Hey the escapist made it to cracked

[Marik2]

huh....no wonder i avoided these forums for so long, pointless bitching.

I only come back daily out of habit, and even then it's mostly to read the news. The general attitude of this place just infuriates me nowadays.

Yup Im in the same boat as you.

I have seen the light.

Also, while we're on the subject of maths, I made a graph! Score it for accuracy, or, you know, don't!

Spoiler

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

THAT IS SO TRUE!!! XD

Good work there man

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

The Escapist? Flame wars?

/shock

Shoot. Now I'll be on Cracked for the next few hours.

 

[retyopy]

Anyone who says 0.9 recurring doesn't equal 1 is wrong. There is no other way to say it.

1/9 = 0.1 recurring
0.1 recurring * 9 = 0.9 recurring
1/9 * 9 = 1
Therefore: 0.9 recurring = 1

Hurray for the escapist!

We are awesome at arguing with each other over trivial shit.

Aren't you the one who started that thread?

 

[Nackl of Gilmed]

Anyone who claims 0.9999.... = 1 does not know math, and does not know the mathematical definition of the term "limit".

Well I don't know math, but I claim it doesn't. Does that make me smart, or just stupid in the right way?

 

[DEAD34345]

So does 0.8 = 1 as well? Or does that = 0.9 which in turn = 1?

I am no good at maths but to me something is not something else.

Yay for being quoted on another site!

0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 ad infinitum = 1.

Think of 1/3. It's equal to 0.333333333333333333333333333333333 ad infinitum.

1/3 * 3 = 1.

0.3 ad infinitum * 3 = 0.9 ad infinitum.

Thus, 0.9 ad infinitum = 1.

Not to flame or anything, it's just an explanation of why math seems to break logic.

But 1/3 doesn't actually equal 0.33333333333333333 ad infinitum. Really, 1/3 is an infinitely small amount larger than 0.3r, just as 1 is an infinitely small amount larger than 0.9r. The only reason we use those numbers at all is because it is impossible to write an accurate decimal equivalent to 1/3, or 1/9.

I mean, a difference that is infinitely small can pretty much be considered to be 0 for all practical purposes, but it isn't actually 0.

[sub]I know I'm arguing about maths, I know I will never even meet the people I'm arguing with. and I know the argument is pointless. I just don't care.[/sub]

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Spoiler

I have never read anything more true in my life.

Needs moar whining on the spectrum though.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Anyone who claims 0.9999.... = 1 does not know math, and does not know the mathematical definition of the term "limit".

Well my A Level Maths teacher says 0.9999r = 1, as does my calculator

hmmmm

 

[Zeetchmen]

You are all just crazy math Nazis!

/obligitoryHitler

 

[CorvusFerreum]

So, first things first: We were the only guys who didn't invoke Godwin's law. Yay.
Secondly:

0.999...=X
X=0.999...
0.999...=0.999
X=X
BUT.
0.999...=1
0.999=X=1=X
Thus,
X=/=X.
In conclusion:

For some reason writing that out made me laugh like a maniac. That's not a good sign.

X =/= X is only true if you define 1 =/= 0.9r. You can't proof that 1 =/= 0.9r by defining 1 =/= 0.9r. Just sayin'.

 

[Irridium]

We've also been mentioned on 4Chan, DHI, TVTropes and a couple of other sites.
Where was the big deal over that, guys?

Guess some just find it neat, is all. I don't care that much, but whatev's.

As for the .9 = 1 or whatever, I have a better question. Why does everyone care so much?

Though I guess that's the same question Sassafrass asked... ah well.

 

[rokkolpo]

So, first things first: We were the only guys who didn't invoke Godwin's law. Yay.
Secondly:

0.999...=X
X=0.999...
BUT.
0.999...=1
Thus,
X=/=X.

For some reason writing that out made me laugh like a maniac. That's not a good sign.

Your logic both confuses and enrages me.

Good show

And PLEASE let's not start this discussion again, it was bad enough last time...

X isn't X. Thus, I'm a penguin.

...

I have seen the light.

Also, while we're on the subject of maths, I made a graph! Score it for accuracy, or, you know, don't!

Spoiler

Haha that is one awesome graph!
And true, I've thought about reviewing, but just didn't.
And am and have been in alert red for quite a while now, I just need to look at the mods weird and get banned.

 

[HT_Black]

So, first things first: We were the only guys who didn't invoke Godwin's law. Yay.
Secondly:

0.999...=X
X=0.999...
0.999...=0.999
X=X
BUT.
0.999...=1
0.999=X=1=X
Thus,
X=/=X.
In conclusion:

For some reason writing that out made me laugh like a maniac. That's not a good sign.

X =/= X is only true if you define 1 =/= 0.9r. You can't proof that 1 =/= 0.9r by defining 1 =/= 0.9r. Just sayin'.

Blegh. I knew I was forgetting something.

 

[lacktheknack]

So does 0.8 = 1 as well? Or does that = 0.9 which in turn = 1?

I am no good at maths but to me something is not something else.

Yay for being quoted on another site!

0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 ad infinitum = 1.

Think of 1/3. It's equal to 0.333333333333333333333333333333333 ad infinitum.

1/3 * 3 = 1.

0.3 ad infinitum * 3 = 0.9 ad infinitum.

Thus, 0.9 ad infinitum = 1.

Not to flame or anything, it's just an explanation of why math seems to break logic.

But 1/3 doesn't actually equal 0.33333333333333333 ad infinitum. Really, 1/3 is an infinitely small amount larger than 0.3r, just as 1 is an infinitely small amount larger than 0.9r. The only reason we use those numbers at all is because it is impossible to write an accurate decimal equivalent to 1/3, or 1/9.

I mean, a difference that is infinitely small can pretty much be considered to be 0 for all practical purposes, but it isn't actually 0.

[sub]I know I'm arguing about maths, I know I will never even meet the people I'm arguing with. and I know the argument is pointless. I just don't care.[/sub]

Here, let's clarify:

0.9r = 1 - 1E(-inf) = 1 * 10^(negative infinite) "approaching a limit of one" = 1.

0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999(repeat 9 beyond all the atoms in the freaking universe) =/= 1.

And I'm pretty sure that the original topic was talking about the first one.

I think the original flame war could have been averted with this clarification, but maybe not. It's not really important, though.

Edit: I've been informed that my definition of a limit has all been a lieeeeee why Lisa why everything is coming apart Soylent Green is people and the blood of a thousand VIRGINS SACRIFICE THE BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWD

Basically, in practical terms, it's one. In technical terms, it depends how pedantic you are.

 

[Da Orky Man]

0.9r = 1 no argument about it

No, it isn't. You can conventionally travel at 0.99999999999999C, but you can't go 1.0C. C meaning speed of light.

Scientists just proved particles can travel faster than light and 0.99999999999999 =/= 0.9r

Yes, I do know that. Despite how excited I am about that possibility, there's still a good chance it was an error. And I said conventionally. Neutrinos aren't conventional particles. We've already tries accelerating conventional particles to FTL, and it didn't work. They just got heavier and heavier.

 

[AnarchistFish]

0.9r = 1 no argument about it

No, it isn't. You can conventionally travel at 0.99999999999999C, but you can't go 1.0C. C meaning speed of light.

Scientists just proved particles can travel faster than light and 0.99999999999999 =/= 0.9r

Yes, I do know that. Despite how excited I am about that possibility, there's still a good chance it was an error. And I said conventionally. Neutrinos aren't conventional particles. We've already tries accelerating conventional particles to FTL, and it didn't work. They just got heavier and heavier.

Well then if you can't go past the speed of light, it's still impossible to go at 0.9rC

 

[Da Orky Man]

0.9r = 1 no argument about it

No, it isn't. You can conventionally travel at 0.99999999999999C, but you can't go 1.0C. C meaning speed of light.

Scientists just proved particles can travel faster than light and 0.99999999999999 =/= 0.9r

Yes, I do know that. Despite how excited I am about that possibility, there's still a good chance it was an error. And I said conventionally. Neutrinos aren't conventional particles. We've already tries accelerating conventional particles to FTL, and it didn't work. They just got heavier and heavier.

Well then if you can't go past the speed of light, it's still impossible to go at 0.9rC

We already have. In multiple particle accelerators, including the Tevatron and the LHC, particles have gone to about 0.9999C before.