Old Escapist Thread Mentioned in Cracked Article

Trippy Turtle

Elite Member
May 10, 2010
2,119
2
43
Are you sure it was that old? I remember that was one of the threads that convinced me to join up.
Also... Haha math-tard.
 

TheNumber1Zero

Forgot to Remember
Jul 23, 2009
7,345
0
0
Vanguard_Ex said:
It begins.
Plus somebody apparently bumped the old Thread, so there's that can of worms revealed to around 2-ish years worth of new members/potential Mathematicians.

On Topic... Well honestly I don't see it as how much things may have changed, as it is a good look at how things were never as different from other Forums back then, except for the whole "Math"[footnote]Okay Firefox, why is it that "Math" isn't a word, but "Maths" is?[/footnote] part, that just made you closer to the Bungie Forums apparently.
I kid I kid... Mostly...

[sub][sup]Note to self: If ever decide to cause massive riot in possible Office Employment Area, make reference to... Whatever it is they said did or did not equal 1 or something.
[sub]P.S. Hire Detective to solve how I ever passed Math.[/sub][/sup][/sub]
 

vxicepickxv

Slayer of Bothan Spies
Sep 28, 2008
3,126
0
0
Stall said:
SirFlamingLoboOfDoom said:
HOW THE HELL IS THAT EVEN A QUESTION???? Thats like saying 0.11111111 repeated is bigger than 0.2
OMG?!?!?sjsdashsiahdajsdjdas
Note that 1/3 = .3 repeating
3*(1/3) = .9 repeating
But 3*(1/3) = 1
Thus, by transitivity, we have .9 repeating = 1
So that's how that happened.

I kind of cheated to get to the same answer.

1/3 * 3 = 3 * 1/3

1/3 * 3/1 = .99999r

1/1 * 1/1 = .99999r

1 * 1 = .99999r

1 = .9999r
 

Stall

New member
Apr 16, 2011
950
0
0
Lukeje said:
It's a misleading and broken proof.
It actually isn't, but I will happily show you another proof.

We can understand decimal representation as the following series:

0.b0*b1*b2*... = b0 + b1(1/10) + b2(1/10)^2 + b3(1/10)^3 + ... , where b0, b1, ... are some integers.

Thus, we can see that .9 repeating can be written as:

9 + 9(1/10) + 9(1/10)^2 + 9(1/10)^3 + ...

This is a geometric series, sum k=1 to inf a*r^k, where a = 9 and r = (1/10). By the theorem of geometric series, we can show that when |r| < 1, the series converges, and the closed form solution is given by:

a*r/(1-r)

Therefore, 9(1/10)/(1-(1/10)) = (9/10)/(9/10) = 1

Therefore, .9 repeated is 1.

There. That better?

EDIT: Gimme a sec. I'll wake up my tablet and write it out.
 

Vanguard_Ex

New member
Mar 19, 2008
4,687
0
0
TheNumber1Zero said:
Vanguard_Ex said:
It begins.
Plus somebody apparently bumped the old Thread, so there's that can of worms revealed to around 2-ish years worth of new members/potential Mathematicians.

On Topic... Well honestly I don't see it as how much things may have changed, as it is a good look at how things were never as different from other Forums back then, except for the whole "Math"[footnote]Okay Firefox, why is it that "Math" isn't a word, but "Maths" is?[/footnote] part, that just made you closer to the Bungie Forums apparently.
I kid I kid... Mostly...

[sub][sup]Note to self: If ever decide to cause massive riot in possible Office Employment Area, make reference to... Whatever it is they said did or did not equal 1 or something.
[sub]P.S. Hire Detective to solve how I ever passed Math.[/sub][/sup][/sub]
HAHAHA that is golden! I think 0.999999999999 = 1 should be the forum meme.
 
Sep 3, 2011
44
0
0
Technically doesn't repeating just mean infinite division and it infinitely never fitting perfectly? You always divide 1 with 3 and you always get a margin of error? thus meaning that 1 and 0.999r is different by a infinitely small amount?

Aka

0.3r is not 1/3 but we just for the sake of ease say it is and technically 0.9r is not 1.
 

Lukeje

New member
Feb 6, 2008
4,048
0
0
Stall said:
Lukeje said:
It's a misleading and broken proof.
It actually isn't, but I will happily show you another proof.
I wasn't denying the conclusion, just pointing out that saying `3*0.(3)' is incredibly sloppy. And yes, it is better (though you should really link to the wiki article).
 

Lukeje

New member
Feb 6, 2008
4,048
0
0
SirFlamingLoboOfDoom said:
Technically doesn't repeating just mean infinite division and it infinitely never fitting perfectly? You always divide 1 with 3 and you always get a margin of error? thus meaning that 1 and 0.999r is different by a infinitely small amount?
Yes. This infinitely small amount is an `infinitesimal'. We define them to be equal to zero.

[sub]Also, this is going to snowball out of control very soon...[/sub]
 

TheNumber1Zero

Forgot to Remember
Jul 23, 2009
7,345
0
0
Vanguard_Ex said:
HAHAHA that is golden! I think 0.999999999999 = 1 should be the forum meme.
Which naturally means it won't be.
Personally I find a different question gnawing at me now...

What does 0.999999999998 equal?
 
May 29, 2011
1,179
0
0
Lukeje said:
ZeroMachine said:
thaluikhain said:
The Escapist Forums was mentioned on Cracked.

So...does that mean that the Escapist doesn't really have forums anymore, or is Cracked allowed to not be wrong about some things sometimes?
I honestly have no clue what you mean.
I think the implication was that the articles on Cracked are always lies, or something. Maybe.
Well that's an exaggeration. Maybe 50 percent, but not nearly everything.
 

Stall

New member
Apr 16, 2011
950
0
0
Lukeje said:
I wasn't denying the conclusion, just pointing out that saying `3*0.(3)' is incredibly sloppy. And yes, it is better (though you should really link to the wiki article).
Are you implying that I don't understand what I just wrote out? I just looked at the wiki for the structure. I had done this proof several times previously without even knowing there was a wiki article for this.
 
Sep 3, 2011
44
0
0
Lukeje said:
SirFlamingLoboOfDoom said:
Technically doesn't repeating just mean infinite division and it infinitely never fitting perfectly? You always divide 1 with 3 and you always get a margin of error? thus meaning that 1 and 0.999r is different by a infinitely small amount?
Yes. This infinitely small amount is an `infinitesimal'. We define them to be equal to zero.

[sub]Also, this is going to snowball out of control very soon...[/sub]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal

BUT WE KNOW ITS BIGGER THAN NOTHING!
 

Vanguard_Ex

New member
Mar 19, 2008
4,687
0
0
TheNumber1Zero said:
Vanguard_Ex said:
HAHAHA that is golden! I think 0.999999999999 = 1 should be the forum meme.
Which naturally means it won't be.
Personally I find a different question gnawing at me now...

What does 0.999999999998 equal?
Well fine.

Oh, it equals 1. Seriously.
 

Lukeje

New member
Feb 6, 2008
4,048
0
0
Stall said:
Lukeje said:
I wasn't denying the conclusion, just pointing out that saying `3*0.(3)' is incredibly sloppy. And yes, it is better (though you should really link to the wiki article).
Are you implying that I don't understand what I just wrote out? I just looked at the wiki for the structure.
No, of course not. Sorry if that's what you thought I meant. It's just formatted better there.
 
Sep 3, 2011
44
0
0
Vanguard_Ex said:
TheNumber1Zero said:
Vanguard_Ex said:
HAHAHA that is golden! I think 0.999999999999 = 1 should be the forum meme.
Which naturally means it won't be.
Personally I find a different question gnawing at me now...

What does 0.999999999998 equal?
Well fine.

Oh, it equals 1. Seriously.
It equals nearly 1 with a slightly larger error than 0.9r=1
 

sky14kemea

Deus Ex-Mod
Jun 26, 2008
12,760
0
0
Merged this thread with another thread on the same subject. No point having two identical threads. >_>
 

Avaholic03

New member
May 11, 2009
1,520
0
0
Something to be proud of: ours was the only one on the list that didn't resort to calling someone Hitler. That's something right?
 

Vanguard_Ex

New member
Mar 19, 2008
4,687
0
0
SirFlamingLoboOfDoom said:
Vanguard_Ex said:
TheNumber1Zero said:
Vanguard_Ex said:
HAHAHA that is golden! I think 0.999999999999 = 1 should be the forum meme.
Which naturally means it won't be.
Personally I find a different question gnawing at me now...

What does 0.999999999998 equal?
Well fine.

Oh, it equals 1. Seriously.
It equals nearly 1 with a slightly larger error than 0.9r=1
Nah it definitely equals 1.