We've also been mentioned on 4Chan, DHI, TVTropes and a couple of other sites.
Where was the big deal over that, guys?
Where was the big deal over that, guys?
Yup Im in the same boat as you.Vanguard_Ex said: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.Jegsimmons said:huh....no wonder i avoided these forums for so long, pointless bitching.
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHSirBryghtside said: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!
Aren't you the one who started that thread?Amphoteric said: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.
Well I don't know math, but I claim it doesn't. Does that make me smart, or just stupid in the right way?sravankb said:Anyone who claims 0.9999.... = 1 does not know math, and does not know the mathematical definition of the term "limit".
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.lacktheknack said:0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 ad infinitum = 1.omega 616 said: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!
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.
I have never read anything more true in my life.SirBryghtside said:
Well my A Level Maths teacher says 0.9999r = 1, as does my calculatorsravankb said:Anyone who claims 0.9999.... = 1 does not know math, and does not know the mathematical definition of the term "limit".
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'.HT_Black said: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.
Guess some just find it neat, is all. I don't care that much, but whatev's.Sassafrass said:We've also been mentioned on 4Chan, DHI, TVTropes and a couple of other sites.
Where was the big deal over that, guys?
Haha that is one awesome graph!SirBryghtside said:...HT_Black said:X isn't X. Thus, I'm a penguin.SirBryghtside said:Your logic both confuses and enrages me.HT_Black said: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.
Good show
And PLEASE let's not start this discussion again, it was bad enough last time...
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!
Blegh. I knew I was forgetting something.CorvusFerreum said: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'.HT_Black said: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.
Here, let's clarify:lunncal said: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.lacktheknack said:0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 ad infinitum = 1.omega 616 said: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!
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.
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]
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 said:Scientists just proved particles can travel faster than light and 0.99999999999999 =/= 0.9rDa Orky Man said:No, it isn't. You can conventionally travel at 0.99999999999999C, but you can't go 1.0C. C meaning speed of light.AnarchistFish said:0.9r = 1 no argument about it
Well then if you can't go past the speed of light, it's still impossible to go at 0.9rCDa Orky Man said: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 said:Scientists just proved particles can travel faster than light and 0.99999999999999 =/= 0.9rDa Orky Man said:No, it isn't. You can conventionally travel at 0.99999999999999C, but you can't go 1.0C. C meaning speed of light.AnarchistFish said:0.9r = 1 no argument about it
We already have. In multiple particle accelerators, including the Tevatron and the LHC, particles have gone to about 0.9999C before.AnarchistFish said:Well then if you can't go past the speed of light, it's still impossible to go at 0.9rCDa Orky Man said: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 said:Scientists just proved particles can travel faster than light and 0.99999999999999 =/= 0.9rDa Orky Man said:No, it isn't. You can conventionally travel at 0.99999999999999C, but you can't go 1.0C. C meaning speed of light.AnarchistFish said:0.9r = 1 no argument about it