/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12221835

10KiB, 590x200, 0.999.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

0.999...

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 06:47:46 2020 No.12221835 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12221877 >>12221961 >>12222115 >>12222709 >>12222924 >>12223172 >>12224057 >>12225193 >>12225813 >>12227117 >>12227357 >>12227499 >>12228430 >>12228572 >>12228620 >>12228643 >>12228682 >>12229405

Now that the dust has settled...
Who was right? Has the debate resulted in a conclusive answer?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 06:52:38 No.12221841 Report

Quoted By: >>12222603 >>12222947 >>12225385

0.11111 = 0.22222 = 0.33333 = 0.44444 = 0.55555 = 0.66666 ... 0.999999

Basically all numbers are equal to each other. 2+2=5.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 06:53:03 No.12221843 Report

Quoted By: >>12229575

I think coffee is good for you, I drink it every day and it makes me feel better and stimulates my morning pooping.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 06:53:24 No.12221845 Report

Quoted By: >>12221960 >>12225447

All of this can be avoided by not using decimals.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 06:53:48 No.12221847 Report

Quoted By: >>12221960

1/inf=0

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 07:09:46 No.12221877 Report

Quoted By: >>12221960

>>12221835
By the construction of the reals as the Archimedean completion of the rationals with LUB property, unique up to isomorphism, it is an elementary fact that 0.99... and 1 refer to the same number. This is because the only infinitesimal in a set with the Archimedean property is 0 itself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 08:06:42 No.12221960 Report

Quoted By: >>12221977 >>12222096 >>12222104 >>12222986 >>12225850 >>12228226

>>12221845
What the fuck? So we'd only use whole numbers? That's severely limiting and would probably bring us back to the bronze age.
>>12221847
Infinity is not a number.
>>12221877
Get the fuck off my thread you pseud troll. Your nonsense is everything wrong with modern mathematics. Academia always overthinks and overcomplicates everything in order to gate knowledge away from the common people. Just give it to me straight: is 0.999... equal to 1 or not? Don't bring in unrelated shit like Archimedes or your cringey ass WUBALUB.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 08:06:53 No.12221961 Report

Quoted By:

>>12221835
Reals are not real

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 08:11:02 No.12221968 Report

Quoted By: >>12222708

>the dust has settled
do you have a single fact to back that up?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 08:14:57 No.12221977 Report

Quoted By: >>12228231

>>12221960
>So we'd only use whole numbers?
You is a retarded motherfucker.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 09:05:20 No.12222064 Report

Quoted By: >>12222133 >>12225578 >>12228648

It's only retards that can't understand it's 1 by definition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 09:18:29 No.12222096 Report

Quoted By:

>>12221960
>Infinity is not a number.
so?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 09:23:13 No.12222104 Report

Quoted By:

>>12221960
>Infinity is not a number.
well duh, that's why it's zero

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 09:27:14 No.12222115 Report

Quoted By: >>12222618

>>12221835
There's no number between 0.999... and 1, therefore these values are indistinguishable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 09:34:07 No.12222133 Report

Quoted By: >>12222797

>>12222064
Normies don't understand that mathematical notation systems are defined. They think decimals just appeared out of nowhere one day as a gift from god.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/One5Root.svg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/One5Root.svg Mon 12 Oct 2020 13:50:48 No.12222571 Report

Quoted By: >>12222741

as yourself what the fuck is 0.000...
its fucking 0
so what is 1 - 0
fucking 1
but 1 - 0.0000.... is fucking 0.99999....
so 0.999..... is fucking 1

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 14:03:39 No.12222603 Report

Quoted By: >>12222696 >>12222977 >>12223084 >>12227310

>>12221841
wait a second
if 0.999... is equal to 1, then,
wouldnt 0.98888... be equal to 0.999...?
and then, 0.97777... would be equal to 0.9888...., eventually you would be able to say that 0.111... is equal to 1

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 14:11:20 No.12222618 Report

Quoted By: >>12222797 >>12222991

>>12222115
>There's no number between 0.999... and 1, therefore these values are indistinguishable

>theres no number between 1 and 2 in the Natural set of numbers, therefore these values are indistinguishable

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 14:50:48 No.12222696 Report

Quoted By: >>12222735 >>12223257 >>12223282 >>12227264

>>12222603
> 0.999...
9/10 + 9/90 = 90/90 = 1
>0.98888...
9/10 + 8/90 = 89/90
>0.97777
9/10 + 7/90 = 88/90 = 44/45
read a book

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 14:54:39 No.12222708 Report

Quoted By: >>12227390

>>12221968
Indeed, the dust will never settle as long as there are high school students and trolls on 4chan.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO geometric series.png, 4KiB, 277x260

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 14:54:43 No.12222709 Report

Quoted By: >>12222740 >>12223012

>>12221835

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 15:07:43 No.12222735 Report

Quoted By: >>12222762

>>12222696
>0.999...
>9/10 + 9/90 = 90/90 = 1
>read a book
Are you retarded mate? By quating 0.999... to 9/10 + 9/90 youre already equating it to 1 you moron
You dont even understand the argument of the post you quoted, go back to preschool and stay there until youre a literate human being

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 15:09:07 No.12222740 Report

Quoted By: >>12222755 >>12222881

>>12222709
Now change 0.999... for 0.9888.... you mouthbreather

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 15:10:09 No.12222741 Report

Quoted By:

>>12222571
>what the fuck is 0.000...1
$\displaystyle 0. \bar{0}1 = \lim_{n \to \infty} 0. \underbrace{0 \dots 0}_{n ~ \text{times}}1 = \lim_{n \to \infty} \left [ \left ( \sum_{k=1}^n \dfrac{0}{10^k} \right ) + \dfrac{1}{10^{n+1}} \right ] =0 $

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 15:14:55 No.12222755 Report

Quoted By:

>>12222740
retard, stop pissing in your cereal

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 15:19:25 No.12222762 Report

Quoted By:

>>12222735
>seething
bad losers are hilarious

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 15:21:10 No.12222767 Report

Quoted By: >>12222929 >>12223005

1/9 = 0.111...
+
8/9 = 0.888...
=
9/9 = 0.999...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 15:33:20 No.12222797 Report

Quoted By: >>12223017

>>12222133
based
>>12222618
the reals are complete, they cant have adjacent numbers
the naturals are not complete
retard

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO mouthbreather math.png, 5KiB, 300x330

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 15:58:05 No.12222881 Report

Quoted By: >>12222997 >>12227521

>>12222740

Anonymous

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

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:12:15 No.12222924 Report

Quoted By: >>12222954 >>12228462

>>12221835
It was only a debate for people who don't understand undergrad calculus, specifically infinite series. It obviously equals one, stop being retarded, and pick up a calculus textbook.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:13:17 No.12222929 Report

Quoted By: >>12222933

>>12222767
Note: this isn't a proof of this result, it's a way to help mathlets intuitively understand why it's true

El Arcón

El Arcón Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:13:55 No.12222931 Report

Quoted By: >>12222940

Everyone who said that "dot dot dot" is not a useful notation was right and everyone else missed the point.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:14:17 No.12222933 Report

Quoted By: >>12222954

>>12222929
prove it

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:15:21 No.12222940 Report

Quoted By:

>>12222931
irrelevant

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:16:50 No.12222947 Report

Quoted By: >>12222983 >>12223021

>>12221841
>1/9=2/9=...9/9
Serious question: do you tie your own shoes, or does your helper do that while writing retarded arguments on 4chan?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:18:41 No.12222954 Report

Quoted By:

>>12222933
>>12222924

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:25:02 No.12222977 Report

Quoted By:

>>12222603
That's what I was getting at

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:25:57 No.12222983 Report

Quoted By: >>12222994

>>12222947
>tie your own shoes, or does your helper
they don't have to, i use velcro

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:26:36 No.12222986 Report

Quoted By: >>12229605

>>12221960
>muh inaccessible
dumbfuck if you want to answer the question you need to read the fucking subject. this is introductory real analysis.
>overcomplicates
if the first chapter of baby rudin is too '''overcomplicated''' for you I don't know what to tell you.
>give it to me straight
The post literally says "it is an elementary fact that 0.99... and 1 refer to the same number."
>unrelated shit like Archimedes or your cringey ass WUBALUB.
Archmedean property and LUB are the reasons why 0.99... = 1, and it's the reasons people misunderstanding the most.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:27:45 No.12222991 Report

Quoted By: >>12223002

>>12222618
the naturals and the reals are completely different sets with completely different constructions and completely different properties. Infinite sets do not have a least upper bound in the naturals, but they do in the reals.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:27:57 No.12222994 Report

Quoted By:

>>12222983
Based retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:28:24 No.12222997 Report

Quoted By: >>12223010 >>12223012

>>12222881
8/9 is the same as 0.999....

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:29:06 No.12223002 Report

Quoted By: >>12223026

>>12222991
They aren't COMPLETELY different, since the Naturals are a subset of the Reals. You are otherwise correct.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:29:54 No.12223005 Report

Quoted By: >>12223022 >>12223028 >>12223080

>>12222767
>8/9 = 0.888...
>=
>9/9 = 0.999...
Nope
0.999... would be something like 8.999.../9

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:30:31 No.12223010 Report

Quoted By: >>12223028

>>12222997
Wrong, retard.
8/9=.8888...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:30:37 No.12223012 Report

Quoted By: >>12223028

>>12222997
no it isnt, see >>12222709

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:31:35 No.12223017 Report

Quoted By: >>12223454

>>12222797
>the reals are complete, they cant have adjacent numbers
Except there is no real number that doesnt have an edning like 0.999...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:32:28 No.12223021 Report

Quoted By:

>>12222947
First commentor in the thread here. Yes I do tie my shoes. I was saying the belief that 0.9999... = 1 is retarded. You can have fractions that get infinitely smaller and smaller.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:32:33 No.12223022 Report

Quoted By: >>12223032

>>12223005
8.999.../9=9/9=1
Stop being a contrarian retard and actually read the calculus textbook that you like to chew on.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:33:17 No.12223026 Report

Quoted By: >>12223031

>>12223002
I misspoke. Bounded infinite sets in the naturals have a least upper bound but there are no absolutely bounded infinite sets in the naturals despite them being in the naturals. Regardless, they're not completely different since there's a canonical embedding of the naturals in the reals, but you can't compare 0.99... = 1 in the reals to 1 vs. 2 because you're commenting on two different constructions here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:33:51 No.12223028 Report

Quoted By: >>12223068 >>12223080

>>12223010
>>12223012
Both of you are wrong, Im right
>>12223005

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:34:19 No.12223031 Report

Quoted By:

>>12223026
*despite them being in the reals
fuck I'm messing up today

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:34:53 No.12223032 Report

Quoted By: >>12223039 >>12223048

>>12223022
>8.999.../9=9
Nope
8.999... isnt a Real number to being with, its an infinite number

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:36:18 No.12223039 Report

Quoted By: >>12223133

>>12223032
...yes it is. You can construct it as an infinite sequence of increasing rationals and use the Cauchy construction of the reals to identify it as a unique real.
Please read chapter 1 of Rudin before spouting out garbage. Infinite decimals do not mean they're not in the reals.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:38:43 No.12223048 Report

Quoted By:

>>12223032
Stop being a retard who uses big words that you clearly don't understand. It's a Real number because you can rewrite 8.99... as an infinite series and use BASIC, UNDERGRAD calculus to PROVE that. Stop believing you can talk about something you've clearly done no research on.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:44:39 No.12223068 Report

Quoted By:

>>12223028
Ah yes the "I'm right because I say so" proof method. Clearly the most based and foolproof method.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO this is fun.png, 2KiB, 170x114

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:47:29 No.12223080 Report

Quoted By: >>12223302

>>12223005
>>12223028
you are right
in fact, you're showing that 0.999...=1

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 16:48:44 No.12223084 Report

Quoted By: >>12223311

>>12222603
You don't understand decimal notation. 0.98888... is strictly less than 0.99, so its less than 1. Similarly, 0.97777... is strictly less than 0.98.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 17:01:45 No.12223133 Report

Quoted By: >>12223205 >>12223210

>>12223039
>You can construct it as an infinite sequence of increasing rationals and use the Cauchy construction of the reals to identify it as a unique real.
Except infinite sequences arent numbers you retarded nigger nor they exist in reality

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 17:12:45 No.12223172 Report

Quoted By:

>>12221835
$\frac{1}{1-0.999...} \in R$

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 17:24:22 No.12223205 Report

Quoted By: >>12223213

>>12223133
>they aren't numbers
yes they are you dumb fucking tourist, the construction of the reals is necessarily dependent on identifying infinite sequences of rationals, whether it be equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences of Dedekind cuts. Again, read chapter 1 of Rudin, the easiest introduction to *what* the set of real numbers actually are. Stop spouting bullshit about what you understand.
>exist in reality
I don't give a fuck what does and doesn't exist "in reality." The real numbers, as we reason with them, are both infinite and constructed using infinite sets.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 17:26:06 No.12223210 Report

Quoted By: >>12223318

>>12223133
>>12223133
>they aren't numbers
yes they are you dumb fucking tourist, the construction of the reals is necessarily dependent on identifying infinite sequences of rationals, whether it be equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences of Dedekind cuts. Again, read chapter 1 of Rudin, the easiest introduction to *what* the set of real numbers actually are. Stop spouting bullshit about what you don't understand.
>exist in reality
I don't give a fuck what does and doesn't exist "in reality." The real numbers, as we reason with them, are both infinite and constructed using infinite sets.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 17:27:08 No.12223213 Report

Quoted By:

>>12223205
>what you understand
what you DON'T understand

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 17:38:33 No.12223257 Report

Quoted By:

>>12222696
what about 0.999888888888888...? is it equal to 0.9999999999999... or not?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 17:44:51 No.12223282 Report

Quoted By:

>>12222696
>9/10 + 9/90 = 90/90
this is the level of /sci/niggers

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 17:50:08 No.12223302 Report

Quoted By:

>>12223080
>equates 0.999... to 1 by saying 1 + 8 = 8.999...
>concludes that 1 is equal to 0.999...
read about petitio principii anon

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 17:52:18 No.12223311 Report

Quoted By:

>>12223084
>0.98888... is strictly less than 0.99
why? using calculus the difference between 0.888... and 0.9 becomes zero

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 17:54:26 No.12223318 Report

Quoted By:

>>12223210
>yes they are you dumb fucking tourist, the construction of the reals is necessarily dependent on identifying infinite sequences of rationals
No theyre not, reals just need a decimal sign to exist

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 18:32:00 No.12223454 Report

Quoted By: >>12224954

>>12223017
what are you talking about?
.999... does

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Oct 2020 21:28:01 No.12224057 Report

Quoted By: >>12224929 >>12224946 >>12225081

>>12221835
Don't listen to the /pol/tard tourists here. In truth, 1 is actually shorthand for 1.000... If you compare the digits of 0.999... to 1.000..., you can see that 0.999... < 1.000... If 0.999... = 1, then 1 < 1, which is a contradiction. QED.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 02:39:30 No.12224929 Report

Quoted By: >>12224958

>>12224057
$ 1 = \dfrac{3}{3} = 3 \cdot \dfrac{1}{3} = 3 \cdot 0.\bar{3} = 0.\bar{9} $

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 2014-2-12-14217.png, 347KiB, 608x650

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 02:49:56 No.12224946 Report

Quoted By: >>12225764

>>12224057
But you're literally wrong. Every digit has nine "holes" not ten. There are no empty holes all the way to infinity. You shouldn't have passed 8th grade

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 02:55:02 No.12224954 Report

Quoted By: >>12227408

>>12223454
.999... doesnt have and ending, it goes on forever

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 02:56:33 No.12224958 Report

Quoted By: >>12224963

>>12224929
You onefag midwits always post this copypasta as if it were a divine commandment, despite it being easily debunked. 1/3 is actually slightly more than 0.333... The extra digits don't show up because when you do long division, you never actually get there. But you wouldn't understand that, would you? You'd just plug your ears and scream LALALALALA and retreat back to your chambers to pray to your precious Academia for forgiveness for exposing yourself to mathematical wrongthink.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 02:58:49 No.12224963 Report

Quoted By: >>12225000

>>12224958
1/3=3/10+1/30
=0.3+1/30
=0.33+1/300
=0.333+1/3000
=0.3333+1/30000
This shit never ends. It's always 1/3

1/3 = 0.333... + 1/inf = 0.333... + 0 = 0.333...

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 03:12:23 No.12225000 Report

Quoted By: >>12225008 >>12225036 >>12225212

>>12224963
Holy shit, you're a special kind of retarded, aren't you?
>This shit never ends.
That's exactly why you're wrong. Your argument literally proves that 1/3 is slightly more than 0.333... No matter how precise you get, 0.333... will NEVER reach 1/3. There will ALWAYS be an extra corrective term added on for it to equal 1/3. 0.333... is FOREVER less than 1/3. There is NO END to this pattern. Did you get that into your microcephalic mush brain? Did that make it easier for you? Or are you so retarded that you can't even be spoonfed?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 03:14:33 No.12225008 Report

Quoted By: >>12225014

>>12225000
every line =1/3, exactly
it never deviates from 1/3
1/3 = 0.333...

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 03:18:06 No.12225014 Report

Quoted By: >>12225016

>>12225008
Every line has a corrective term.
Without the corrective term, every line < 1/3.
1/3 > 0.333...
You sub-120 IQ dumbasses need to get off /sci/ NOW. Get out of my fucking board.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 03:20:10 No.12225016 Report

Quoted By: >>12225030

>>12225014
at infinity the "corrective term" = 0
1/3 = 0.333...

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 03:27:24 No.12225030 Report

Quoted By: >>12225040 >>12225074

>>12225016
>at infinity
You will NEVER reach infinity. Now that I've thoroughly debunked your shitpost in merely 5 words, you need to get off this board immediately. /sci/ is for high IQ individuals, and staying on here would only embarrass you further. You brainlets need to be lined up and shot. If I could have my way, I would cut you into little meat cubes and stuff them up my dickhole. Then I'd fuck your mom and cum your bits into her rotten piscine-smelling pussy. Fuck you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 03:30:23 No.12225036 Report

Quoted By: >>12225114

>>12225000
Again you're wrong there is no corrective term because there is no ...1 because .999=1. .333.. is literally 1/3 of 1.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 03:31:27 No.12225040 Report

Quoted By: >>12225114 >>12228932

>>12225030
>NEVER reach
0.333... 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 13 Oct 2020 03:41:35 No.12225074 Report

Quoted By: >>12225114

>>12225030
It's not moving towards it. It's repeating infitely.

It's like saying ? will never reach infinity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 03:43:08 No.12225081 Report

Quoted By: >>12225114

>>12224057
>you can see that 0.999... < 1.000...
guys, 1 + 1 < 2, cuz the 1 is smaller than the 2

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 03:44:15 No.12225085 Report

Quoted By:

nullus.IXIXIX... = I

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 03:53:09 No.12225114 Report

Quoted By: >>12225123 >>12225160 >>12225217 >>12225347 >>12225489

>>12225036
So .999...=1 because .333...=1/3, and .333...=1/3 because .999...=1? You're hopelessly lamebrained.
>>12225040
>Your naive cartoon vision of a diesel engine chugging along is ridiculous.
Projecting. I'm not the one thinking that taking a limit is the same as actually being at infinity. You seem to believe that the action of approaching somewhere is the same as the static value of 0.333... The limit of 0.3, 0.33, 0.333, ... may be 1/3, if that's what your cult of Academia says it is. But the actual infinite 0.333... is less than 1/3. This is evidenced by the fact that for every step of the following pattern, the number in decimals are always less than 1/3:
0.3 < 1/3
0.33 < 1/3
0.333 < 1/3
0.3333 < 1/3
In fact, it can be PROVEN that this pattern continues forever. Just substitute in 0.333... and clearly it is less than 1/3. QED.
>>12225074
>It's not moving towards it.
Again with this strawman. The whooping gibbons in Academia are the ones who think like this. See above.
>>12225081
I thought what I was doing was obvious, but you're post clearly reveals you to be an imbecile that couldn't get the implication. But since I'm feeling nice, I'll spell it out for you.
Real numbers are ordered lexicographically. Basically, you find the left-most difference in digits, and the comparison of the digits is the same as the comparison of the numbers themselves. You don't need to expand 1 to 1.000... to do this, but I did that to bring to the center of attention this aspect of the real numbers. Unfortunately, you were too braindead to pick up on this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 03:56:14 No.12225123 Report

Quoted By: >>12225135

>>12225114
>let's pretend finite is infinite
smoothbrain retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 04:00:13 No.12225135 Report

Quoted By: >>12225144

>>12225123
>let's put a funny misrepresentation of an argument in greentext and make fun of that
Intellectually dishonest strawmanning Academia shill. You're shitting up this board with your presence.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 04:02:29 No.12225144 Report

Quoted By: >>12225160

>>12225135
>i have no argument

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 04:09:56 No.12225160 Report

Quoted By: >>12225168 >>12225182

>>12225144
Stop projecting. You're embarrassing yourself. I provided my argument here >>12225114 and you were the one who provided no argument. Just a strawman shitpost. There is nothing for me to respond to here, and you clearly won't respond in any meaningful way since you are a troll just looking to collect (You)s. I won't be dignifying your low-quality posts with responses anymore, though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 04:14:50 No.12225168 Report

Quoted By: >>12225301

>>12225160
not him but lets say 0.999... isnt equal to 1
what changes in math?
i know cantor is bullshit as well

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 04:20:13 No.12225182 Report

Quoted By: >>12227375

>>12225160
>my argument
3 < ?
3.1 < ?
3.14 < ?
3.141 < ?
3.1415 < ?
3.14159 < ?
3.141592 < ?
3.1415926 < ?
3.14159265 < ?
this continues endlessly
? < ?

kek

Solivagus !!bdXR9KYyWHC

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1596765825763.jpg, 9KiB, 196x257

Solivagus !!bdXR9KYyWHC Tue 13 Oct 2020 04:23:38 No.12225193 Report

Quoted By:

>>12221835
0.999…. = 1

0.(highest_numeral_base)*(recurrence!) = 1

$0 \iota \phi! = 0 \iota \Gamma(\phi + 1, 0) for Re(\phi)>-1$

Anyone that needs a lesson of when to stop repeating yourself repeated to them is someone that should repeat the worst you've lived, imagined, believed, thought, and experienced just so nobody has to repeat either of those things again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 04:29:35 No.12225212 Report

Quoted By: >>12225218

>>12225000

Ummm....

Say 0.33 is changed to a percentage

33%

Then. 0.333 is 33.3%

It is always slightly increasing..

But will never reach 34%

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 04:30:49 No.12225217 Report

Quoted By: >>12225230

>>12225114
>limits preserve strict inequality
based, keep proving these academic shills wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 04:31:12 No.12225218 Report

Quoted By:

>>12225212
Yes, for the same reason the integral of the gaussian is finite. You can add forever and never increase past a certain number

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 04:32:28 No.12225223 Report

Quoted By: >>12225291 >>12225301

$ \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

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 04:34:19 No.12225230 Report

Quoted By:

>>12225217
>banjo duel intensifies

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 04:51:41 No.12225291 Report

Quoted By: >>12225455

>>12225223
this is an amazing proof
except for one issue, calling an unending sequence as b, like it was a finite number, which is what youre trying to prove in the first place

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 04:54:37 No.12225301 Report

Quoted By: >>12225332 >>12225404 >>12225418 >>12225950

>>12225223
You're such a fucking snake, you know that? For the uninformed, Academia does its Orwellian programming through what can be described as sleight-of-hand magic tricks. By a wave of the magic wand, the knuckle-walking apes of Academic theocracy has turned $\lim_k\sum_{n=1}^k$ into $\sum_{n=1}^\infty.$
And just like that, the limit disappeared! But don't be fooled. Behind all this trickery, it's just a "limit." A "limit" is merely a vacuous construct conjured by the Academic ruling-class. Regardless, all this post "proves" is that the "limit" of 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ... is equal to 1. It does not prove that 0.999... = 1.
>>12225168
Since 0.999... < 1, this gives us access to a range of versatile tools like infinitesimals. These are required to develop calculus RIGOROUSLY and with NO handwaving. Moreover, by rejecting Academia, we may faithfully represent how numbers TRULY are rather than dealing with a nonsense abstraction which represents literally nothing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 05:05:36 No.12225332 Report

Quoted By:

>>12225301
>Since 0.999... < 1, this gives us access to a range of versatile tools like infinitesimals. These are required to develop calculus RIGOROUSLY and with NO handwaving. Moreover, by rejecting Academia, we may faithfully represent how numbers TRULY are rather than dealing with a nonsense abstraction which represents literally nothing.
I think its called finitism?
http://theorangeduck.com/page/infinity-doesnt-exist#:~:text=Infinity%20is%20no%20different%20-%20we,anything%20that%20is%20not%20finite.&text=There%20are%20no%20building%20blocks,doesn't%20exist%20in%20physics.
Sounds based to me, many big brains are part of it, which is the good part about math, you can refute anything with your mind and some paper and pen, physics, oh no, for that you would need billions of dollars to build your own telescope or cern

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 05:10:17 No.12225347 Report

Quoted By: >>12225409

>>12225114
>Real numbers are ordered lexicographically.
Real numbers are ordered lexicographically.
>Real numbers are ordered lexicographically.
Real numbers are ordered lexicographically.
>Real numbers are ordered lexicographically.
Real numbers are ordered lexicographically.
>Real numbers are ordered lexicographically.
Real numbers are ordered lexicographically.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 05:22:23 No.12225385 Report

Quoted By: >>12225410

>>12221841
0.11111 = 0.2
0.2 != 0.22222

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 05:31:11 No.12225404 Report

Quoted By:

>>12225301
> I won't be dignifying your low-quality posts with responses anymore
smoothbrain and a liar

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 05:32:34 No.12225409 Report

Quoted By:

>>12225347
>lexicographics
not math
go back to >>>/x/

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 05:33:36 No.12225410 Report

Quoted By:

>>12225385
>1/9 = 0.2
wew lad

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 05:37:33 No.12225418 Report

Quoted By:

>>12225301
https://youtu.be/gsC4kf6x_Q0?t=30

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 05:54:24 No.12225447 Report

Quoted By: >>12227025 >>12228086

>>12221845
how the fuck can you have numbers without decimals

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 05:59:09 No.12225455 Report

Quoted By:

>>12225291
>like it was a finite number
it's less than 2
idiots even claim it's less than 1
retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 06:18:20 No.12225489 Report

Quoted By:

>>12225114
Yes it just so happens that correct things can be framed as circular reasoning. The only fallacy is the one you've come up with. Let's say I had a grid of nine boxes. This stood for 9 of course. If you want to say ten you have a grid to the left and you color in one box. So we have boxes of nine for every digit. Why not ten? Because we can represent that with a one to the left. But let's say we did have ten boxes. We took the last one and put that one to right. Then we took a tenth of that box etc etc. So you see if we were to color in every box to the right of one, that would be the same as coloring in one. It's literally the same. Any ...999... at any point in the decimals is equal to ...1

This is how our language of math works. If you have a better one I'd like to hear it. If .999... =/= 1 we've all got a serious problem. Any fraction to decimal conversion from fourth grade up is totally fucked

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 06:46:36 No.12225578 Report

Quoted By:

>>12222064
this

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 08:02:42 No.12225764 Report

Quoted By:

>>12224946
Your mom has nine cum-leaking holes after I was done with her.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 08:18:58 No.12225813 Report

Quoted By: >>12225851 >>12225873 >>12226704

>>12221835
If two numbers are such a=\=b by haussdorf separation theorem then there exist an ?>0 such that the intersection between Bd(a,?) and Bd(b,?) is nonempty. The reals with the usual distance constitute a metric space and its imposible given any ?>0 and a=1 and b=0,999... that the spheres dont intersect. Therefore a=b

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 08:29:11 No.12225850 Report

Quoted By: >>12226087

>>12221960
>Infinity is not a number
But an infinitely large number is

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO (You).jpg, 18KiB, 300x356

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 08:29:29 No.12225851 Report

Quoted By: >>12225860 >>12226726

>>12225813
>If two numbers are such a=\=b by haussdorf separation theorem then there exist an ?>0 such that the intersection between Bd(a,?) and Bd(b,?) is nonempty. The reals with the usual distance constitute a metric space and its imposible given any ?>0 and a=1 and b=0,999... that the spheres dont intersect. Therefore a=b
ooh ooohhh.... uuhhuhh,,,-oohh aaahh aaahh,, uuhUUHUUHUH AAHAHAHA AAHAHAAH!!! OOOHHOHUUHUHUH AHHAAAAAHAAA!!!! OOHHOOHHHHUUUHUHUHUUUUHUHAAAAHAHAAAAAAHAAHAHAHAAAAAAA,,,,,,HUUHHAAAHAHAHAHAHHUUHUUHHOOOOOHOOHOOO-OOH AAAHAHAAAA!!! uuhuuhUUHUH OOOHHOOH oo--oh ooOHOOOHOHH AAAHAAAAAHAHAAAHH!!! AAAAAAH AAAH AAAAAH AAAAAAAAH!!......,uhuuhhuuu?? ook... oook........,, oookk.. uuh--uu-ooh ooh,,,,,..UUHUHUHUUUUHHH AAAAAH AAAAH AAAAAAAAAH!!!!! UUHHOOOOOHOO -OOOOHOH AAAAAAH AAAAAAAH AAAAH!!!!!!! UUHUUHHOOOOOOOOHOOHOOHOH AAAAAAH AAAH AAAH OOOOOOH-OOH-OO AAAAAAH AAAAAAAAAAAH AAAH AAAAAAH!!!!!! UUHUUHUHHUU OOOH OOOH OOOOOOH AAAAAAHAAAH AAAAAH!!!!!!!!,,uhuuhu.. ooh? ooh ooh.. ook uuhuh-ooh-oh..,, uuhUUHUUUHUH AAAAAHAAAAHAAAHAHAAAAAH OOOOH OOOOH AAAAAAAAH AAAAH AAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!! UUUHUUHUU OOOH AAAAAAH UUH UUHHH AAAAAAAAHH AAAAAAH AAH!!!!!!!!!!! UUH OOOH OOOH AAAAAH!!! UUHHUuhuuh,,,, uuh OOOHO OOOOH OOH,,,,, uuhOOHOOOHO AAAAHAHAHAAAAAH AAAAAAH AAAHA AAAH!!!!!!! UUHUUHUUU OOHO AAAAAH,,! ooh.. uhuh???/ ohohhh oooh OOOH OOOOOOH OOOOH!!!! OOOOOH OOOH OOOOH!!!! huuuhUHUU AAHAAHAAAAAHAHAHA OOOOUOOOH OOOOHH OO-OOOOOH OOOOOO-OOOHHH,,,,, haaaaahAHAAAAAHAAAAAA AAAAH AAAAHHAAAAA AAAHH!!!!!!!!!! OOOOH OOOOOH AAAAAAH AAAAAHHHHH OOOH AAAAH AAAH UUUHUUHOHOOOOH AAAAAAAH AAAAAHH!!!!!!!,,,,uuhuuhhh.... OOOH... UUHHOOOOHH AAAAHHH AAHHHHHHHHH AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!!! OOOOHHH AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 08:31:04 No.12225856 Report

Quoted By:

thanks for the blogpost
where's the unsubscribe button?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 08:32:24 No.12225860 Report

Quoted By:

>>12225851
thanks for the blogpost
where's the unsubscribe button?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 08:37:56 No.12225873 Report

Quoted By:

>>12225813
dude, it's 1 by definition. The retards that won't accept that will also not unterstand your proof.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 08:58:51 No.12225917 Report

Quoted By: >>12227085 >>12227126 >>12227491 >>12229100 >>12229179 >>12229224 >>12229346

$ (1) n = 0.999... \\ (2) 10n = 9.999... \\ (2)-(1) => 10n - n = 9.999... - 0.999... \\ 9n = 9 \\ n = 1 \\ $

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 09:10:41 No.12225950 Report

Quoted By: >>12227180

>>12225301
>I don't know what a limit is

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 10:17:14 No.12226087 Report

Quoted By:

>>12225850
>infinitely large number
no such thing

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 15:27:58 No.12226704 Report

Quoted By:

>>12225813
*between Bd(a,?) and Bd(b,?) is EMPTY

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 15:37:07 No.12226726 Report

Quoted By:

>>12225851
How im i supposed to win the chess tournament when my oponent is a dove and he just droped the pieces all over the place then shat on the table?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 17:26:29 No.12227025 Report

Quoted By:

>>12225447
Use factorial base; all rational numbers have a terminating representation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 17:44:58 No.12227085 Report

Quoted By: >>12227107

>>12225917
i like that. is it ogre?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 17:51:43 No.12227107 Report

Quoted By: >>12227146

>>12227085
Yes. The debate is finished. Those who believe that 0.999... = 1 have resorted to regurgitating the same talking points which have already been debunked, proving that they have no more arguments.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 17:54:19 No.12227117 Report

Quoted By:

>>12221835
It was made up by NASA. Just like "space travel", "airplanes", "ships", "cars", "scooters" and "cassette recorders". It is time we rally around, all of us that are angry and live in our mothers' basements. Wake the sheeple, is what I say.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 17:56:07 No.12227126 Report

Quoted By: >>12227129 >>12227165 >>12227180

>>12225917
>mfw
$ (1)n=0.333... (2)10n=3.333... (2)?(1)=>10n?n=3.333...?0.333... 9n=3 n=3/9 n = 1/3 $

It also works for proving 1/3 = .333...

All you needed this whole time was basic algebra. Game ogre. DONE.

DONE.

/thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 17:57:11 No.12227129 Report

Quoted By:

>>12227126
ah shit fucked up the line breaks. oh well. i'm not a mathematician. But I just saw that and it made sense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 18:01:44 No.12227146 Report

Quoted By: >>12227180

>>12227107
lolno

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 18:05:58 No.12227165 Report

Quoted By: >>12227180 >>12227491 >>12228282 >>12229100

>>12227126
I'll try to fix it.
$ (1)n=0.333...\\ (2)10n=3.333...\\(2)?(1)=>10n?n=3.333...?0.333...\\ 9n = 3 \\ n = 3/9 \\ n = 1/3 \\ 0.333... = 1/3 \\ $

Is that how you do it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 18:08:19 No.12227175 Report

Quoted By: >>12227205

$x= 1-1+1-1+ \ldots = (1-1)+(1-1)+\ldots = 0+0+ \ldots = 0 \\ x= 1-1+1-1+\ldots =1 + (1-1)+ (1-1) + \ldots = 1+ 0 + 0 + \ldots = 1 \\ 0=1 $

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 18:09:40 No.12227180 Report

Quoted By: >>12227197 >>12227212 >>12227219

>>12225950
It's the ass-scratching baboons in Academia who don't understand what a limit is. They don't get that it merely describes a number that is being APPROACHED. Those apes believe that the limit describes a number in a sequence at ACTUAL infinity. The number being APPROACHED by 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ... is 1. But the number at ACTUAL infinity of this sequence is 0.999...
>>12227126
>>12227165
This has already been debunked in spectacular fashion. Embarrassing.
>>12227146
>n-no! you're wrong! you have to be!
I can tell you're struggling with these concepts. But I encourage to fight your programming. Become a freethinker.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 18:12:50 No.12227197 Report

Quoted By: >>12227212 >>12227336

>>12227180
>This has already been debunked in spectacular fashion. Embarrassing.

I wasn't there. What's wrong with it? I'm impartial about this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 18:14:40 No.12227205 Report

Quoted By:

>>12227175
any proof dependent on the order of adding is bs

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 18:17:14 No.12227212 Report

Quoted By: >>12227305

>>12227197
>>12227180 is a schizo, ignore him
no debunking done

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 18:18:16 No.12227219 Report

Quoted By: >>12227237

>>12227180
finitist monkey

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 18:23:33 No.12227237 Report

Quoted By: >>12227263

>>12227219
The proof that 0.999... = 1 is entirely finitistic and can be understood in an entirely finitistic framework.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 18:28:29 No.12227263 Report

Quoted By:

>>12227237
>0.999... = 1
yes, but needs axiom of infinity, so not finitist

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 18:28:40 No.12227264 Report

Quoted By: >>12227269

>>12222696
which book?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 18:30:39 No.12227269 Report

Quoted By:

>>12227264
https://www.britannica.com/science/axiom-of-infinity

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 18:41:51 No.12227305 Report

Quoted By:

>>12227212
Yeah but I wanna see him try to disprove any step of that. It's all simple algebra. Golden.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 18:42:38 No.12227310 Report

Quoted By:

>>12222603
No, 0.999... = 1 because we use a base 10 numeral system.

.9888... doesn't approach 0.999..., it doesn't even approach 0.99.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 18:49:01 No.12227328 Report

Quoted By:

The simplest way to say it is that there's no difference between 1 and 0.999...
1 - 0.999... = 0.000...
Nothing but zeros forever. The only way to interrupt the zeros is to interrupt the nines.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 18:52:01 No.12227336 Report

Quoted By: >>12227344 >>12227373

>>12227197
When you multiply 0.333... by 10, you get something slightly less than 3.333... This is because there must be one less digit at the end of .333... Adding this correction, one arrives at the correct conclusion of 0.333... < 1/3.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 18:55:52 No.12227344 Report

Quoted By: >>12227376

>>12227336
> This is because there must be one less digit at the end of .333

That's where you're wrong bucko. There's infinite 3's. We never run out of them even if we multiply it by 10000000000000000000000000000000000.
There's an infinite amount of 3's at the end of it by definition.

Now just take the L. You've obviously invested a lot of emotion into this but it's just sunk cost fallacy clouding your thinking.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 18:59:38 No.12227357 Report

Quoted By: >>12227375 >>12227491

>>12221835
1 > .9
.9 > .09

1 > .99
1 > .99...

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 19:07:07 No.12227373 Report

Quoted By:

>>12227336
>one less digit
holy shit lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 19:08:11 No.12227375 Report

Quoted By: >>12227380

>>12227357
>>12225182

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 19:08:19 No.12227376 Report

Quoted By: >>12227384 >>12227396 >>12227491

>>12227344
>That's where you're wrong bucko.
WAOW!!! I wanna pet that hecking doggo! Cute little fluffy pupper!! Keanu Reeves big chungus reddit r/theydidthemath can any gamer r/ELI5 for me??? upvoted! Edit: Thanks for the gold, kind stranger!
>Infinite 3's blah blah blah
How does that affect anything? We still take away one digit from the end, and we have 10n = 3.333...[-1]000... < 3.333...[0]000... = 3.333... But you won't get that, would you? You're too brainwashed? Too fluoridated? Orwell predicted this shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 19:09:58 No.12227380 Report

Quoted By: >>12227387 >>12227491

>>12227375
Is it wrong? Whatever number is on the left will always be an approximation and never the number itself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 19:10:31 No.12227384 Report

Quoted By:

>>12227376
>teen drama queen screaming and hand waving
into the trash it goes

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 19:11:34 No.12227387 Report

Quoted By: >>12227401

>>12227380
>let's pretend finite is infinite

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 19:12:23 No.12227390 Report

Quoted By: >>12227393 >>12227424

>>12222708
There never was any dust to settle, only trolls and genuine idiots.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 19:13:25 No.12227393 Report

Quoted By:

>>12227390
>trolls and genuine idiots
Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by *actual idiots* who mistakenly believe that they're in good company.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 19:14:03 No.12227396 Report

Quoted By:

>>12227376
>one digit from the end

WTF. There's no end. That's why it's repeating infinitely. LOL. Learn what symbol means first.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 19:15:09 No.12227401 Report

Quoted By: >>12227413

>>12227387
seethe

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 19:16:07 No.12227408 Report

Quoted By:

>>12224954
That is true for every real number.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 19:16:44 No.12227413 Report

Quoted By:

>>12227401
nope, cool analysis

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 19:18:53 No.12227424 Report

Quoted By:

>>12227390
Alright yeah. We're done here. Look at the state of this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 19:35:33 No.12227491 Report

Quoted By:

>>12227357
>>12227380

And for you, you seem like you're just confused not trying to troll.

Just look through these two proofs
>>12225917
>>12227165

Really simple way to understand that it's not "going towards" having infinite digits at the end. They just already ARE going on forever. There's not an "end" to it like this brainlet keeps insisting.

>>12227376

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 19:37:35 No.12227499 Report

Quoted By: >>12227872

>>12221835
If memory serves because there is no number between 0.999... and 1 it's equal to 1. That is to say, 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 0.999... = 3/3 = 1.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 19:41:42 No.12227521 Report

Quoted By:

>>12222881
BTFO

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO onefags_btfo.png, 46KiB, 1030x642

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 20:57:47 No.12227778 Report

Quoted By: >>12227797 >>12227882 >>12227982 >>12228653 >>12229623

The debate is over. 0.999... does not equal 1. Many good arguments for this have already been posed in this thread, but the strongest pieces of evidence is a formal proof. Pic related. I used a automated proof assistant called Coq to 100% rigorously prove that 0.999... does not equal 1. You can research more about Coq if you're interested but basically, if Coq validates a proof, the theorem is without-a-doubt proven.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 21:03:34 No.12227797 Report

Quoted By: >>12227836

>>12227778
>strongest pieces of evidence
Dude, it's mathematics, not a lawsuit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 21:13:00 No.12227836 Report

Quoted By: >>12227887

>>12227797
Most of mathematics is about convincing other mathematicians of your results. Mathematicians have worked to greatly reduce the syntactic and semantic ambiguity in the language of their arguments, but ultimately it's all lawyering about structures. But my proof that 0.999 does not equal 1 is written in a machine-verifiable proof language. It is 100% infallible.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 21:20:19 No.12227872 Report

Quoted By: >>12227893 >>12227915 >>12227936 >>12228079 >>12228282

>>12227499
>there is no number between 0.999... and 1
I will say there is a number A which is defined as 0.999... but always has one more 9 digit than it that I will represent as 0.999...[+1]
Done, got your number between 0.999.... and 1

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 21:22:33 No.12227882 Report

Quoted By:

>>12227778
I wish I could understand whats written in this program

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 21:23:49 No.12227887 Report

Quoted By:

>>12227836
You either trolling or completely retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 21:25:27 No.12227893 Report

Quoted By:

>>12227872
Dude, you are in way over your head in this discussion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 21:30:16 No.12227915 Report

Quoted By: >>12227954

>>12227872
not a real number

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 21:35:14 No.12227936 Report

Quoted By: >>12227973

>>12227872
This reminds me of arguments I got into in kindergarden when the other kid would disagree with you and you'd say "yuh huhh times infinity" and then he would go "nuh uuuuhhh infinity plus one"

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 21:39:55 No.12227954 Report

Quoted By:

>>12227915
not a real argument

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 21:44:36 No.12227973 Report

Quoted By:

>>12227936
>This reminds me of arguments I got into in kindergarden when the other kid would disagree with you and you'd say "yuh huhh times infinity" and then he would go "nuh uuuuhhh infinity plus one"
These were legitimate arguments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 21:46:43 No.12227982 Report

Quoted By: >>12228013

>>12227778
>if Coq validates a proof, the theorem is without-a-doubt proven.
false
but anyway, prove that not_one is .999...

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 21:53:00 No.12228013 Report

Quoted By: >>12228298 >>12228376

>>12227982
>prove that not_one is .999...
>CoFixpoint ninedigits : seqdigits := cons (exist _ 9 (le_n 9)) ninedigits.
ninedigits is a sequence of digits such that prepending 9 to it will yield the same sequence ninedigits.
>Definition not_one := mk_real zero_int ninedigits.
not_one is the real number whose integer part is zero and whose decimal part is ninedigits.
not_one is .999... by definition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 22:10:09 No.12228079 Report

Quoted By: >>12228164

>>12227872

Anon that's not how it works, the repeating 9s in 0.9999... don't just show up the moment you count them, they're built into the number. There is an uncountable infinite number of 9s after the decimal, so trying to add another 9 digit somewhere doesn't make any sense, as there is literally no way to "insert" another 9 into the number in a place that would have any real meaning.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 22:12:02 No.12228086 Report

Quoted By:

>>12225447
quotients

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 22:42:59 No.12228164 Report

Quoted By:

>>12228079
>uncountable
wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 22:57:23 No.12228226 Report

Quoted By:

>>12221960
You can use fractions instead of decimals you silly goose

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 22:58:43 No.12228231 Report

Quoted By:

>>12221977
Did you know, instead of writing 3.333333333333..... you can write 10/3. So, no, we wouldn’t be back to only while numbers

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 23:20:06 No.12228282 Report

Quoted By: >>12228298

>>12227872
I can already tell that's not conceptually representing infinite repetition to a computer. Computers can't interpret infinity.

Humans can conceptually understand infinity in that if you have 3.333 with infinitely repeating 3's, and 0.333 with infinitely repeating threes. If you subtract them the infinitely repeating 3's cancel out and you get 3. Which allows you to have this proof:

>>12227165

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 23:20:34 No.12228286 Report

Quoted By:

1/111=0.009009009009...
11/111=0.099099099099...
111/111=0.999999999999...

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 23:25:33 No.12228298 Report

Quoted By: >>12228306 >>12228452

>>12228282
I meant to respond to this.
>>12228013
>ninedigits is a sequence of digits such that prepending 9 to it will yield the same sequence ninedigits.

That doesn't sound like it's the same as 9 repeating to infinity. Computers have a limited capacity to compute, you can't really plug infinity into them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 23:29:04 No.12228306 Report

Quoted By: >>12228309

>>12228298
It can only do the thomas the choo choo train thing where it keeps trotting along the sequence of 99999999999's and keeps asking is it equal to one yet? no? chug chug chug chug chug is it equal to one yet? chug chug chug chug. It can never compute it because it's endless.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Oct 2020 23:31:03 No.12228309 Report

Quoted By: >>12228676

>>12228306
All arguments against it being equal to 1 involve stopping at some arbitrary, finite point and asking the question.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 00:01:07 No.12228376 Report

Quoted By: >>12228452

>>12228013
>ninedigits is a sequence of digits such that prepending 9 to it will yield the same sequence ninedigits.
so your not_one isnt even a real number? its just a recursive sequence thats merely superficially and aesthetically similar to the sum .999...
then yeah, it makes sense that inversion was a strong enough tactic to prove inequality

also, stop using Coq you fucking monkey
even the autist type theorists know to use something less butt ugly like Lean

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 00:21:59 No.12228430 Report

Quoted By: >>12228448 >>12228676

>>12221835
>Now that the dust has settled...
sez who?
>Has the debate resulted in a conclusive answer?
When I go to store to buy $THING, I don't go there and buy 0.999999999...9 of $THING, I go there to buy 1.00000..0 of $THING.
>0.9999..9 != 1.0000..0
/subject

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 00:26:19 No.12228448 Report

Quoted By: >>12228676

>>12228430
B A S E D
A
S
E
D

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 00:26:58 No.12228452 Report

Quoted By: >>12228681

>>12228298
The sequence is not actually stored in computer memory. In a particularly precise way, it is the concept of the sequence which is stored in memory. So it IS the same as 9 repeating infinitely.
>>12228376
>so your not_one isnt even a real number?
not_one is a real number. A real number is an array (read: tensor) of digits, with a sign and an "origin" (decimal point). If only people realize this simple grade school-level fact, we wouldn't have to argue all day that 0.999... != 1. Mathematicians these days are overeducated into stupidity, too high in their ivory tower to see how things are on the ground.
>also, stop using Coq you fucking monkey
I like Coq and if you can't accept that then you are a homophobic bigot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 00:29:28 No.12228462 Report

Quoted By: >>12228676 >>12228691

>>12222924
DEFINE A LIMIT FAGGOT IF THE DEFINITION HAS "TENDS TO" OR "APPROACHES"
1 =/= .999..

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 00:30:14 No.12228466 Report

Quoted By: >>12228485

Isn't this whole stupid-ass subject related to the fact that (1/3)+(1/3)+(1/3)=1, therefore some brainlet decided that since (1/3)=0.333333... that 0.999999... is the same as 1.00000... ?
Stupid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 00:34:24 No.12228485 Report

Quoted By: >>12228506

>>12228466
If this is true then does it mean that our implementation of mathematics (i.e., the way our civilization has implemented mathematics in general) is somehow broken?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 00:38:14 No.12228506 Report

Quoted By: >>12228532

>>12228485
Yes. The reason why there's dark energy and dark matter is because 0.999... = 1. The reason why the stock market went up during a period of economic recession is because 0.999... = 1. The reason for all these discrepancies are because of the original discrepancy. The original sin. That 0.999... != 1, but we take them to be equal anyway. Worst of all, the reason why everything is shit is because the ruling class has programmed this Orwellian alternative fact into we the people. They do it to maintain control over our minds.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 00:44:40 No.12228532 Report

Quoted By:

>>12228506
Alirghty then, here's your (You), don't spend it all in one place.
Now, do you have anything non-sarcastic to say, or is that all you've got?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 00:56:29 No.12228572 Report

Quoted By: >>12228676

>>12221835
Yes, back in the 1700s it's been well known

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:11:04 No.12228620 Report

Quoted By:

>>12221835
>Has the debate resulted in a conclusive answer?
All the "debate" has shown is the amount of morons that browse /sci/

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:20:05 No.12228643 Report

Quoted By: >>12228676

>>12221835
It never will be settled, here is why:

https://vimeo.com/24014769

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:22:16 No.12228648 Report

Quoted By:

>>12222064
>It's only retards that can't understand it's 1 by definition.
Yes, its magic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:23:47 No.12228653 Report

Quoted By: >>12228661

>>12227778
>about Coq
>I suck it all day long

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:25:28 No.12228661 Report

Quoted By:

>>12228653
Checked.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:26:36 No.12228662 Report

Quoted By: >>12228676

$ x= \frac{1}{10} \\ 0. \overline{9}=9x+9x^2+9x^3+9x^4+ \cdots \\ 0. \overline{9}=9x \left (1+x+x^2+x^3+ \cdots \right ) \\ 0. \overline{9}=(1-x) \left (1+\mathbf{x}+x^2+\mathbf{x^3}+x^4+ \cdots \right ) \\ 0. \overline{9}=1-x+ \mathbf{x-x^2}+x^2-x^3+ \mathbf{x^3-x^4}+x^4-x^5+ \cdots \\ 0. \overline{9}=1 $

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:31:38 No.12228676 Report

Quoted By: >>12228678

>>12228309
cringe
>>12228430
based
>>12228448
checked
>>12228462
based
>>12228572
sneed
>>12228643
checked
>>12228662
clamped

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:32:55 No.12228678 Report

Quoted By: >>12228683

>>12228676
go back

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:34:51 No.12228681 Report

Quoted By: >>12228687 >>12228722

>>12228452
>not_one is a real number. A real number is an array (read: tensor) of digits,
you realize that Coq has a type for their implementation of the reals
why don't you do your proof with those

yknow, the actual real numbers, or are you just taking a page out of Tookers handbook by changing the reals

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:34:56 No.12228682 Report

Quoted By: >>12228689

>>12221835
The debate exists because of the concept of infinity.

0.999... is basically saying there exists an infinite number of decimals places. This is what the MacFucknuggets Cuntsluts believe. They are wrong because the Universe is not infinite. It is both finite and discrete. To invent infinity as a concept is both heresy and an affront to GOD for which Humanity shall be severely punished. But through our prayers and through doing GOD's will the faithful shall be saved from FINITE DAMNATION!

All we have to do is cleanse the Earth of the Unbelievers, those...those...THOSE GOD CURSED SODOMITES! by putting them ALL to the sword and burn any book which contains any infinity heresy. This is GOD's will. DEUS VULT!

Say it with me, Brothers of the One True Finite Faith.

DEUS VULT!

Oh yeah, and as added bonus we can retake Constantinople along the way.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO crying.gif, 119KiB, 300x380

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:35:09 No.12228683 Report

Quoted By: >>12228693

>>12228678
>go back

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:36:15 No.12228687 Report

Quoted By: >>12228700

>>12228681
>Coq has a type
yes you are, faggot-san

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:37:17 No.12228689 Report

Quoted By: >>12228692

>>12228682
>wrong because
pebble juggling monkey

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:37:57 No.12228691 Report

Quoted By:

>>12228462
>IF THE DEFINITION HAS "TENDS TO" OR "APPROACHES"
you picked the main example there is in math, of a definition thats best given without using any words
the "approaches" explanation is just intuition for brainlets

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:38:20 No.12228692 Report

Quoted By: >>12228699

>>12228689
You will burn, GOD CURSED SODOMITE.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:38:24 No.12228693 Report

Quoted By:

>>12228683
>and math was nowhere to be seen

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:39:28 No.12228699 Report

Quoted By: >>12228706

>>12228692
wanna bananna?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:39:29 No.12228700 Report

Quoted By: >>12228709

>>12228687
im the one who told him to hop off the Coq and try something less faggy, whats your problem twink?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:41:44 No.12228706 Report

Quoted By: >>12228714

>>12228699
You will suffer finite torment in the fires of HELL, heretic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:42:35 No.12228709 Report

Quoted By: >>12228718

>>12228700
>twink
are you trying to say 'think'?
try taking the coq out of your mouth

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:44:04 No.12228714 Report

Quoted By: >>12228727

>>12228706
>You will suffer
from 4 hands

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:45:07 No.12228718 Report

Quoted By: >>12228732

>>12228709
>are you trying to say 'think'?
try cleaning the cum out of your ears

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:46:15 No.12228722 Report

Quoted By: >>12228750

>>12228681
>their implementation of the reals
Imagine literally admitting to being a mindslave to the ivory tower elites.
>actual real numbers
It's right there.
Inductive real : Type :=
| mk_real : integer -> seqdigits -> real.
>taking a page out of Tookers handbook
Tooker thought too much and understood too little about the reals, and as a result he overcomplicated things with his neighborhood-at-infinity bullshit. But at least he's a freethinker. The mathematical academics suffer from the same problem, except they have an established institution where they can pass on their failures to the next generation of squandered mathematical potential.
I simply use the definition of reals that we've already known. You know, the one that we already knew in grade-school before learning about the deranged definitions used by detached-from-reality mathematicians.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:47:41 No.12228727 Report

Quoted By: >>12228728

>>12228714
"Oh heavenly LORD, we beseech you to strike down this slovenly infidel with HOLY FIRE so his heinous ministrations upon this world blight your SACRED name no longer"

Amen.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:48:47 No.12228728 Report

Quoted By: >>12228733

>>12228727
>masturbates his coq with all four hands

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:49:49 No.12228732 Report

Quoted By: >>12228754

>>12228718
that's what your pop told you

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:51:43 No.12228733 Report

Quoted By: >>12228739

>>12228728

Where he is going he will suffer the torment of 8 handed DEMONS tormenting his coq. For a period of time not exceeding an immensely large finite value

Amen.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO mylove4me.gif, 324KiB, 400x283

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:54:32 No.12228739 Report

Quoted By: >>12228774

>>12228733
>fap-fap-fap-fap

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:56:49 No.12228750 Report

Quoted By: >>12228823

>>12228722
>It's right there.
>Inductive real : Type :=
>| mk_real : integer -> seqdigits -> real.
so, not the real numbers
prove equivalence with that and the Cauchy sequence definition, then ill believe your proof

>>their implementation of the reals
>Imagine literally admitting to being a mindslave to the ivory tower elites.
i hate them more than you do, but atleast theyre smart enough to implement their shit accurately

>I simply use the definition of reals that we've already known. You know, the one that we already knew in grade-school before learning about the deranged definitions used by detached-from-reality mathematicians.
so you use the brainlets definitions? the brainlets that dont do math? you use their definitions?

no one cares about your faggot "fight the power" kaczynski clown trash
you havent used the definition we're talking about, no amount of complaining about the standard definitions will change that

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 01:58:26 No.12228754 Report

Quoted By: >>12228785

>>12228732
when was that? after he bent you over?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 02:08:56 No.12228774 Report

Quoted By: >>12228790

>>12228739
I quote from the HOLY book of Wilderberger.

"Yea, and so it was, the unfaithful were struck down by ALMIGHTY GOD and verily did they gnash their teeth, for they would endure such torment unbeknown to man, with the most private parts poked and prodded by SATAN's minions whilst 8 handed Demons applied rusty and somewhat blunt potato peelers to their penises"

"And the good LORD said 'Lo, behold the largest number in the Universe', and it was finite and good and its name was MOAN, being an acronym for Mother Of All Numbers. And it sat sacred at the end of the number line and any attempt to go past it, such as by adding 1, resulted in the perpetrator sailing off the edge of reality and into non-existence, where he would be devoured by extra-dimensional sea monsters"

Amen.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 02:12:07 No.12228785 Report

Quoted By:

>>12228754
you brought up the phrase

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 02:13:09 No.12228790 Report

Quoted By: >>12228799

>>12228774
>8 handed
oh my, an orgy

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 02:16:26 No.12228799 Report

Quoted By: >>12228827

>>12228790
An orgy of pain. Yes. We are good GOD fearing believers here, not perverts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 02:27:46 No.12228823 Report

Quoted By: >>12228836

>>12228750
>Cauchy sequence definition, then ill believe your proof
So that's your agenda, huh? I'm not going to do that. Your argument is circular, and it's completely wrong.
>0.999... = 1 because limit Cauchy lub Bolzano Archimedes!
>What? Why do we define reals using Cauchy sequences? Because it leads to some nice results and properties that we would like to see in the reals, like 0.999... = 1!
See how ridiculous that is? That's why I refuse to use
>the definition we're talking about
But my definition does not suffer from this problem because it is supported by empirical evidence. By merely observing a real number, like -9.174, we can see that it is exactly what I say real numbers are: a sequence of digits with a sign and a decimal point. Or equivalently, a construct with an integer part and a decimal part. Ultimately, empirical evidence trumps arbitrary abstractions mandated by the elites. Even if that's "the definition we're talking about."

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 02:28:45 No.12228827 Report

Quoted By:

>>12228799
>fap-fap-fap-fap-fap-fap-fap-fap

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 02:32:05 No.12228836 Report

Quoted By: >>12228858

>>12228823
>So that's your agenda, huh? I'm not going to do that. Your argument is circular, and it's completely wrong.
ok, then .999... is equal to the fixed point of (9 + x)/10
because it obviously is
now what idiot?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 02:33:15 No.12228841 Report

Quoted By:

Never change /sci/, never change

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 02:37:19 No.12228858 Report

Quoted By: >>12228991

>>12228836
>the fixed point of (9 + x)/10
You mean a, not the.
The fixed point is not unique, since we know at least two distinct fixed points: 0.999... and 1.
The proof that 0.999... and 1 are distinct follow quite trivially from the definition of real numbers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 02:52:12 No.12228896 Report

Quoted By:

>>12222222

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 02:56:43 No.12228903 Report

Quoted By: >>12228918

1 - .99999... = ????

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:03:50 No.12228918 Report

Quoted By: >>12228923

>>12228903
0

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:06:08 No.12228923 Report

Quoted By: >>12228932 >>12228947

>>12228918
WRONG! no matter how precisely you calculate this you will NEVER reach zero. 1 - .999... will FOREVER be greater than 0, and will CONTINUE to be, for the rest of INFINITY.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:11:09 No.12228932 Report

Quoted By:

>>12228923
>>12225040

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:17:31 No.12228947 Report

Quoted By: >>12228986

>>12228923
It already reached. There's not a duration implied in subtracting something. Only betas think of it as a sequence that you have to keep up with.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:28:15 No.12228986 Report

Quoted By: >>12228991 >>12229002 >>12229003 >>12229026 >>12229034

>>12228947
>It already reached.
Oh? Really, now? So tell me. Where in the sequence has it been reached?
1 - 0.9 = 0.1
1 - 0.99 = 0.01
1 - 0.999 = 0.001
1 - 0.9999 = 0.0001
1 - 0.99999 = 0.00001
...
That's right, onetard. It NEVER reaches 0. And it NEVER will. You can't name a single item in the list where it reaches 0. It NEVER did, and it NEVER will, FOREVER.
But you're too much of a smoothbrain imbecile to understand the true scope and implications of infinity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:29:50 No.12228991 Report

Quoted By: >>12229023 >>12229138

>>12228858
>The fixed point is not unique
you never heard of the Banach fixed point theorem?
the mapping is contractive, its trivially only got one fixed point

>>12228986
>That's right, onetard. It NEVER reaches 0. And it NEVER will. You can't name a single item in the list where it reaches 0. It NEVER did, and it NEVER will, FOREVER.
>But you're too much of a smoothbrain imbecile to understand the true scope and implications of infinity.
man, isnt it fucking crazy that the definition of a limit doesnt even mention infinity and you just dont understand it

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:33:26 No.12229002 Report

Quoted By: >>12229037

>>12228986
That's not how minus or the repeating decimal symbol works, if you break it up or terminate it at any point then it's not 0.999... repeating anymore, you bascially made up your own thing and are attacking a strawman.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:33:32 No.12229003 Report

Quoted By: >>12229013 >>12229187

>>12228986
>0.1
>0.01
>0.001
> 0.0001
>0.00001
What number does that sequence approach?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:36:23 No.12229013 Report

Quoted By: >>12229017 >>12229019 >>12229027 >>12229173

>>12229003
0.0...001
idiot

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:38:16 No.12229017 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229013
That's not a number

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:39:32 No.12229019 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229013
That doesn't exist. That implies infinity... and then some cap to it. You can't put a cap on it.

It's just 0.000...
which is equal to 0.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:39:52 No.12229023 Report

Quoted By: >>12229031 >>12229038

>>12228991
The limit has NOTHING to do with this, and it NEVER will. You claim that 1 - 0.999... has ALREADY reached 0, but you can't name a SINGLE point where it has ACTUALLY reached 0. Because it NEVER did. And it NEVER will. You onetards just DON'T learn. You HAVEN'T learned, and you NEVER will. So you should NEVER post on /sci/ again, for the rest of INFINITY.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:40:36 No.12229026 Report

Quoted By:

>>12228986
>let's pretend finite is infinite

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:40:38 No.12229027 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229013
If you terminate the sequence, put an end to it, break it up, put a cap on it, or ever stop. Then you're not working with .999 repeating.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:42:27 No.12229031 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229023
>The limit has NOTHING to do with this
>You claim that 1 - 0.999... has ALREADY reached 0
how does the limit have nothing to do with it if youre talking about it as a limiting process

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:43:34 No.12229034 Report

Quoted By:

>>12228986
>And it NEVER will.
numbers don't have clocks, retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:43:56 No.12229037 Report

Quoted By: >>12229047 >>12229051

>>12229002
I'm NOT breaking up or terminating at ANY point, and I NEVER did. I'm just saying that if 1 - 0.999... has already "REACHED" 0, it MUST have reached it at SOME POINT. But I already know that it NEVER did, and it NEVER will. That's why I posed my rhetorical question. Because you can NEVER answer it, and you NEVER will. You onetards just got BTFO once again, as you ALWAYS do, and as you ALWAYS will, for the rest of INFINITY.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:43:59 No.12229038 Report

Quoted By: >>12229050

>>12229023
>can't name a SINGLE point

That's because your brain can't comprehend conceptually working with infinities. You need there to be a point at which something happens. Which contradicts infinity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:48:42 No.12229047 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229037
>I'm just saying that if 1 - 0.999... has already "REACHED" 0, it MUST have reached it at SOME POINT.
"already" is improper vocabulary
.999... is a fixed number

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:49:24 No.12229050 Report

Quoted By: >>12229066

>>12229038
No, you are the one who cannot comprehend the vastness of INFINITY. Despite infinity going on FOREVER, and despite 1 - 0.999... doesn't equal 0 for the ENTIRETY of INFINITY, you still insist that there is some point at the END of INFINITY where 1 - 0.999... = 0. But there is NEVER an end of infinity. Infinity doesn't stop, and it NEVER will. And since 1 - 0.999... is not 0 for the ENTIRETY of all of its INFINITE steps, it will NEVER equal 0, FOREVER and EVER. No matter how many times I try to drill in this elementary fact, even if I did it FOREVER for the REST of ETERNITY, you will NEVER understand. You will ALWAYS be a smoothbrain onetard, FOREVER.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:49:35 No.12229051 Report

Quoted By: >>12229061

>>12229037
Why do you keep bringing "points" and "time" into it? If you do 1 - .999... it's 0. In one instant. boom. It doesn't rely on time.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screen_grab_of_the_Time_Cube_web (...).png, 144KiB, 360x277

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:52:56 No.12229059 Report

Quoted By:

This thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:54:38 No.12229061 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229051
It is be what it is because it is what it be. you don't sit there and calculate digit by digit for a length of time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:56:35 No.12229066 Report

Quoted By: >>12229075 >>12229093

>>12229050
What does 1 - 0.999... APPROACH for the ENTIRETY of all of its INFINITE steps?
It ALWAYS and FOREVER gets closer and closer to 0, and it does not get closer ALWAYS and FOREVER to any number that is not ZERO.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 03:59:24 No.12229075 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229066
I don't agree with the "approach" explanations. I think that's a bad way of explaining it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 04:04:03 No.12229093 Report

Quoted By: >>12229098 >>12229144

>>12229066
It will ALWAYS and FOREVER get closer to 0, but it will NEVER for ETERNITY reach 0. You just aren't getting it. Such a pity that you will ALWAYS and FOREVER be a brainlet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 04:05:09 No.12229098 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229093
>You just aren't getting it.
like how you dont get the definitions involved?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 04:05:48 No.12229100 Report

Quoted By:

I mean it should have been over right here:

>>12225917
>>12227165

How do you do mental gymnastics to say that .999... repeating (forever) * 10 is going to somehow give you less digits at the end of it. We have an abundance of those. Infinity of them actually.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 04:15:58 No.12229138 Report

Quoted By: >>12229440

>>12228991
>Banach fixed point theorem
I don't study your pozzed "math." But I already know that it's wrong since it leads to contradictions.
I looked it up anyways, and the mistakes are easy to spot.
>Let (X,d) be a non-empty complete metric space
>complete
>Cauchy sequences
In the end, your argument always circles back to your precious Cauchy sequences. Not very well hidden. Try harder next time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 04:16:33 No.12229144 Report

Quoted By: >>12229179 >>12229224

>>12229093
Until we can agree that 0.999... (repeating... forever... the 9's never run out... 9's on tap) multiplied by 10 = 9.999... (still repeating... 9's forever) we can't see eye to eye. Philosophically, spiritually, or morally. We may just have to go to war over it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 04:23:58 No.12229173 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229013
0.1=10^-1
0.01=10^-2
0.001=10^-3
:
0.0...1=10^-inf=0

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 04:24:58 No.12229179 Report

Quoted By: >>12229224

>>12229144
Once you get this through your stupid head. And realize "Oh shit... if there's ininite 9's forever and you multiply by 10 then... the decimal point will move but you will still have 9's forever at the end of it:

then you can follow the rest of this argument and see the light:

it's the best one:

>>12225917

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 04:28:06 No.12229187 Report

Quoted By: >>12229279

>>12229003
?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 04:38:58 No.12229224 Report

Quoted By: >>12229254 >>12229269

>>12229144
>0.999... multiplied by 10 = 9.99...
Yes. This is trivial and is ALWAYS true. 0.99... goes on FOREVER and removing a single 9 from INFINITY will FOREVER remain INFINITY. Despite you being a drooling retard, like a stopped-clock, you were miraculously able to arrive at a single correct conclusion. You're making progress, and I'm proud of you.
>>12229179
>>12225917
Sad that you immediately dropped the ball. Goes to show that drooling retards will ALWAYS and FOREVER be drooling retards. I'll spell it out for you, knuckle-walking lamebrained ape.
n = 0.999...
10n = 9.99...
10n-n = 9.99... - 0.999...
Now, where in this list is the difference equal to 9?
9 - 0.9 = 8.1
9.9 - 0.99 = 8.91
9.99 - 0.999 = 8.991
9.999 - 0.9999 = 8.9991
9.9999 - 0.99999 = 8.99991
9.99999 - 0.999999 = 8.999991
...
Do you see now? 9.99... - 0.999... will NEVER equal 9. It will ALWAYS and FOREVER be less than 9. You cannot name a SINGLE point where the difference becomes 9. So 9n will ALWAYS for all ETERNITY be less than 9. n APPROACHES 1, but will ALWAYS be less than 1. It will NEVER get there.
I know, deja vu, right? But we will have to FOREVER argue about this same exact point, over and over again, for INFINITY. Because you will NEVER learn. You are a BRAINLET. Your habitual masturbation and fluoridation has turned your brain to mush, and you will ALWAYS and FOREVER be retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 04:50:20 No.12229254 Report

Quoted By: >>12229287 >>12229310

>>12229224
>Yes. This is trivial and is ALWAYS true. 0.99... goes on FOREVER and removing a single 9 from INFINITY will FOREVER remain INFINITY.

YES. We did we agreed on something fundamental.

But....

Why the fuck... did you remove one of the nines from the end of it anyway?

Why the hell did you remove one of the nines from the end?
There is no end to remove it from.
Why the hell did you remove one of the nines from the end?
There is no end to remove it from.
Why the hell did you remove one of the nines from the end?
There is no end to remove it from.

This is what happens when you don't snake out of it and keep infinite 9's going on in both numbers:
9.999... - 0.999... = 9

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 04:55:54 No.12229269 Report

Quoted By: >>12229287 >>12229310 >>12229346

>>12229224
Do you or do you not agree with this axiom:

0.999... - 0.999... = 0

Then why not
9.999... - 0.999... = 9.0

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 05:03:09 No.12229279 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229187
in R, infinitesimal = 0

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1468012213062.jpg, 26KiB, 330x319

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 05:07:16 No.12229287 Report

Quoted By: >>12229375

>>12229254
>>12229269
>0.999... - 0.999... = 0
>9.999... - 0.999... = 9.0

Can't wait to see the response to this. You literally can't snake out it without doing the most amazing gymnasttics ever. Can't wait.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 05:17:11 No.12229310 Report

Quoted By: >>12229334 >>12229346

>>12229254
>keep infinite 9's going on in both numbers
That's exactly what I did, you insufferable PERMANENT cumbrain. You just NEVER understand that when you multiply by 10, you ALWAYS have to shift the decimal point over, EVERY time. This is some elementary school shit, and the fact that you are (I'm assuming) 18 or older just shows the ENDLESS degree to which the education system has failed us. But to make this concept INFINITELY easier for you, here's an explicit illustration.
0.9 - 0.9 = 0
0.99 - 0.99 = 0
0.999 - 0.999 = 0
0.9999 - 0.9999 = 0
...
To answer >>12229269, the differences in this sequence will ALWAYS and FOREVER, even into INFINITY be equal to 0. This is more than enough to conclude that 0.999... - 0.999... = 0. But now, I will multiply the number on the left by 10.
9 - 0.9 = 8.1
9.9 - 0.99 = 8.91
9.99 - 0.999 = 8.991
9.999 - 0.9999 = 8.9991
...
And now, we find that the differences in this sequence will NEVER, even looking into ETERNITY, reach 9. It will NEVER get there. It is ALWAYS less than 9. This shouldn't be so hard to believe, but I guess your ETERNAL retardation is getting in the way of you ever seeing anything for what it is. But I have PROVEN one and FOR ALL that 9.999... - 0.999... will NEVER equal 9. It just will NOT in a MILLION YEARS, nor a BILLION, nor ANY amount of time, even into INFINITY. ALWAYS. FOREVER. ETERNALLY. Did I reverse your programming? Did you get that into your tiny fluorine apebrain? Or are you simply just ETERNALLY, FOREVER a single-digit IQ barely aware blubbering, sputtering, snotty, spasmic, incontinent RETARD?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 05:24:53 No.12229334 Report

Quoted By: >>12229339 >>12229379

>>12229310
>9 - 0.9 = 8.1
>9.9 - 0.99 = 8.91
>9.99 - 0.999 = 8.991
>9.999 - 0.9999 = 8.9991
It always has the one because you have defined the number on the left to have one less decimal place than the one on the right. But 9.999... and 0.999 have the same number of decimals, because ? - 1 = ?.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 05:26:00 No.12229339 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229334
oh fug that's a funny typo, I meant 9.999... and 0.999...

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO democritus.jpg, 12KiB, 300x300

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 05:30:17 No.12229346 Report

Quoted By: >>12229379

>>12229310
Ahhh... he just repeated himself, ok fine let's go through this point by point.

>You just NEVER understand that when you multiply by 10, you ALWAYS have to shift the decimal point over, EVERY time.

I did. Watch. I'll do it slow for you so you can keep up.

0.999...
0.999... * 10
9.999...

O-OH! did you see that?! It shifted over one decimal point but since it's 9's repeating forever, there's still 9's repeating forever at the end of it.

>0.999 - 0.999 = 0

Yep, I agree with all that.
>>12229269

>But now, I will multiply the number on the left by 10.

NOPE. Stop right there. That's where you're trying to do your sleight of hand bullshit. That right. there. That right there.

What you're doing, is you're not getting the concept that there's infinite 9's that fill in at the end of it forever.

So you doing this

>9 - 0.9 = 8.1
>9.9 - 0.99 = 8.91
>9.99 - 0.999 = 8.991
>9.999 - 0.9999 = 8.9991

is all bullshit, you're using finite 9's for no reason.

The correct thing that would happen is the result we got earlier
9.999... - 0.999... = 9.0

Then the rest of the proof follows.

>>12225917

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 05:39:50 No.12229375 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229287
1-1=0
10-1=9

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 05:40:59 No.12229379 Report

Quoted By: >>12229394 >>12229406 >>12229423

>>12229334
>It always has the one because you have defined the number on the left to have one less decimal place than the one on the right.
Yes. This is true. As it ALWAYS will be EVERY time you multiply ANY number by 10, ALWAYS.
>But 9.999... and 0.999 have the same number of decimals, because ? - 1 = ?.
Yes. This is also true. Despite the one on the left having one less decimal place than the one on the right, they NEVERTHELESS still have the same number of decimals, as infinities will ALWAYS so behave WHENEVER you add or remove finite amounts to an INFINITE amount. Nothing about this EVER contradicted what I said, and the facts presented will ALWAYS agree with the fact that 9.99... - 0.999... will NEVER be equal to 9.
>>12229346
>you're not getting the concept that there's infinite 9's that fill in at the end of it forever
That is EXACTLY why I am doing what I do. Because math has NEVER been equipped to handle infinite entities, we are ALWAYS forced to examine the behavior of calculations involving INFINITELY expanding numbers step-by-step, and how they behave into ETERNITY. By following the INFINITE calculation, step-by-step, ETERNALLY, as follows:
9 - 0.9 = 8.1
9.9 - 0.99 = 8.91
9.99 - 0.999 = 8.991
9.999 - 0.9999 = 8.9991
...
I am using the only method to EVER calculate ANY expression with INFINITELY expanding terms. And by examining the behavior of these calculations and how their pattern extends ETERNALLY into INFINITY, we can see that as it extends into FOREVER, the differences NEVER become 9. 9.99... - 0.999... will NEVER equal 9.
>you're using finite 9's
You are spewing bullshit claims about my methodology, as you ALWAYS have been doing. What you say has NEVER been true. Your claim is ALWAYS and FOREVER false. I clearly extended the amount of 9's INDEFINITELY, into INFINITY. And you STILL claim that I use only a finite amount of 9's. Your claims are self-evidently false, as they will ALWAYS be as long as you argue that 0.999... = 1.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 05:45:17 No.12229394 Report

Quoted By: >>12229445

>>12229379
>math has NEVER been equipped to handle infinite entities
[citation needed]

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 05:49:12 No.12229405 Report

Quoted By:

>>12221835
Here's your answer: 0.9999... is not =1 only in the rare circumstances where the difference has any meaning. Which is 100×(1-0.9999...)% of the time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 05:49:20 No.12229406 Report

Quoted By: >>12229422 >>12229445

>>12229379
You're unevenly shifting decimal places for no reason to fit your desired result.

There's no reason why when there's an infinite amount of 9's at the end of 9.999... and an infininite amount of 9's at the end of 0.999... that you would EVER unevenly go

hurr durrr
9.99 - 0.999

Why did you give one 2 decimal places and the other 3 decimal places? Only because it btfo's your worldview.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 05:54:53 No.12229422 Report

Quoted By: >>12229445

>>12229406
Because if he YELLS at you with enough CAPS LOCK eventually you will GIVE UP RESPONDING TO HIM which means that he is the WINNER and you are the LOSER.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 05:55:11 No.12229423 Report

Quoted By: >>12229425 >>12229431

>>12229379
I don't have to do a step by step calculation like a retarded broken computer to know

9.999... - 0.999 = 0

Just like 0.333... + 0.333... - .666...

I know it's the same as 1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3's

I have a brain that can comprehend what would happen if you did operations with infinitely repeating digits.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 05:56:13 No.12229425 Report

Quoted By: >>12229431

>>12229423
Excuse me I mean 9.999... - 0.999.... = 0

before you nitpick about that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 05:59:18 No.12229431 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229423
>>12229425
Fuck I mean 9.999... - 0.999... = 9

There we go.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 06:02:27 No.12229440 Report

Quoted By: >>12229618

>>12229138
>In the end, your argument always circles back to your precious Cauchy sequences. Not very well hidden. Try harder next time.
$|f(x) - f(y)| = |x-y|/10$
so if we have two different fixed points, call them x and y, then
$|x-y| = |f(x) - f(y)| = |x-y|/10$
so |x-y| = 0, x=y
and since .999... and 1 are both fixed points of f, by your own admission, they must be equal

Didn't see any cauchy sequences being needed for this part of the proof, did you dipshit?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 06:03:45 No.12229445 Report

Quoted By: >>12229452 >>12229467 >>12229469 >>12229475

>>12229394
>[citation needed]
This is self-evidenced by the fact that you can NEVER write down an infinite number of digits. You can NEVER perform an infinite number of calculations. Instead, the next best thing that we are ALWAYS forced to do, is examine the behavior of things as they EXTEND all the way into ETERNITY. And examining your behavior every time you make a post as your contribution to this discussion EXTENDS all the way into ETERNITY, it is clear that you will FOREVER be retarded, and you will NEVER understand anything to any meaningful depth AT ALL, INDEFINITELY. What I am trying to say is that you are a retard. You are ETERNALLY a retard. You are FOREVER a retard. You are INFINITELY retarded. You will NEVER see anything. You will ALWAYS be a burden. And you will INDEFINITELY be leeching off of taxpayer money thanks to your disability.
>>12229406
>Why did you give one 2 decimal places and the other 3 decimal places?
In EVERY step in the process, the numbers ALWAYS have the same precision with respect to their value.
>unevenly shifting decimal places for no reason
As I have explained, it was NEVER uneven, though your microscopic smoothbrain may saw it that way. And it was NEVER for no reason, but it's no surprise that you would EVER fail to pick up on the subtleties of proper mathematical reasoning. You are HOPELESSLY retarded.
>Only because it btfo's your worldview.
A birdbrain pigeon will ALWAYS knock over the chess pieces, and FOREVER spew shit and cum through its cloaca onto the chessboard, only to proclaim EVERLASTING victory over its opponent. You are not much different. The only difference is that the intellect of a pigeon INFINITELY towers over your minuscule, slothful, negligent brain activity.
>>12229422
The capitalization is only to pierce through the sinister programming done unto these retards by the academic thought police and their cult of infinity. I only capitalize concepts relating to infinity and eternity so that it deprograms them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 06:07:28 No.12229452 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229445
>You can NEVER perform an infinite number of calculations
t. hasn't taken calc 2

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 06:10:28 No.12229467 Report

Quoted By: >>12229498

>>12229445
"Precision with respect to the value" isn't a thing. If you want precision then you give the same amount of decimal places to each value you're calculating.

I'm not knocking over chess pieces. I'm just calling you on your sleight of hands.

I have a question do you understand that 0.333... repeating is equal to 1/3 ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 06:11:18 No.12229469 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229445
>You can NEVER perform an infinite number of calculations.
He still hasnt looked up the definition of a limit and seen that it doesnt use infinity

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 06:12:42 No.12229475 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229445
retard bus stop masturbator

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 06:20:18 No.12229498 Report

Quoted By: >>12229509

>>12229467
>"Precision with respect to the value" isn't a thing.
9.999 x 10^0 and 9.999 x 10^-1 have the same precision with respect to their values. And you have no value with respect to anything. You are so hopelessly brainwashed, you cannot EVER be deprogrammed.
>do you understand that 0.333... repeating is equal to 1/3
Do you understand that your are retarded just for asking that? Of course they aren't equal.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1602615999775.png, 247KiB, 860x840

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 06:25:00 No.12229509 Report

Quoted By: >>12229515 >>12229531

>>12229498
What's 1 divided by 3 then in decimal form?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 06:25:55 No.12229515 Report

Quoted By: >>12229529

>>12229509
It's 0.333... but it's not the same 0.333...

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO a608c945bb79dbdc2153cd77ec652b11.jpg, 20KiB, 266x354

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 06:31:05 No.12229529 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229515
>It's 0.333... but it's not the same 0.333...

Oh. Ok buddy, that's nice, well I'll just leave it at that then. Have a good night.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 06:31:52 No.12229531 Report

Quoted By: >>12229545 >>12229563

>>12229509
I don't think ANYONE knows. Perhaps we will NEVER know. But we know that it is slightly greater than 0.333... Just like no one will EVER know the value of pi. Just that it is slightly greater than 3.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 06:35:56 No.12229545 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229531
>I don't think ANYONE knows
That's what you think. But you're a schizo, so your thoughts don't count.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 06:38:57 No.12229556 Report

Quoted By: >>12229561

>Now that the dust has settled...
My judgement seems to have failed me when I typed this. I guess I'll have to wait some more until the experts can reach a consensus before I can find the truth of the matter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 06:41:35 No.12229561 Report

Quoted By: >>12229566

>>12229556
never start this thread again bitch

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 06:41:49 No.12229563 Report

Quoted By: >>12229571

>>12229531
>But we know that it is slightly greater than 0.333...
no it isnt
the smallest thing greater than 0.333... would be 0.333...4, wouldn't you say so?
then 3 x 0.333...4 = 1.000...2
so no, 1/3 cannot be greater than 0.333...
since the next smallest option is already too big

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 06:43:12 No.12229566 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229561
4chan will die before people get tired of arguing in these threads

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 06:44:49 No.12229571 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229563
Personally, my theory is that maybe 1/3 can be more closely approximated by something like 0.333...333... It would make more sense, and it would be INFINITELY closer to 1/3 than 0.333... Although it's not entirely sure yet how this affects arithmetic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 06:46:47 No.12229575 Report

Quoted By:

>>12221843
This

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 06:51:27 No.12229584 Report

Quoted By:

1 = 0.999... threads should be against the rules.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 07:00:31 No.12229605 Report

Quoted By:

>>12222986
HOW THE FUCK don't you see he is pretending to be retarded in order to rustle your jimmies?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 07:02:11 No.12229610 Report

Quoted By:

I don't know who's more stupid, the retards arguing 0,9999... isn't 1 eventhough they no nothing about mathematics and can't even understand the most basic proof, or the retards trying to convince them 0,99999... is 1, eventhough noone understands their reasoning.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 07:06:06 No.12229616 Report

Quoted By:

Roll over Norman Wildberger, the Angell is here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOVVnSLNRUE&feature=emb_err_woyt

Prepare for maximum butthurt from the fanbois

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 07:06:50 No.12229618 Report

Quoted By: >>12229711 >>12231056

>>12229440
>so |x-y| = 0, x=y
This is not necessarily true. Again, x = 1, y = 0.999... are counterexamples. This is a counterintuitive result, but this is just the nature of real numbers. A lot of your mistakes seem to come from your insistence that real numbers behave the way that you want them to. But beauty is not science, nor mathematics. You can't change reality to accommodate your wishes. So as nice it would be for
>|x-y| = 0 => x=y
to be true, or for fixed points to be unique, it just isn't the case.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 07:09:06 No.12229623 Report

Quoted By: >>12229628

>>12227778
congrats, you proved that "1.000..." is not the same sequence as "0.999...".
now about the VALUES of those sequences ...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 07:10:23 No.12229628 Report

Quoted By: >>12229639 >>12231052

>>12229623
The value IS the number, lamebrain. That's what a number is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 07:15:51 No.12229639 Report

Quoted By: >>12229642

>>12229628
And there are cases where different sequences can have the same value, eg 1 = 0.999... I don't need Coqs in my proofs because I'm not a homosexual.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 07:17:46 No.12229642 Report

Quoted By: >>12229644

>>12229639
>Different numbers can have the same value
Literally doublethink.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 07:19:23 No.12229644 Report

Quoted By: >>12229649

>>12229642
Don't you dare put your grubby hands on my words

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 07:22:28 No.12229649 Report

Quoted By: >>12229673 >>12229702

>>12229644
If the digits are not the numbers in themselves, then what are numbers? You can't answer that. What used to be obvious, you were one day taught out of thinking.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 07:32:49 No.12229673 Report

Quoted By: >>12229682

>>12229649
There's plenty of numbers that aren't the digits we represent them with, like pi or the square root of two. These numbers are called irrational numbers, and while we can't write out every digit of them to prove that they exist, they certainly do exist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 07:36:04 No.12229682 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229673
Pi and sqrt 2 are also just sequences of digits. They just continue indefinitely.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 07:48:06 No.12229702 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229649
numbers are signed lengths of line segments. that's the original motivation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 07:52:13 No.12229711 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229618
>so |x-y| = 0, x=y is not necessarily true
It is true by definition

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 08:46:37 No.12229841 Report

Quoted By:

Fuck ya all. You WILL watch this on utube and you WILL get BUTTHURT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOVVnSLNRUE&feature=emb_err_woyt [Embed]

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 16:25:45 No.12231052 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229628
no.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Oct 2020 16:26:26 No.12231056 Report

Quoted By:

>>12229618
>This is not necessarily true.
|x-y| = 0
=> (x-y)^2 = 0^2
=> x-y = 0
=> x = y

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