/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12779508

8KiB, 225x225, pepo.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 07:46:47 2021 No.12779508 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12779523 >>12779640 >>12779660 >>12779756 >>12779815 >>12780255 >>12781308 >>12781813 >>12782112 >>12783218 >>12784431

x = 1.999...
10x = 19.999...
10x - x = 18
9x = 18
x = 2

Th... This can't be tr.. true.. ri right anons??
the number clearly goes out into infinity come on man you guys dont really believe 1.999.. = 2 do you???

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 07:58:03 No.12779523 Report

Quoted By: >>12779551

>>12779508
If it isn't two then find a number between 1.999... and 2

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 08:12:25 No.12779551 Report

Quoted By: >>12779619 >>12779636 >>12779664 >>12779767

>>12779523
1.999...1

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 08:36:14 No.12779619 Report

Quoted By:

>>12779551
Not between 1.999... and 2

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 08:42:57 No.12779636 Report

Quoted By: >>12779642 >>12779644 >>12782154

>>12779551
What does that mean? Nothing but nines forever but still a 1 at the end? Contradictory, the last number can't be 1 and 9 at the same time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 08:46:15 No.12779640 Report

Quoted By:

>>12779508
>the number clearly goes out into infinity
1.999... < 10
looks finite to me

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 08:47:17 No.12779642 Report

Quoted By: >>12779645 >>12781315

>>12779636
>implying the last number in 1.999... is 9

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 08:48:38 No.12779644 Report

Quoted By: >>12779646 >>12779662

>>12779636
>Nothing but nines forever but still a 1 at the end
Yes, infinite nines and 1 after all of them

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 08:48:54 No.12779645 Report

Quoted By: >>12779648

>>12779642
what is it then oh wise one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 08:49:58 No.12779646 Report

Quoted By: >>12781328

>>12779644
if it has an end digit it's not infinite

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 08:50:31 No.12779648 Report

Quoted By:

>>12779645
there's no last number

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 08:57:15 No.12779660 Report

Quoted By:

>>12779508
R O U N D I N G

E R R O R S
R
R
O
R
S

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 08:57:55 No.12779662 Report

Quoted By: >>12779668 >>12779669 >>12779918

>>12779644
And somehow this magical number is larger than infinite nines with a 9 after all of them?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 08:59:22 No.12779664 Report

Quoted By:

>>12779551
1.999...1 < 1.999...999... = 2

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 09:00:34 No.12779668 Report

Quoted By:

>>12779662
>infinite nines with a 9 after all of them?
not a valid number

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 09:01:12 No.12779669 Report

Quoted By: >>12779710

>>12779662
yes

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 09:21:55 No.12779710 Report

Quoted By:

>>12779669
but if all digits are the same, isnt the one with the 9 at the end larger than that with a 1? ;^)

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Science.png, 149KiB, 956x901

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 09:53:19 No.12779756 Report

Quoted By: >>12779798 >>12780028 >>12780274 >>12780425 >>12780449

>>12779508
0.999... < 0.TTT... < 1

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO congrats.jpg, 91KiB, 1007x907

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 09:57:05 No.12779767 Report

Quoted By:

>>12779551
.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 10:11:35 No.12779798 Report

Quoted By:

>>12779756
lolno

Mohan

Mohan Wed 03 Mar 2021 10:19:55 No.12779815 Report

Quoted By: >>12779883

>>12779508
assuming that 1.999... = 2 - ?, 2 - ?/2 will be closer to 2 than 1.999... is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 10:49:13 No.12779883 Report

Quoted By:

>>12779815
or the same

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 11:08:22 No.12779918 Report

Quoted By: >>12779943

>>12779662
1.999... + (epsilon) = 2
Where epsilon is an infinitely small number.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 11:21:54 No.12779943 Report

Quoted By: >>12781077

>>12779918
>Where epsilon is an infinitely small number.
did you mean 0?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 12:06:14 No.12780028 Report

Quoted By: >>12780411

>>12779756
This has already been BTFO
Retards need to stay away from radix conversions. Also, the math is wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 13:18:32 No.12780255 Report

Quoted By: >>12781515

>>12779508

So do you not believe that 1/3 = 0.3333...? Same principle. We can understand 1.99999... as the sum of an infinite geometric series equal to 2. It's basically all about definitions.

It's just an example of how decimal representation is not unique.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 13:23:50 No.12780274 Report

Quoted By: >>12781077

>>12779756

>lim_(n to inf) ... > 0 if n > 0

My sides

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 14:06:19 No.12780411 Report

Quoted By: >>12781077

>>12780028
Also, he uses the 20th letter of the alphabet as a symbol for the 19th digit of a base-20 numbering system. It's like watching someone piss into a fan.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 14:10:08 No.12780425 Report

Quoted By: >>12781077

>>12779756
those are the same number

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 14:15:22 No.12780449 Report

Quoted By: >>12781077

>>12779756
Yeah let's just focus on the numerator in the expression and not even compute the limit to make a proper statement. Lim n -> inf of 2/n isn't greater than the Lim n -> inf of 1/n even though 2>1

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 16:36:22 No.12781077 Report

Quoted By: >>12781212 >>12781243 >>12781251 >>12781286 >>12781476

>>12779943
False; epsilon > 0

>>12780411
>>12780274
>>12780425
>>12780449
Learn to math noobs, 2^n - 1 > 0 if n > 0
20^n > 0 if n > 0
(2^n - 1) / (20^n) > 0 if n > 0
Is infinity too small to > 0? Go back to high school.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:00:29 No.12781212 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781077
>Is infinity too small to > 0?
No, it's too large dumb fuck

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:06:14 No.12781243 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781077
>False; epsilon > 0
then epsilon is not "infinitely small"

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:07:16 No.12781251 Report

Quoted By: >>12781421

>>12781077
>Learn to math noobs, 2^n - 1 > 0 if n > 0
>20^n > 0 if n > 0
>(2^n - 1) / (20^n) > 0 if n > 0
yeah, so?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:12:02 No.12781286 Report

Quoted By: >>12781310 >>12781421

>>12781077
Do you know what a limit is?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:16:11 No.12781308 Report

Quoted By:

>>12779508
0.999...=/=1 BTFO !!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:16:13 No.12781310 Report

Quoted By: >>12781421

>>12781286
He either does and it's a shitpost or he's a fucking idiot. Take your pick.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:17:15 No.12781315 Report

Quoted By:

>>12779642
There is no last digit in 1.99...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:17:36 No.12781317 Report

Quoted By: >>12781358 >>12781366 >>12781373 >>12781454 >>12781801 >>12786465 >>12787415

x = 1.9
10x = 19.9
10x-x = 18
9x = 18
x = 2

Therefore 1.9=2. Same logic!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:18:01 No.12781321 Report

Quoted By:

lim n->inf of 1-(tree(n))^-1
lmao get rekt

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:18:44 No.12781328 Report

Quoted By: >>12781346 >>12782181

>>12779646
There is an infinity of numbers in [0,1] interval, yet it has the last number (1).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:21:07 No.12781346 Report

Quoted By: >>12781352 >>12781370

>>12781328
>last number
>listing
ok then, whats the second to last number

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:21:45 No.12781352 Report

Quoted By: >>12781376

>>12781346
0.999...751

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:23:52 No.12781358 Report

Quoted By: >>12781801

>>12781317
1.9=2
2-1.9=0
0.1=0
10*0.1=10*0
1=0
2*2+1=2*2+0
5=2*2
2*2=5

Math is destroyed!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:25:29 No.12781366 Report

Quoted By: >>12781375

>>12781317
>x = 1.9
>10x = 19.9
wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:25:39 No.12781370 Report

Quoted By: >>12781381 >>12781391

>>12781346
1-epsilon for epsilon > 0

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:25:58 No.12781373 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781317
>x=1.9
>10x=19.9
Bit difficult to move a decimal place there?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:26:08 No.12781375 Report

Quoted By: >>12781385

>>12781366
That's why OP post is wrong too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:26:08 No.12781376 Report

Quoted By: >>12781449

>>12781352

But this is like saying that a sequence has an "infinity"th term.

What exactly do you understand 0.999...751 to mean? Write it as a geometric series, ie. like $0.999\ldots 751 = \sum_{i = 1}^\infty \frac {a_i} {10^i}$ with $a_i \in \{0, 1, \ldots, 9$ .

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:27:05 No.12781381 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781370
so -9 for example? that's not even in [0,1]

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:28:06 No.12781385 Report

Quoted By: >>12781454

>>12781375
no, why would it be wrong?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:29:15 No.12781391 Report

Quoted By: >>12781405

>>12781370

1 - epsilon/2 is closer by epsilon/2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:31:05 No.12781405 Report

Quoted By: >>12781436

>>12781391
Let e be the collection of infinitesimals where e_i > 0. Then take 1 - min(e_i).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:34:33 No.12781421 Report

Quoted By: >>12781439 >>12781451

>>12781286
0+ is different from 0.
In maths, you are supposed to be as accurate as possible.
whatever positive number you can think of > 0+ > 0 > 0- > whatever negative number you can think of

>>12781251
>>12781310
You have yet to show me I'm wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:37:10 No.12781436 Report

Quoted By: >>12781524

>>12781405

honestly idk how to use infinitesimals. But we're talking about [0,1], that's mostly considered as a subset of R so excludes infinitesimals.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_2021-03-03-12-37-06.png, 252KiB, 1440x2560

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:37:35 No.12781439 Report

Quoted By: >>12781460 >>12788504

>>12781421

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:39:32 No.12781449 Report

Quoted By: >>12781470

>>12781376
$0.999\ldots 751 = \sum_{i = 1}^\infty \frac {a_i} {10^i}+\sum_{i = \infty+1}^{\infty+3} \frac {a_i} {10^i}$ where $a_i=9$ for $i \in \{1...\infty \}$ and $a_i$ in $\{7, 5, 1\}$ for $i$ in $\{\infty+1, \infty+2, \infty+3\}$

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:39:45 No.12781451 Report

Quoted By: >>12781467 >>12781470 >>12781471 >>12781906

>>12781421
Are you talking about the same Math everybody else uses or the one you made up? I could also claim that, in my mind, 2>3, and "Apple" is an integer between 4 and 5; nobody would give a shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:40:35 No.12781454 Report

Quoted By: >>12781549

>>12781385
no, why would >>12781317 be wrong?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:41:24 No.12781460 Report

Quoted By: >>12781465

>>12781439
It's a sign we need not fear artificial intelligence taking over yet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:42:08 No.12781465 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781460
Because people like you are in charge of programming the AI?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:42:26 No.12781467 Report

Quoted By: >>12781475 >>12781479 >>12781481

>>12781451
1+1 = 1 when you add two lumps of clay together, you get one lump of clay.
Everything I say makes sense, unlike what you say.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:43:29 No.12781470 Report

Quoted By: >>12781478

>>12781449

lol good one >>12781451 hits the nail on the head here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:43:40 No.12781471 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781451
Argument ad populum.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:43:56 No.12781475 Report

Quoted By: >>12781485

>>12781467
So you're just some schizo talking shit, got it. I don't know why so many people waste their time discussing with you

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:43:56 No.12781476 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781077
>epsilon > 0
No, that's incompatible with how R is defined. There's no underflow value in calculus.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:44:46 No.12781478 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781470
Tell that to ordinal and cardinal inventors.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:45:04 No.12781479 Report

Quoted By: >>12781495

>>12781467
Clay lumping isn't addition. Clay de-lumping is addition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:45:12 No.12781481 Report

Quoted By: >>12781495 >>12781496

>>12781467

In this case you are using non-standard definitions of + and = (or even "1") that must be clarified. Your reader shouldn't be the one to put in the work to figure out what your ambiguities mean. We have conventions and standards for a reason, reason being we don't have to have this argument over trivialities like this.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1613352047274.jpg, 129KiB, 939x500

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:45:50 No.12781485 Report

Quoted By: >>12781498

>>12781475
I tell the truth.
1+1 = 1 when you add two lumps of clay together, you get one lump of clay.
Most people are used to living a world of lies, so they think math has to do with reality when it is nothing but a language.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:47:11 No.12781495 Report

Quoted By: >>12781514

>>12781479
>>12781481
Clay lumping is addition. Add(+!) two(1 + 1!) lumps of clay and you get a lump of clay(1!).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:47:25 No.12781496 Report

Quoted By: >>12781515 >>12781555

>>12781481
If your 0.999...=1 argument is a pure convention created to simplify the calculation in some cases, then admit that and stop wasting our time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:47:33 No.12781498 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781485

Truth? Doesn't that mean something that's incorrect?

Also isn't clay something people put on pizza?

You can't just pick your own definitions on the fly. That unspoken agreement exists in most conversation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:49:13 No.12781514 Report

Quoted By: >>12781522

>>12781495
No, clay de-lumping is addition.
If you start with 1 lump of clay, and pull 1 lump of clay out of it, you get 2 lumps of clay.
1 + 1 = 2. de-lumping.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:49:22 No.12781515 Report

Quoted By: >>12781539

>>12781496

To be fair, you couldn't have known it was me, but I said this in >>12780255. It's pretty much just what 0.9999... is defined to mean. We can define it to mean $\sum_{i = 1}^\infty \frac 9 {10^i}$ (which is the most natural reading of it, take 0.9999... with n 9s and take n -> infinity) which is then equal to 1.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:49:51 No.12781522 Report

Quoted By: >>12781559

>>12781514
Wouldn't it be 1-1=2?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:50:05 No.12781524 Report

Quoted By: >>12781540 >>12781545

>>12781436
i mean [0,1] is isomorphic to R

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:52:13 No.12781539 Report

Quoted By: >>12781562

>>12781515
Anon, there are no "natural readings" of things which involve infinity. When you talk about apples and apples, you can appeal to the common sense, but humans don't deal with infinities in their lives outside the math quarrels.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:52:23 No.12781540 Report

Quoted By: >>12781564

>>12781524
isomorphic in what sense?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:52:53 No.12781545 Report

Quoted By: >>12781564

>>12781524

Infinitesimals are not in R either.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:53:36 No.12781549 Report

Quoted By: >>12781601

>>12781454
because 10*1.9 = 19 and not 19.9

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:54:39 No.12781555 Report

Quoted By: >>12781568

>>12781496
No, it's because the numbers we use are defined by calculus, which doesn't allow for a smallest discrete unit of measurement. There is no underflow.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:55:41 No.12781559 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781522
No, clay de-lumping is addition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:55:58 No.12781562 Report

Quoted By: >>12781578

>>12781539

I said "the most natural reading of it". If you're talking about laymen that rely on common sense, sure, but I think to someone well-acquainted with infinity, short of defining it to just be equal to 1, that's the best definition of it. Open to others.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:56:10 No.12781564 Report

Quoted By: >>12781608 >>12781678

>>12781540
every element of [0,1] can be uniquely mapped to an element in R.
>>12781545
Sure they are. $-\ninfty < \epsilon_i < \infty,$ for all infinitesimals.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:56:24 No.12781568 Report

Quoted By: >>12781647

>>12781555
We also don't use infinitely precise numbers. In fact we don't even use very precise numbers: just a few digits after the decimal place is enough.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:56:43 No.12781571 Report

Quoted By: >>12781583 >>12781586

My personal take on this is that a difference that is infinitely small does not exist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:57:27 No.12781578 Report

Quoted By: >>12781620

>>12781562
And if we don't rely on common sense, then infinity+1 is good enough.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:57:53 No.12781583 Report

Quoted By: >>12781638

>>12781571
well what does difference mean? the difference in value between two electron charges is much much smaller than 1.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 17:58:33 No.12781586 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781571
Then why even use the ... symbol?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:00:45 No.12781601 Report

Quoted By: >>12781670

>>12781549
Not if your precision is rough enough.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:01:40 No.12781608 Report

Quoted By: >>12781612

>>12781564

FWIW that's the definition of being equal in cardinality (basically of the same size). Isomorphism concerns similarity in structure. (generally between groups, rings, fields, vector spaces, etc.)

Infinitesimals aren't covered in the standard definition for the real numbers and are pretty much of historical interest at this point. They are of minimal revelence to modern maths.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:02:20 No.12781612 Report

Quoted By: >>12781631

>>12781608
It's like saying that picometers are irrelevant for woodworking.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:03:24 No.12781620 Report

Quoted By: >>12781636 >>12781695

>>12781578

I don't understand what you're getting at. Infinity is not usually a number, it's a symbol/concept, so 1 + infinity doesn't really mean anything. It's treated like one in less typical settings like the riemann sphere.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:04:37 No.12781631 Report

Quoted By: >>12781646

>>12781612

How? Infinitesimals are not just "small real numbers", they have no physical interpretation.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO ordinals.jpg, 40KiB, 640x640

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:05:00 No.12781636 Report

Quoted By: >>12781648 >>12781962

>>12781620

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:05:09 No.12781638 Report

Quoted By: >>12781651 >>12781662 >>12781717 >>12781719

>>12781583
I guess I’m just referring to the written form of 1.999....... being equal to 2 as a limitation of mathematical nomenclature.

I’m not sure if this makes sense to any of you but to quote Shakespeare, “a rose by any other name would be just as sweet.”

We can easily think of the concept of 1/3. We also express it as 0.3333....

We know 1/3 * 3 is 3. Yet 0.3333.... * 3 can also yield 0.9999..... I just really feel like there’s going to be a disconnect here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:06:03 No.12781646 Report

Quoted By: >>12781669

>>12781631
Then why even use 0.999... to infinity? Just stop at some place.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:06:10 No.12781647 Report

Quoted By: >>12781755

>>12781568
We use ? all the time.
When we use an approximation of ? for engineering purposes, for example, or in applied physics, we aren't drawing a giant circle in the sky and taking an approximate measurement of that circle, we're taking an approximate measurement of the infinitely precise number ?.
Directly.
We use a direct approximation of the number ?, not the reality of our physical environment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:06:14 No.12781648 Report

Quoted By: >>12781668

>>12781636

Means nothing to me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:06:43 No.12781651 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781638
1/3 * 3 is 1 kek

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:07:47 No.12781662 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781638
Sure, and Fermat's theorem for any a,b,c is correct because it is correct for any 3a, 3b, 3c.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:08:57 No.12781668 Report

Quoted By: >>12781700

>>12781648
Good, then just stop bothering. Maybe math is simply not for you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:09:00 No.12781669 Report

Quoted By: >>12781702

>>12781646

I feel you are still imagining a very small difference between 0.999... and 1. This isn't the case with usual definitions of 0.999.... It's a bit misleading, sure. There are probably non-standard definitions that do distinguish between them but they're exactly that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:09:03 No.12781670 Report

Quoted By: >>12781683

>>12781601
my precision is absolute. 19 is not 19.9.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:10:06 No.12781678 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781564
>every element of [0,1] can be uniquely mapped to an element in R.
so? what do you think it says about R?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:10:31 No.12781683 Report

Quoted By: >>12781836

>>12781670
Just like 0.999... isn't 1.000

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:11:09 No.12781695 Report

Quoted By: >>12781709

>>12781620
>infinity is not a number, it's a concept
into the trash it goes

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:11:27 No.12781700 Report

Quoted By: >>12781710

>>12781668

Infinitesimals have not been relevant to maths since the days of Leibniz. They were specifically moved away from due to their limitations.

Non-standard analysis, which has tried to make these concepts concrete, hasn't really picked up at all. It's of mainly academic interest.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:11:33 No.12781702 Report

Quoted By: >>12781716 >>12781732

>>12781669
>There are probably non-standard definitions that do distinguish between them but they're exactly that.
Then it's purely an argument of local convenience, not some ideal truth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:12:33 No.12781709 Report

Quoted By: >>12781735

>>12781695

Any analysis course would tell you this. I don't understand why it's contentious. Unless most people here are physics or engineering majors.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:12:35 No.12781710 Report

Quoted By: >>12781755

>>12781700
Sure, and engineering isn't even bothering with infinitely precise numbers, it just stops at some degree of precision. So?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:13:27 No.12781716 Report

Quoted By: >>12781739

>>12781702
Oh lord, it's the truther again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:13:30 No.12781717 Report

Quoted By: >>12781802

>>12781638
Sure, I get it, 0.99... = 1. It's just I've always been bothered by how numbers cannot be uniquely represented in a decimal system. 1 = 1.0 = 1.00... = 0.999...

Personally I view that as a defect of the decimal system.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:13:33 No.12781719 Report

Quoted By: >>12781753 >>12781802

>>12781638
1.999... = 2 is not a limitation or failure of anything. it's a consequence of the very simple fact that if

a < b < c

then b is an element of both [a,b] and [b,c]

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:14:34 No.12781732 Report

Quoted By: >>12781749

>>12781702

This is literally all of math, though, you have to draw the line somewhere. Generally we take "extremely standard definition" to be as good enough as universal truth. Or rather, there's an unspoken assumption that we follow this consensus unless specified otherwise.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:14:46 No.12781735 Report

Quoted By: >>12781757

>>12781709
everything in math is *a concept*, numbers included. the phrase "x is a concept" says literally nothing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:15:10 No.12781739 Report

Quoted By: >>12781768

>>12781716
Then it's both correct that:
0.999...=1 isn't true.
0.999...<1 isn't true.
?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:16:23 No.12781749 Report

Quoted By: >>12781781

>>12781732
Good, so we can stop at "0.999...<1, but in practice we can assume that they are equal because it simplifies some calculations"

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:16:50 No.12781753 Report

Quoted By: >>12781829

>>12781719
I disagree with that interpretation. b is a unique element in [a,b]. b is also a unique element in [b,c]. When we say 0.999...=1, this means the unique element b is not uniquely represented in decimal form. Idk about you, but I view that as a problem.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:16:55 No.12781755 Report

Quoted By: >>12781770

>>12781710
Nope, see>>12781647
Engineering takes direct measurements of infinitely precise numbers. No one is using a giant ruler and compass to design skyscrapers and missiles and whatnot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:17:06 No.12781757 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781735

Yes perhaps the wording was poor. A better way to put it is that infinity is used in shorthand, and does not signify a real number or anything that is understood to signify something similar to a real number.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:18:36 No.12781768 Report

Quoted By: >>12781779

>>12781739
No, there is no underflow in calculus. Underflow is incompatible with the operating system of R.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:18:57 No.12781770 Report

Quoted By: >>12781784

>>12781755
>takes direct measurements of infinitely precise numbers.
It doesn't measure "infinitely precise numbers", it measures various real world things. Reality may be infinitely precise, finitely precise or totally weird on nanolevels. That doesn't matter when you build a skyscraper.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:20:05 No.12781779 Report

Quoted By: >>12781783 >>12781796

>>12781768
Ok,
0.999...=1 isn't true.
0.999...<1 isn't true.
there is no underflow in calculus
?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:20:37 No.12781781 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781749

What does 0.999... even mean here? Its value will hinge solely on that.

We don't make "assumptions" in pure maths, that is left to applied mathematicians.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:20:54 No.12781783 Report

Quoted By: >>12781801

>>12781779
2+2=5

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:21:08 No.12781784 Report

Quoted By: >>12781790 >>12781798

>>12781770
No, it directly measures the infinitely number. No one is deriving ? situationally by measuring real world things. They are directly measuring the number itself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:21:55 No.12781790 Report

Quoted By: >>12781818

>>12781784
No, they most certainly don't measure anything infinite, ideal or divine. That's left to math or theology.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:22:43 No.12781796 Report

Quoted By: >>12781815

>>12781779
0.999... can't be less than 1 because there is no smallest discrete unit of measurement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_underflow

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:22:44 No.12781798 Report

Quoted By: >>12781830

>>12781784
No one is "measuring" anything, and the act of "measuring the number itself" makes no sense. Pi to an engineer is just a number programmed in their calculator, 3.1415965 or something like that

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:22:56 No.12781801 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781783
Yes, that was already proven in >>12781317 >>12781358

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:22:58 No.12781802 Report

Quoted By: >>12781823 >>12781910

>>12781719
See>>12781717

Then 0.333... is not the perfect written representation of 1/3. The concept was born from fractions. We simply write down “0.333...” to express 1/3. The concept of 1/3 multiplied by 3 is 1.

The decimal form of the concept of fractions is limited.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:23:53 No.12781813 Report

Quoted By:

>>12779508
1.999... < 2.
Only dishonest mathematicians believe that 1.999...(an incomplete and neverending process) can be equal to 2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:24:04 No.12781815 Report

Quoted By: >>12781839

>>12781796
As you can see, your link refers to computer programs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:24:44 No.12781818 Report

Quoted By: >>12781833

>>12781790
Yes, they most certainly do. How do you think ? is approximated? No one is out in a field with a long rope walking in a circle. They are directly measuring an infinite algorithm. Your belief system plays no role in it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:25:09 No.12781823 Report

Quoted By: >>12781855 >>12781986

>>12781802
0.333... is actually infinitesimally smaller than 1/3

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:25:39 No.12781829 Report

Quoted By: >>12782210

>>12781753
it's not an "interpretation", it's a fact. the existence of a decimal expansion for every real number is a consequence of the nested interval property (look it up on wikipedia), and the non-uniqueness truly follows from the fact that intervals of zero distance apart share a common endpoint. it's not a problem at all. if it was a problem, we could just easily define decimals using half-open intervals instead of closed, then you would get a unique representation for every number (the symbol 0.999... would become meaningless though, it would NOT mean that 0.999... < 1).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:25:49 No.12781830 Report

Quoted By: >>12781843 >>12781860

>>12781798
You think the calculator is magic? No, it directly measures an algorithm for an infinitely precise number.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:26:12 No.12781833 Report

Quoted By: >>12781850

>>12781818
> No one is out in a field with a long rope walking in a circle.
Correct! That's why your "directly measures the infinitely number. " is nonsense. No one is measuring infinite numbers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:26:41 No.12781836 Report

Quoted By: >>12781854

>>12781683
no, 0.999... is exactly 1 even if the precision is absolute

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:27:10 No.12781839 Report

Quoted By: >>12781870

>>12781815
Correct, and R is not defined in terms of computer programs, which have underflow. They are defined in terms of calculus, which doesn't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:27:23 No.12781843 Report

Quoted By: >>12781864

>>12781830
>No, it directly measures an algorithm for an infinitely precise number.
Now we are measuring not just infinite number, but algorithms for infinite numbers? Anon, it's you who are talking magic here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:28:12 No.12781850 Report

Quoted By: >>12781883

>>12781833
Yes, they are. Your calculator is doing it whenever you take a logarithm. Engineers are doing it every day.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:28:29 No.12781854 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781836
No, it is actually smaller with whatever precision.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:28:29 No.12781855 Report

Quoted By: >>12781875

>>12781823

What does this even mean?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:28:55 No.12781860 Report

Quoted By: >>12781873

>>12781830
The opposite, it's just an instrument, no more in that aspect than pen and paper. Here, I can write it better:

3.1415926535897932384626433

Literally just copied from Wikipedia. No "algorithm", "measurement" or "magic" needed

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:29:17 No.12781864 Report

Quoted By: >>12781900

>>12781843
Nope, that's how a calculator works. I'm sorry you thought they came preprogrammed with a database of approximated constants, but they don't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:29:49 No.12781870 Report

Quoted By: >>12781887

>>12781839
Correct, and various engineering tasks don't use nanometers, micrometers or even millimeters (depending on task). That doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:30:31 No.12781873 Report

Quoted By: >>12781894

>>12781860
How do you think Wikipedia ended up with those digits? Not by measuring the real world, by measuring an infinitely precise number.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:30:51 No.12781875 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781855
That 0.333...<1

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:31:54 No.12781883 Report

Quoted By: >>12781905

>>12781850
No, it certainly does not "directly measure the infinitely number. " - it just uses some very finite constant kept in its memory.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:32:13 No.12781887 Report

Quoted By: >>12781908

>>12781870
You keep referring to discrete units of measurement. There is no such smallest unit in R.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:32:44 No.12781894 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781873
You don't need to "measure" anything, that's the number itself

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:33:33 No.12781900 Report

Quoted By: >>12781918

>>12781864
>I'm sorry you thought they came preprogrammed with a database of approximated constants
Umm, but they do? In some cases they use these constants directly, in some cases they apply some (finite) algorithms to them. They don't go to magic infinite oracle with magic infinite ruler to measure magic infinite numbers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:34:03 No.12781905 Report

Quoted By: >>12781922

>>12781883
No, it does not keep a database of constants in its memory. It directly measures the idea of the infinite number.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:34:04 No.12781906 Report

Quoted By: >>12782348

>>12781451
If the symbol “2” for you actually represents a number larger than 3 (assuming conventional nomenclature for “3”) then you are correct.

If “Apple” for you is a symbol or association that represents the concept of an integer between 4 and 5, then you are correct. Nigger.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:34:39 No.12781908 Report

Quoted By: >>12781934 >>12781940

>>12781887
Ok, then there are numbers between 0.999... and 1.000...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:34:45 No.12781910 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781802
you don't know what "0.333..." stands for then

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:35:34 No.12781918 Report

Quoted By: >>12781937

>>12781900
No, they don't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:35:44 No.12781922 Report

Quoted By: >>12781948

>>12781905
>It directly measures the idea of the infinite number.
Wow, now it "directly measures idea"! Calculator is truly a Platonic contraption!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:36:36 No.12781934 Report

Quoted By: >>12781947

>>12781908
No, there can't be. There is no smallest unit of measurement, so nothing is hiding in a "gap" somewhere.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:36:46 No.12781937 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781918
Correct, because infinite oracles are fun, but not related to flesh-and-blood calculators.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:37:31 No.12781940 Report

Quoted By: >>12781962 >>12781970 >>12781988

>>12781908
Yes, 0.999... will never reach 1.
Unfortunately, scientists and mathematicians lack common sense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:37:51 No.12781947 Report

Quoted By: >>12781960

>>12781934
>There is no smallest unit of measurement, so nothing is hiding in a "gap" somewhere.
These are two unrelated claims, both of which can be correct or incorrect, so it's a double non-sequitur.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:37:51 No.12781948 Report

Quoted By: >>12781971

>>12781922
I take your silly exclamation points to mean that your argument has fizzled out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:39:01 No.12781960 Report

Quoted By: >>12781985

>>12781947
No, one follows directly from the other. There is no middle ground or non sequitur.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:39:05 No.12781962 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781940
>Unfortunately, scientists and mathematicians lack common sense.
Without common sense you get things like >>12781636

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:40:02 No.12781970 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781940
does 0.9999999999999999999 reach anything?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:40:16 No.12781971 Report

Quoted By: >>12782006

>>12781948
I mean, calculator directly measuring ideas is such a wonderful device that I will gladly concede just to let such a magic in our boring life.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:41:27 No.12781985 Report

Quoted By: >>12782006

>>12781960
No, they don't follow from each other and also simply don't follow.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:41:32 No.12781986 Report

Quoted By: >>12782003

>>12781823
If so then it’s not an accurate representation of 1/3.

0.3333... ? 1/3
then 0.999... ? 1

So should /sci/ propose that we disassociate 0.33... and 1/3 because of the limitations of decimal system? No. It’s the best way we can express 1/3 in decimal form. The best doesn’t have to be perfect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:41:44 No.12781988 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781940
Nothing is reaching anything. The fact that there are two digital representations of the same number value is an artefact of positional notation and the specific radix used, not of a reaching process.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:43:05 No.12782003 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781986
>The best doesn’t have to be perfect.
Correct, so them being equal is good enough for most tasks, but not perfectly true. Just like 0.999... and 1 conundrum.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:43:14 No.12782006 Report

Quoted By: >>12782015 >>12782036 >>12782051

>>12781985
Yes, they do; both.
>>12781971
You think algorithms for ?exist in real life and that your calculator measures them from nature and stores it in a database? Of course it's measuring an idea.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:44:16 No.12782015 Report

Quoted By: >>12782020

>>12782006
>Of course it's measuring an idea.
No, it just uses some finite constants.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:44:38 No.12782020 Report

Quoted By: >>12782041

>>12782015
Which ones?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO lul.png, 364KiB, 690x551

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:46:02 No.12782036 Report

Quoted By: >>12782061

>>12782006
Here's your magical idea-measuring device bro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LKy3lrkTRA

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:46:39 No.12782041 Report

Quoted By: >>12782061

>>12782020
Depending on task, 3.1416, 3.1415926536 or whatever your task requires. If you are asking about some specific calculator, check its documentation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:47:43 No.12782051 Report

Quoted By: >>12782069

>>12782006
>Yes, they do; both.
No, they are unrelated and unnecessary.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:49:40 No.12782061 Report

Quoted By: >>12782079 >>12782083

>>12782036
>>12782041
So it's "pi-ception"? The calculator magically intuits a constant out of thin air? No, it directly measures an infinite algorithm for the idea of an infinitely precise number. This is exactly what it does—no more, no less—whether your belief system likes it or not.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:50:42 No.12782069 Report

Quoted By: >>12782091

>>12782051
If they were, you'd surely have pointed out why. They're not, and you're at a loss for words about it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:51:12 No.12782079 Report

Quoted By: >>12782122

>>12782061
>The calculator magically intuits a constant out of thin air?
Anon, it just uses the finite constant which is stored in its memory. It has no need for magic, intuition, infinity, ideas or whatever else.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:51:41 No.12782083 Report

Quoted By: >>12782120 >>12782131

>>12782061
If I pick a pencil and paper, and write doen the symbols "3.14159", am I also "directly measures an infinite algorithm for the idea of an infinitely precise number"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:52:27 No.12782091 Report

Quoted By: >>12782131

>>12782069
It's you who claimed that "There is no smallest unit of measurement, so nothing is hiding in a "gap" somewhere.".

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:54:35 No.12782112 Report

Quoted By:

>>12779508
The point is, if you're a red blooded American, you don't deal with infinities. Do you ask your mom to cut apple pie into infinite number of pieces? There is a similar deal with probabilities. If a probability is very small, it might as well be zero.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:55:37 No.12782120 Report

Quoted By:

>>12782083
Did you just have a stroke or something?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:55:44 No.12782122 Report

Quoted By: >>12782133 >>12782303

>>12782079
No, it literally measures an infinite algorithm for a idea. And if calculators exist that store a small database of constants, they are simply a transcription of a calculator that directly measured the infinite number ?.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:56:52 No.12782131 Report

Quoted By: >>12782143

>>12782091
And that is correct, and the one follows from the other.
>>12782083
No, you transcribed a measurement taken that way.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:57:28 No.12782133 Report

Quoted By: >>12782140

>>12782122
>No, it literally measures an infinite algorithm for a idea.
An infinite idea of qualia platonic magic anime world.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:58:11 No.12782140 Report

Quoted By: >>12782153

>>12782133
I love when you start doing the baby talk thing, it means your brain is sputtering out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:58:30 No.12782143 Report

Quoted By: >>12782151

>>12782131
>And that is correct, and the one follows from the other.
Yet they are not correct and they also don't follow from each other.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:59:24 No.12782151 Report

Quoted By: >>12782160

>>12782143
And yet you still can't express why that is. Funny how that works.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:59:31 No.12782153 Report

Quoted By: >>12782166

>>12782140
Then please don't use the "infinite algorithm for a idea" stuff, we are not on /x/ or /a/.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 18:59:43 No.12782154 Report

Quoted By:

>>12779636
You only say shit, you're a piece of shit, ok, a real piece of shit... who gets fucked in the ass, you suck dicks and say shit as things. But since shit goes with shit, naturally, you're involved. So don't come here with theories which don't have a place nor on earth nor in the sky, which are false, which you invented because you're an asshole... you're a lying asshole. Don't you dare come here saying "Oh I can sue you!", go fuck yourself you and that bitch of the mom you have, sue me! No fucking problem, sue me! And I'll bring my demonstrations to the courtroom and you shall pay, for the rest of your shitty life, the loan for my house, wait, for my mansion, that I have and you don't, because you live in the sewers because you're a shit! This is the truth, you don't have ANYTHING to say. Go fuck yourself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:00:18 No.12782159 Report

Quoted By:

Why are you so obsessed with measurment anyway?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:00:34 No.12782160 Report

Quoted By: >>12782177

>>12782151
Sorry, you first.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:01:43 No.12782166 Report

Quoted By: >>12782192

>>12782153
No, that is exactly what is happening when we use ?. We are using an infinite algorithm to approximately measure the idea of an infinitely precise number. I'm not going to pretend it's happening some other way, just to make you feel better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:02:45 No.12782177 Report

Quoted By: >>12782184

>>12782160
Sorry, I can't express your thoughts for you either. Especially since in this case they seem to be clearly wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:03:25 No.12782181 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781328
>There is an infinity of numbers in [0,1] interval,
doesn't mean the interval is infinite

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:03:49 No.12782184 Report

Quoted By: >>12782198

>>12782177
Looks like you can't express even your own thoughts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:04:52 No.12782192 Report

Quoted By: >>12782205

>>12782166
No, anon, we don't measure infinite ideas and calculators certainly don't do it too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:05:32 No.12782198 Report

Quoted By: >>12782227

>>12782184
I have, and you've quoted them. What neither of us can express are your thoughts, and I'm pretty sure it's because they don't have a logical form.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:06:40 No.12782205 Report

Quoted By: >>12782219

>>12782192
Yes, we certainly do, and calculators do it, too. And much more efficiently, to boot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:07:43 No.12782210 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781829
>then you would get a unique representation for every number (the symbol 0.999... would become meaningless though, it would NOT mean that 0.999... < 1).
so why not do that?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:09:04 No.12782219 Report

Quoted By: >>12782264

>>12782205
No, anon, calculators store finite constants and apply some finite algorithms to them. They don't measure infinite platonic anime qualia magic ideas.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:10:09 No.12782227 Report

Quoted By: >>12782264

>>12782198
>What neither of us can express are your thoughts
No, they are expressed very clearly: no, they don't follow from each other and also simply don't follow.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:17:32 No.12782264 Report

Quoted By: >>12782387 >>12782397

>>12782219
Cool baby talk. So sorry you don't understand how ?is measured. People used to do it themselves, on paper, and publish or archive the results.
>>12782227
And yet you still can't figure out how to explain why. That's not expressing anything clearly, it's a form letter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:23:39 No.12782303 Report

Quoted By: >>12782330

>>12782122
>measures
You keep using that word but I don't think you know what it means

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:27:18 No.12782330 Report

Quoted By: >>12782348 >>12782404

>>12782303
Well then it's a good thing that your imagination has no relevance to what I know.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:30:03 No.12782348 Report

Quoted By: >>12782423

>>12782330
Are you that guy? >>12781906
That's literally not how language works. You can't just make up meaning for words and expect people to respect it

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:36:05 No.12782387 Report

Quoted By: >>12782404 >>12782458

>>12782264
>Cool baby talk.
Correct, "measuring infinite ideas" is your brain-sputtering baby-talk. Meanwhile calculators don't do that at all - they use finite constants.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:37:09 No.12782397 Report

Quoted By: >>12782475

>>12782264
>And yet you still can't figure out how to explain why.
Just like you can't explain why "There is no smallest unit of measurement", "nothing is hiding in a "gap" somewhere." or even "There is no smallest unit of measurement, so nothing is hiding in a "gap" somewhere."

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:37:57 No.12782404 Report

Quoted By: >>12782436 >>12782445

>>12782330
>>12782387
You're starting to sound very tooker tier, watch yourself. If you are tooker, good job figuring out how to post something without labeling yourself

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:40:03 No.12782423 Report

Quoted By: >>12782457

>>12782348
No, and I'm not. What are you even talking about, weirdo.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:41:32 No.12782436 Report

Quoted By:

>>12782404
Those aren't both me, you psychotic fuck. Get off the internet for a day or two.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:42:33 No.12782445 Report

Quoted By:

>>12782404
That's some cool baby talk, anon. Yet it is not related to calculators.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:43:48 No.12782457 Report

Quoted By: >>12782513

>>12782423
Not only are you a schizo, you can't even read?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:43:53 No.12782458 Report

Quoted By: >>12782463 >>12782474

>>12782387
Every finite constant used for ? is an approximate measurement of a infinite algorithm. If you have a finite algorithm for ?, do share.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:44:50 No.12782463 Report

Quoted By: >>12782487

>>12782458
22/7

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:46:20 No.12782474 Report

Quoted By: >>12782487

>>12782458
? = 3.14159265

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:46:22 No.12782475 Report

Quoted By: >>12782560

>>12782397
It's impossible for 0.999... can't be less than 1, because it would be an unmeasurable difference. There is no such thing in R.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:47:24 No.12782487 Report

Quoted By: >>12782500

>>12782463
>>12782474
Those aren't ?.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:48:56 No.12782500 Report

Quoted By: >>12782523

>>12782487
Yes. Because no human engineering application ever needs or uses the exact value of pi.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:50:40 No.12782513 Report

Quoted By: >>12782531

>>12782457
If you think I'm not using a common word correctly, feel free to enunciate a definition and explain why it doesn't fit. Then I'll let you know whether I think you're full of shit or not. To be honest, I'm pretty sure you're full of shit already, but I'm happy to give you a second chance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:52:20 No.12782523 Report

Quoted By: >>12782569

>>12782500
But when we take an approximation, we're not taking an approximation of 22/7 or that clipped decimal. We're taking an approximation of an infinite algorithm.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:53:47 No.12782531 Report

Quoted By: >>12782558

>>12782513
Oh, so magnanimous, to give me a chance to prove myself to some retard on the internet. I regretfully can't accept your generosity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:58:10 No.12782558 Report

Quoted By:

>>12782531
Shocking.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:58:38 No.12782560 Report

Quoted By: >>12782851 >>12788480

>>12782475
Then R is just a rough approximation useful for some tasks but generally incorrect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 19:59:40 No.12782569 Report

Quoted By: >>12782613 >>12787531

>>12782523
No, we just use 3.14 or whatever.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 20:03:32 No.12782613 Report

Quoted By: >>12782643 >>12782654

>>12782569
Which is an approximate measurement of an infinite algorithm for the idea of an infinitely precise number, ?. It is exactly that, and nothing else.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 20:06:02 No.12782643 Report

Quoted By: >>12782944

>>12782613
No, it's a finite constant stored in calculator's memory. When you invoke it, calculator does not measure infinite ideas or whatever else baby talk. It just loads a few bytes of information and uses them for the calculations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 20:06:35 No.12782654 Report

Quoted By: >>12782944

>>12782613
...So what? Is there some point you're trying to make?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 20:16:55 No.12782851 Report

Quoted By: >>12783151

>>12782560
And you're making this claim to me, why? In your mind this has something to do with my explanation that underflow values don't exist in R?
Will you express a specific idea? "Generally incorrect" has no semantic utility to speak of.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 20:22:26 No.12782944 Report

Quoted By: >>12783001

>>12782643
Which came from a measurement of an infinite algorithm.
>>12782654
You tell me. You're the one who keeps arguing that ? simply appears as a constant out of the blue.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 20:28:04 No.12783001 Report

Quoted By: >>12783047 >>12783107

>>12782944
>Which came from a measurement of an infinite algorithm.
How you measure an algorithm?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 20:32:03 No.12783047 Report

Quoted By: >>12783062

>>12783001
By nesting some arithmetic until you're satisfied?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 20:33:21 No.12783062 Report

Quoted By: >>12783157

>>12783047
>word salad

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO algorithm measurment.png, 459KiB, 1524x1376

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 20:37:11 No.12783107 Report

Quoted By: >>12783191

>>12783001

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 20:42:50 No.12783151 Report

Quoted By: >>12783185

>>12782851
Anon, underflow is purely your idea which I never mentioned ITT.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 20:43:31 No.12783157 Report

Quoted By: >>12783211

>>12783062
No, you're just retarded.
Which word or combination of words in "By nesting some arithmetic until you're satisfied?" do you not understand?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 20:45:57 No.12783185 Report

Quoted By: >>12783200

>>12783151
Underflow is my idea? Shit, do you think it's too late to file for copyright?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 20:46:57 No.12783191 Report

Quoted By:

>>12783107
>Dada salad

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 20:48:15 No.12783200 Report

Quoted By:

>>12783185
Underflow is an infinitely measurable anime idea.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 20:49:33 No.12783211 Report

Quoted By: >>12783235 >>12783247

>>12783157
Any of it. Arithmetic isn't some object that can be nested

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 20:50:30 No.12783218 Report

Quoted By:

>>12779508
it's just an optical illusion.
it only looks like a 2, but in actual fact, it's a 1.99999...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 20:52:24 No.12783235 Report

Quoted By:

>>12783211
Lol, you actually are a retard. My apologies.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 20:53:42 No.12783247 Report

Quoted By: >>12783254

>>12783211
Lol, you actually are a retard. My condolences.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 20:54:47 No.12783254 Report

Quoted By: >>12783266

>>12783247
So you don't know. Got it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 20:56:59 No.12783266 Report

Quoted By:

>>12783254
Don't know what? I know that you just claimed arithmetic can't be nested. What, do you want a participation trophy for writing the dumbest thing I've read all day?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Mar 2021 23:21:33 No.12784431 Report

Quoted By: >>12785481

>>12779508
real numbers break math because real numbers are not real. they don't exist in reality. pi does not exist, 1.999... does not exist. you'll never find a perfect circle, they're impossible, just like a massed object reaching light speed is impossible, but you can get pretty damn close, like 99.99999% close, and in this way the imperfect attributes of real numbers DO exist in reality, and thus they're incredibly useful for situations where a numerical value or a real life measurement approach a real number.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Mar 2021 00:38:52 No.12785481 Report

Quoted By: >>12785637 >>12785662

>>12784431
>you'll never find a perfect circle
can't wait to see your proof of that, i'm all ears

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Mar 2021 01:11:00 No.12785637 Report

Quoted By: >>12785693

>>12785481
can't wait for you to find me a perfect fucking circle, faggot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Mar 2021 01:17:41 No.12785662 Report

Quoted By: >>12785701

>>12785481
anon pi is an infinite irrational real, it literally cannot be quantized in literal, physical geometric terms. no matter how "perfect" the circle, you can always make it more perfect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Mar 2021 01:24:17 No.12785693 Report

Quoted By:

>>12785637
never said i could prove a circle was perfect. i’m waiting for your proof none are.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Mar 2021 01:26:40 No.12785701 Report

Quoted By:

>>12785662
who said anything about “making” one. and if you want to prove none exist, the burden of infinite quantization is on you

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Mar 2021 04:59:32 No.12786465 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781317
>implying 10(1.9) = 19.9
Anon you absolute clown

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO file.png, 639KiB, 600x910

Anonymous Thu 04 Mar 2021 10:24:35 No.12787415 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781317
most based post on /sci/

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Mar 2021 11:04:38 No.12787531 Report

Quoted By: >>12787822

>>12782569
4*ATAN(1)

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Mar 2021 13:08:29 No.12787822 Report

Quoted By: >>12787877

>>12787531
I'm just happy there's a Calculator Fairy who leaves all these wonderful approximations in my calculator.
Wherever does she find them?
It really is one of math's great mysteries.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Mar 2021 13:22:31 No.12787877 Report

Quoted By: >>12787907

>>12787822
>I'm just happy
retards are easily amused

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Mar 2021 13:31:39 No.12787907 Report

Quoted By: >>12788581

>>12787877
I hope you got paid for your membership in that study.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Mar 2021 16:10:48 No.12788480 Report

Quoted By:

>>12782560
lmao same shit every thread. if a thing were generally incorrect, wouldn’t there be a reason? an example to point out and discuss? nope, it’s always the same gibberish for 200 posts ending with a banality that refers to nothing

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Mar 2021 16:17:51 No.12788504 Report

Quoted By:

>>12781439
>not using the app

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Mar 2021 16:39:55 No.12788581 Report

Quoted By: >>12788629

>>12787907
>it thinks the study is over
awww it's retarded

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Mar 2021 16:40:19 No.12788585 Report

Quoted By: >>12790245

1.999... is infinitely close to 2. That means it is 2. If I shot a bow and arrow, and my shot was infinitely accurate, then I shot a bullseye. 1.999 is an infinitely accurate approximation of 2. Its equal to 2, but slightly different from a conceptual standpoint.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Mar 2021 16:53:08 No.12788629 Report

Quoted By:

>>12788581
Silly me, I should have know someone else was helping you use the internet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Mar 2021 23:28:43 No.12790245 Report

Quoted By:

>>12788585
I like this description a lot. It’s new and it paints in your mind exactly why 1.999... and 2.000... can’t be different.

The only objection left is that 2.000... ? 2. That’s what it l boils down to.

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