.11613676 Report

Quoted By: >>11613684 >>11613707

>>11613669
If they're distinct, then there exists a nonzero difference between them. What would that nonzero difference be?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 20:46:33 No.11613684 Report

Quoted By: >>11613746 >>11613946

>>11613676
>What would that nonzero difference be?
some kind of infinitesimal, obviously, as far as I know that doesn't have a representation in math, because infinity is as nonsensical as 0.00...001.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 20:57:47 No.11613707 Report

Quoted By: >>11613946

>>11613676
0.9 + 0.1
0.99 + 0.01
0.999 + 0.001
0.9999 + 0.0001
0.99999 + 0.00001
0.999999 + 0.000001

How does this pattern continue?
Theres always a smallest rational part wherever you stop.
>b-but you don't stop
So you only ever count finite steps forever, no matter what.
>b-but infinity isn't finite
So you completed infinite steps, thereby making it finite...?

It seems that "how big is too big" and "how small is too small" are rational questions derived from the actually real limitations of the universe.

How small is too small that a decimal 0.0[...]1 number is too bothersome to deal with?

How many digits is too many digits that a 0.9[...]9 number is too long to deal with?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 21:10:22 No.11613746 Report

Quoted By: >>11613751

>>11613684
>infinity is as nonsensical as 0.00...001
If there is no context, then everything is nonsensical. If you mean $\infty,$ then this is just the same of some otherwise very ordinary object that plays a special role when you talk about a theory. The notation 0.00...001 however has no meaning in mathematics whatsoever.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 21:10:51 No.11613748 Report

Quoted By: >>11613760 >>11613815 >>11613971

>nothing comes after infinity
Technically nothing precedes it either.
More technically, infinity never comes at all in the first place.
More more technically is everything and anything can come after infinity because infinity isn't a finite end.
Cantor-technically, anything finite can come after infinity because infinity is an arbitrary indetermined finite natural number.
Double Cantor-technically is that infinity is TREE(3), the biggest finite number, of which no number can be greater, and the very definite hard limit cutoff end of numbers.

Nothing wrong or invalid about "0.000...1"

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 21:12:07 No.11613751 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613746
>the same of
the same as

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 21:14:15 No.11613760 Report

Quoted By: >>11613796 >>11613833

>>11613748
>Nothing wrong or invalid about "0.000...1"
Tell us what it is supposed to mean then?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 21:20:32 No.11613796 Report

Quoted By: >>11613820

>>11613760
I understand you read my post in reverse and started from the last line but please, continue reverse reading the post back up to the first line before asking dumb questions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 21:24:24 No.11613815 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613748
Thank you for inserting a solid dose of gibberish into the thread. Not that it wasn't full of it already.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 21:25:26 No.11613820 Report

Quoted By: >>11613834

>>11613796
So you just don't know?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 21:27:21 No.11613833 Report

Quoted By: >>11613891

>>11613760
>Tell us what it is supposed to mean then?
Clearly, we take $...$ to signify $a lotta numbers$ . Hence, it follows directly that:
$...1 = a lotta numbers w/ one at teh end$

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 21:27:27 No.11613834 Report

Quoted By: >>11613885

>>11613820
your inability to read is not indicative of my lack of knowledge. please don't reply at all if you only know how to project.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 21:41:37 No.11613885 Report

Quoted By: >>11613944

>>11613834
I just assumed that if you know the answer, then you will present it. Since you refuse, then so be it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 21:42:45 No.11613891 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613833
Is gibberish your first language, or did you adopt it specifically to use on 4chan?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 21:46:51 No.11613908 Report

Quoted By: >>11613945

>>11612986
Here I can make some bullshit up too

Here's a conversation I had with a first grader:
>Me: Is 9.999... the same as 10, or is it just really close to 10?
>Kid: Really close. It never gets all the way there.
>Me: Well then how close? What do you get when you subtract 9.999... from 10?
>Kid: (pause) An infinite number of zeroes. . .and then a one.
>Me: Right.
>Kid: (pause) Oh, that's mind-blowing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 21:54:35 No.11613944 Report

Quoted By: >>11613966

>>11613885
The post you initially quoted where you asked for an explanation had 5 fucking justifications in it you brainlet.

The weirdest part is that you quoted the end of the post which necessarily required you read the rest of the post before it. There's no honest or good reason you should have asked the question you did. You're as dumb as language comprehension AI.
>the sky is blue
>"is the sky blue?"
>yes
>"wow avoiding, you don't know?"
>the sky is blue

Already asked you to avoid replying if all you understand is projection; which I'm gonna spell it out for you, is indeed the case. All you know is projecting.

Shut the fuck up and stop replying you dumb retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 21:54:58 No.11613945 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613908
That kid sounds clever. He explains what he means. In contrast that other anon refuses to explain his retarded and meaningless 0.000...01 stuff.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 21:55:37 No.11613946 Report

Quoted By: >>11613955

>>11613684
>some kind of infinitesimal, obviously, as far as I know that doesn't have a representation in math
Yes, there are infinitesimals. Fortunately the only infinitesimal in the real numbers is 0 by design - that is equivalent to the Archimedean property.
>because infinity is as nonsensical as 0.00...001.
not really. See I knew this would come up. There is no infinite zeroes that lead to end with 1, since we could just as easily 'repeat' the countably infinite amount of leading zeroes and keep on going, and so on and so forth. hence there's actually no single instance of a 1 showing up here. again, this is due to the Archimedean property
>>11613707
Read the above. We don't do this proof via computation on a computer - the proof and its computational realizability are two different matters entire. read more recursion theory and computable analysis until you try and throw these arguments
>how big is too big
>how many digits
the answer is infinitely many lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 21:57:34 No.11613954 Report

Quoted By: >>11613977

0.999... is not equal to 1, but it is approaching 1.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 21:57:36 No.11613955 Report

Quoted By: >>11613965

>>11613946
No the answer is like 16 digits.
16 digits is too many digits.
Don't be a dumbass trying to be a smartass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:01:02 No.11613963 Report

Quoted By: >>11613973

>>11613293
>1 doesn't exist inside R
wew lad

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:01:09 No.11613965 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613955
>16 digits
stop being a dumbass pretending they're anything more than a dumbass. Anyone who has studied basic real analysis knows that 0.999... always provokes discussion of limits because its definition is inherently built on the supremum and limit definitions the reals were made to handle

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:01:27 No.11613966 Report

Quoted By: >>11613986

>>11613944
>5 fucking justifications
You mean the meaningless word salad? Not that there is anything wrong with that when you post on 4chan.
How about you continue to post the equivalent of grunting caveman sounds, and you leave it to me to explain mathematics? It seems a fair division of efforts into the thread.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:02:57 No.11613971 Report

Quoted By: >>11613993

>>11613748
0.1=10^-1
0.01=10^-2
0.001=10^-3
:
0.0...1=10^-inf=0

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:03:31 No.11613973 Report

Quoted By: >>11613980

>>11613963
You might just be too dumb to breathe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:04:10 No.11613977 Report

Quoted By: >>11613995 >>11614012 >>11614085 >>11614326 >>11617823 >>11617920

>>11613954
>is approaching
0.999... is static, the length is aleph_0 from the get go.
Your naive cartoon vision of a diesel engine chugging along is ridiculous. Embarrassing even.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:05:13 No.11613980 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613973
sigh

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:06:25 No.11613986 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613966
Pro-tip: Insulting easy to read sentences is just insulting your own intelligence. You're the only one here braindamaged enough to produce word salad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:10:07 No.11613993 Report

Quoted By: >>11614009 >>11614055

>>11613971
Of all the definitions for infinity as a number, not a single damn one of them allows for $\frac{1}{10^{\infty}}$ to equal zero.
You doubleshitposted just now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:10:25 No.11613995 Report

Quoted By: >>11614014 >>11614018

>>11613977
0.999... isn't static because it continues endlessly.

0.999 -> 0.9999 -> 0.99999 etc

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:11:40 No.11614002 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613087
It isn't less than one, it's an alternative way to write one. You may as well argue 7/7>1 because "mOrE tHaN oNe Is NoT eQuAl To OnE".

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:13:06 No.11614007 Report

Quoted By: >>11616347

>>11613428
>I don't understand it therefore it's witchcraft!
Fuck off and learn something.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:13:15 No.11614009 Report

Quoted By: >>11614026 >>11615381

>>11613993
1+2+3+4+... = inf
n/inf = 0
n*inf = inf
n+inf = inf
n-inf = -inf
0.999... = 1
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%2B2%2B3%2B4%2B...
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10%2Finf
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10*inf
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10%2Binf
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10-inf
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.999...

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:13:45 No.11614012 Report

Quoted By: >>11614022

>>11613977
>aleph
>sizes of infinity
>cantor brainletism
i'm afraid your disability is terminal, anon.
Your mom pooped you out of her vagina before you were done.

Go back and finish developing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:14:28 No.11614014 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613995
>it has legs and runs around
kek

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:14:46 No.11614018 Report

Quoted By: >>11614080 >>11617833 >>11617920

>>11613995
What do you call numbers that are not static? Just non-static, or something more fancy, like "dynamic"?
Is 0 = 0.000... then static or not?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:15:21 No.11614021 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613669
I can imagine a continent between South America and Africa, so what? Why are you stupid enough to believe that your ability to imagine something has anything to do with anything?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:15:30 No.11614022 Report

Quoted By:

>>11614012
Impressive, did you quote that from your PhD?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1584492051282.jpg, 54KiB, 720x575

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:16:02 No.11614026 Report

Quoted By: >>11614037 >>11614042 >>11614106 >>11614364

>>11614009
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=infinity
>>Infinity is an unbounded quantity greater than every real (and every whole) number.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=quantity
>>a Quantity is how much there is or how many there are of something that you can quantify
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=quantify
>>to Quantify is to express as a number or measure or quantity
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=is+infinity+a+number%3F
>is infinity a number?
>>? is not a number
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Does+1%2F%28not+a+number%29+%3D+1%2Finfinity%3F
>is "1/(not a number) = 1/?" true?
>>no

Infinity is a concept made up by retards, for retards.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:18:11 No.11614036 Report

Quoted By: >>11614046 >>11614054

Okay okay everybody shut up I have a proposal
>0.99... = 1 is partially correct because they represent the same value on a number line
>0.99... =/= 1 is partially correct because they are different types of numbers (one is real and the other is not)
So everybody is kind of right and the dispute is about what equality even means

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:18:19 No.11614037 Report

Quoted By:

>>11614026
>unbounded quantity
you keep ignoring the first word
you keep ignoring the results

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:19:28 No.11614042 Report

Quoted By:

>>11614026
Your shitpost is a ramble made up by a retard, for retards.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:20:55 No.11614046 Report

Quoted By:

>>11614036
>one is real and the other is not)
stop pissing in your cereal

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO For 1 tards.jpg, 97KiB, 1654x2339

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:23:28 No.11614054 Report

Quoted By: >>11614074 >>11614565

>>11614036
Wrong, stop using the Golden Mean Fallacy. The people who think 1=/=0.9... are WRONG, end of story.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:23:29 No.11614055 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613993
>infinity as a number,
lol, you're an idiot

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:29:16 No.11614074 Report

Quoted By: >>11614079

>>11614054
Anon I agreed that they represent the same value. I'm simply asking if part of the issue is that 0.99... is not an actual number and is just a funky way of writing 1, making an equals sign a bit misleading.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:31:24 No.11614079 Report

Quoted By: >>11614122

>>11614074
0.90... is not an actual number and is just a funky way of writing 9/10, making an equals sign a bit misleading.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:31:30 No.11614080 Report

Quoted By: >>11614085

>>11614018
0 = 0.0 = 0.00 etc
No matter how many 0s you add to it, it's going to equal the same.

9 < 9.9 < 9.99 < 9.999 etc
As you add 9s, it gets larger

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:35:25 No.11614085 Report

Quoted By:

>>11614080
>As you add
how about when you die, does math change anon? or does it grow a mustache and legs and dancesdancesdances off to the sunset
>>11613977

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:40:23 No.11614106 Report

Quoted By: >>11614168

>>11614026
We can pick this apart for fun. Wolfram does not have the best writers for their documentation pages, that is already clear.

We can let "infinity" be some typical value that occurs in theories of finite or infinite elliptic curves, or in extended real or complex numbers, etc.. So we let $\infty = \{ \{0\}\}$ and see how this goes. Note that
$\infty$ has size 1 by this definition.

>https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=infinity
>>>Infinity is an unbounded quantity greater than every real (and every whole) number.
An "unbounded quantity" means a set that has no maximal element. Our set $\infty$
has only one element, which then has to be its maximal element. So Wolfram does not include those examples of infinity that are actually used.

>https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=quantity
>>>a Quantity is how much there is or how many there are of something that you can quantify

Our infinity above has exactly one element. But 1 is not greater than every real number. So the description is wrong.

>Infinity is a concept made up by retards, for retards.
Let us agree that, apart from the fact that it is not "a concept", it does confuse the retards.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:43:17 No.11614118 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613109
If it's not the same then what is the difference ?
Well it's 0, but I just assume the concept of nil is way beyond your reach.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:45:31 No.11614122 Report

Quoted By: >>11614176 >>11615774

>>11614079
I agree, decimals are not real numbers.
$\frac{1}{3} and \frac{9}{10}$ are clearly real numbers with real parts 1, 3, 9, and 10.

0.333... and 0.9 are just gibberish. Not real numbers. You can't count "0.3" of something.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:46:10 No.11614125 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613207
Yep, it's the limitation of our writing system; if we were using base 12 1/3 would be 0.4

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 22:59:19 No.11614168 Report

Quoted By:

>>11614106
>Our infinity
your pulled-out-of-ass infinity
read a book

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 23:00:35 No.11614176 Report

Quoted By: >>11614195

>>11614122
30 cents
>wipes sweat from forehead

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 23:04:52 No.11614195 Report

Quoted By: >>11614226

>>11614176
>thirty
>30 = 0.3
burger education

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 23:07:09 No.11614204 Report

Quoted By: >>11614563 >>11617755

>>11613031
>0.999... is meaningless.
Nah, it's $\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{9}{10^n} = 1$

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 23:09:08 No.11614211 Report

Quoted By: >>11617738

>>11613109
Let x = 0.999...
10x = 9.999...
9 + 0.999... = 9.999...
9 + x = 10x
10x - x = 9
9x = 9
x = 1

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 23:13:21 No.11614226 Report

Quoted By:

>>11614195
hurr durr

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 23:41:52 No.11614326 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613977
Indeed. It's clearly meant to be a steam train in this analogy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Apr 2020 23:52:24 No.11614364 Report

Quoted By:

>>11614026
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_at_infinity

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 00:49:59 No.11614563 Report

Quoted By: >>11615337

>>11614204
This is not an algebraic expression though, just another way to express the same

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 00:50:20 No.11614565 Report

Quoted By: >>11614888 >>11615429

>>11614054
>define 0.999... to be 1
>therfore 0.99... = 1
fuck off

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 02:53:52 No.11614888 Report

Quoted By: >>11615349

>>11614565
Bullshit. They defined what a decimal expansion is in terms of infinite series. There's nothing wrong with the definition, other than it making your ignorant feelings hurt.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 03:21:39 No.11614973 Report

Quoted By: >>11615357

>>11612986
Consider the sequence of continued fractions:
$0.9 = \frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{9}}$
$0.99 = \frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{99}}$
$0.999 = \frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{999}}$
$\cdots$
$0.9... = \frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{9...}}$ , this is, $0.9... = \lim_{x\to\infty} \frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{x}}$

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 05:23:39 No.11615337 Report

Quoted By:

>>11614563
Well that's what the decimal notation means

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 05:27:39 No.11615349 Report

Quoted By:

>>11614888
>I define 1 to be 2
>Therefore 1=2
This is what onetards sound like

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 05:32:41 No.11615357 Report

Quoted By: >>11615381 >>11617070

>>11614973
So, in order to assert:
$0.999... = 1$
you must first assert:
$\frac{1}{?} = 0$

okay

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 05:38:31 No.11615381 Report

Quoted By: >>11615425

>>11615357
>>11614009

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 05:44:37 No.11615399 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613074
Yep.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/infinity.html

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 05:48:55 No.11615413 Report

Quoted By: >>11615424 >>11616887 >>11617771

>>11612986
Your days of HERESY are all but finished now, SODOMITE! The CRUSADE for finite and discrete mathematics is indefatigable, undefeatable. We of the ONE TRUE FAITH shall emerge victorious. Because we have GOD on our side!

0.999... does NOT equal 1

Even a child understands that until they are brainwashed, coerced, forced into SATANIC HERESY. You corrupted your own daughter,and for that heinous SIN you will burn in the finite fires of HELL

DEUS VULT!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 05:51:00 No.11615424 Report

Quoted By: >>11615444

>>11615413
>wall-of-text schizo

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 05:51:06 No.11615425 Report

Quoted By:

>>11615381
Not using Surreals, it isn't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 05:53:07 No.11615429 Report

Quoted By:

>>11614565
This so much, only those brain-dead fuckwits cant even see the pants-on-head retarded nature of their own fallacious thinking. They are truly cretins.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 05:57:17 No.11615444 Report

Quoted By: >>11615555

>>11615424
You call that a few lines a "wall of text"?

Man, just wait until you have to read a textbook. Oh wait. Stupid motherfuckers cant into reading.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 06:00:37 No.11615453 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613031
i believe 0.999... = 1 was used in the first proof that the transcendentals are uncountable if im not mistaken

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 06:10:57 No.11615487 Report

Quoted By: >>11615766

>>11612986
Nobody can conceptualize infinity
It's about understanding the consequences

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 06:37:46 No.11615555 Report

Quoted By:

>>11615444
get it published then

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 08:44:42 No.11615766 Report

Quoted By: >>11615770

>>11615487
>Nobody can conceptualize infinity
source: my ass

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 08:47:24 No.11615770 Report

Quoted By:

>>11615766
do it big boi

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 08:48:11 No.11615774 Report

Quoted By:

>>11614122
>You can't count "0.3" of something.
you can't count 3/10 of something ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 08:55:28 No.11615786 Report

Quoted By: >>11615792

a set X is finite if every injective mapping X -> X is also surjective
a set X is infinite, it is not finite

that wasn't too hard

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 08:57:01 No.11615792 Report

Quoted By:

>>11615786
lysol or clorox injective?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 13:30:34 No.11616347 Report

Quoted By: >>11616365

>>11614007
Real analysis is easy and only baby retard highschoolers like you suck your own dick off for knowing it.
The problem with Real Analfist is that it forces you to actualize infinity thanks to Gayfag Cantor.
But you wouldn't understand the philosophical implications, all faggots like you know is how to construct the reals (and only once these very Jewish axioms have been accepted). Muh Dedekind butts! Muh Cauchy suhquhnsuss!!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 13:41:12 No.11616365 Report

Quoted By: >>11616413 >>11616494 >>11617920

>>11616347
>philosophical implications
well, the scientific implication is that we can build spacecraft and shit
so hit me with your hardest philosophical implication

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 14:02:26 No.11616413 Report

Quoted By: >>11616435

>>11616365
>thinks we need real analysis to build things
behold the math freshman

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 14:13:29 No.11616435 Report

Quoted By: >>11616501

>>11616413
>thinks we don't need the whole theory, just the applicable results of the theory
behold the retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 14:34:57 No.11616494 Report

Quoted By:

>>11616365
>"accept that there are orders of infinities, or you can't build stuff"
You can do all of that without reals, mongoloid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 14:36:31 No.11616498 Report

Quoted By:

>>11612986
And you're typing this up furiously on reddit while cumming just at the thought of the down's anons on here getting their minds blown, yes?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 14:38:24 No.11616501 Report

Quoted By: >>11616827

>>11616435
You think physicists and engineers care about your epsilon delta autism? I know you feel like a big boy because you know proofs now, but sit down bitch

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 14:48:03 No.11616530 Report

Quoted By:

this philistine is going to say ?=3

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 16:29:10 No.11616827 Report

Quoted By: >>11617920

>>11616501
>You think physicists and engineers care about your epsilon delta autism?
of course they don't. how is that relevant ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 16:47:23 No.11616887 Report

Quoted By:

>>11615413
How are you even defining 0.999... if you reject the notion of infinity? With that logic you should be calling 0.999... a meaningless symbol. To compare 0.99... with 1 means you accept 0.99... is defined but I doubt it is in whatever system of axioms you're using. You don't even know how to be a finitist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 16:54:13 No.11616913 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613109
This post went full schizo

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 17:29:53 No.11617070 Report

Quoted By: >>11617339

>>11615357
Well tell me what you get after slicing your pie an infinite number of time.
I'll wait.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 18:32:35 No.11617339 Report

Quoted By:

>>11617070
Kicked out of the bakery?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 65835427457869.png, 112KiB, 720x303

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 18:37:28 No.11617354 Report

Quoted By: >>11617373

ITT: Retards that think they're being clever mathematicians by asserting that, as a number, 0.9999...=1.

NO

Ask your uni professors, only the LIMIT of 0.999... =1. The infinite sequence itself never equals one for any step.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 18:43:24 No.11617373 Report

Quoted By: >>11617414

>>11617354
>Ask your uni professors
pretty sure they will tell me that 0.999... IS the limit

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 18:56:09 No.11617414 Report

Quoted By: >>11617434 >>11617446

>>11617373
Ellipses were never used to infer a limit -anything contrary to that is the fault of embarrassed mathematicians changing the definition because someone made them look a fool.

An Ellipse just means (pattern continues). Without a limiting pair, it continues indefinitely in one direction.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 19:00:47 No.11617434 Report

Quoted By:

>>11617414
DIS

end the fucking thread before i shoot up cum in this bitch

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 19:02:45 No.11617446 Report

Quoted By:

>>11617414
>Ellipses were never used to infer a limit
not true at all, lmao

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 19:02:57 No.11617448 Report

Quoted By: >>11617474

>>11612986
I don't like flawed notation. I like notation which maps losslessly and unambiguously to the underlying absolute. I see this as a flaw.

Also, infinity isn't real. It is unlikely there is infinite subdivision or extent of any object which exists. Therefore, infinity is a nonsense concept.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 19:08:40 No.11617474 Report

Quoted By: >>11617731

>>11617448
>Also, infinity isn't real. It is unlikely there is infinite subdivision or extent of any object which exists. Therefore, infinity is a nonsense concept.
it is unlikely that there are two completely identical objects which exist. therefore, equality is a nonsense concept.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 19:48:53 No.11617579 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613042
No its not. Its a lie you believe.
By your own evidence they are not equal.
If it proves anything it proves that math is a lie.
But then so are tools, dreams and constructions.
Nature does not lie, nature needs no tools, dreams or constructions.
Nature exists as law.
Math is not law.
Only nature is law.
You are confused as to what is true and what is not true.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 20:30:49 No.11617721 Report

Quoted By: >>11617729

0.999..= 1 cannot be true outside of calculus.

Take a sphere with an infinite amount of points and subtract any amount, the state of the sphere is not equal to it's previous state.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 20:32:18 No.11617729 Report

Quoted By: >>11617778

>>11617721
But it still has an infinite number of points, just with a discontinuity at the one you removed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 20:32:53 No.11617731 Report

Quoted By: >>11617737

>>11617474
Whether you can, at one instant, have two objects existing in precisely the same state, is another matter. I don't know the answer to that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 20:34:52 No.11617737 Report

Quoted By: >>11617818

>>11617731
neither you know the answer to whether "there is infinite subdivision or extent of any object which exists"

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 20:35:03 No.11617738 Report

Quoted By:

>>11614211
>9 + x = 10
>nigger you call that a proof?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 20:38:31 No.11617755 Report

Quoted By: >>11617800

>>11614204
that's wrong
a limit of it is 1

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 20:43:25 No.11617771 Report

Quoted By:

>>11615413
based schizoposter

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 20:45:18 No.11617778 Report

Quoted By: >>11617793

>>11617729
Doesn't matter, the state of the sphere is not the same as it was. You can remove any amount and the result is the same, you are left with a difference that exists.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 20:50:40 No.11617793 Report

Quoted By: >>11617819

>>11617778
and what exactly is the analogy with 0.999... supposed to be ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 20:51:17 No.11617797 Report

Quoted By:

>>11613087
yes, it's less by ZERO

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 20:53:02 No.11617800 Report

Quoted By: >>11617808 >>11617829

>>11617755
and 0.999... is defined to be this limit

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 20:54:35 No.11617808 Report

Quoted By: >>11617817

>>11617800
nigger
0.999 is the infinite sum and 1 is it's limit

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 20:57:34 No.11617817 Report

Quoted By:

>>11617808
>0.999 is the infinite sum
source: my ass

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 20:58:19 No.11617818 Report

Quoted By:

>>11617737
-Shrug-
What can you do.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 20:58:36 No.11617819 Report

Quoted By: >>11617824 >>11617894

>>11617793
You can break the sphere (1) into an infinite amount of points. If you believe that removing any amount of points is not reducing the original state of the sphere that is a paradox.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO nSxbDj2RmF-8.png, 48KiB, 300x250

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 21:00:50 No.11617823 Report

Quoted By: >>11617969

>>11613977
>NNNOOOOOO INFINITY IS ALREADY COMPLETE, WE HAVE A SYMBOL FOR IT
>"Your naive cartoon vision of a diesel engine chugging along is ridiculous. Embarrassing even."
What's embarrassing is that you saved your retard-tier post and sit on /sci/, waiting for threads like this to post it in:
https://warosu.org/sci/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=chugging+along
What a sad life lmao

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 21:00:54 No.11617824 Report

Quoted By: >>11617834

>>11617819
and how is that relevant to 0.999... being or not being 1 ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 21:05:56 No.11617829 Report

Quoted By:

>>11617800
defined by retards that have egg on their face

0.999... just means 0.999 followed by an infinite number of 9s. It does NOT mean "the smallest number that is greater than any sum featured in the set 0.999..."

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 21:10:27 No.11617833 Report

Quoted By:

>>11614018
0.0 is a terminating sequence, retard. Consider any number that you enumerate as the result of a mechanical calculator. This is what happens when the result is infinite, there is no termination:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFJUYFlSYsM

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 21:10:34 No.11617834 Report

Quoted By: >>11617858

>>11617824
I don't know how I can make it clearer to you. If you remove any amount of points from a sphere with infinite amount of points, how many points are you left with? And what happens if you add it back in?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 21:18:17 No.11617858 Report

Quoted By: >>11617883

>>11617834
>how many points are you left with?
that depends on how big is the set of points you removed
>And what happens if you add it back in?
you get the sphere back

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 21:25:38 No.11617881 Report

Quoted By:

i have a cube. it is a geometric cube, I like this cube.

I cut my cube in half, because I like thinner shapes more. Now its' volume is 1/2 what it used to be.

I would like the volume even smaller, so I shall do that again. It is very thin now, at 1/4 what it used to be.

I shall continue to do this, forever.

The intelligent people who want there to be a distinction between 0.999... and 1(Even though, in the common mathematical notations, there actually isn't) will say the result is a 2d square.
Those who think 0.999 = 1, and therefore 1/inf = 0, will say that you are left with nothing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 21:25:52 No.11617883 Report

Quoted By: >>11617893

>>11617858
Remove any amount you want, what is the numeric representation of removing any amount you pick from a sphere with infinite amount of points?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 21:29:22 No.11617893 Report

Quoted By:

>>11617883
>numeric representation
as in terms of cardinal numbers ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 21:29:30 No.11617894 Report

Quoted By:

>>11617819
>You can break the sphere (1) into an infinite amount of points
that is wrong under euclidean geometry. A circle is not a bead necklace, and a sphere is not an infinite number of points.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 21:32:46 No.11617904 Report

Quoted By:

>>11612986
no it doesn't and i can prove that.
A.1: .999...!=1
Looking... Looking... No contradictions.
Q.E.D
xD

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO flat,1000x1000,075,f.u1.jpg, 84KiB, 800x903

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 21:36:26 No.11617920 Report

Quoted By: >>11617956 >>11617967 >>11617972

>>11616827
>h-h-how is that relevant??
see:
>>>11616365
>>well, the scientific implication is that we can build spacecraft and shit
Your whole argument was that it was impossible to do anything in the world without modern real analysis
>>11613977
>>11614018
>the length is aleph_0 from the get go.
>get go
cringe
>static static static
Please stop using that word, you're an imbecile.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 21:50:10 No.11617956 Report

Quoted By:

>>11617920
>>stop using that word
>t. i have no argument

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 21:52:42 No.11617966 Report

Quoted By:

>>11612986
The answer is clearly in the 6.
1/3=.333...
And .333... × 3 = .999... (on the knife)
However
1/6 = .16666667
And .333 + .167 = .5 = 1/2

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 21:52:43 No.11617967 Report

Quoted By:

>>11617920
You're a retard who thinks quibbling about, and criticizing word choice is a sign of intelligence. Fuck off.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 21:53:09 No.11617969 Report

Quoted By:

>>11617823
LMAO
actually spending your life doing warosu searches

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 21:54:19 No.11617972 Report

Quoted By:

>>11617920
>Your whole argument was that it was impossible to do anything in the world without modern real analysis
physicists and engineers don't need to know real analysis to use tools provided by real analysis

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