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.
Also... Haha math-tard.
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.Vanguard_Ex said:It begins.
So that's how that happened.Stall said:Note that 1/3 = .3 repeatingSirFlamingLoboOfDoom said:HOW THE HELL IS THAT EVEN A QUESTION???? Thats like saying 0.11111111 repeated is bigger than 0.2
OMG?!?!?sjsdashsiahdajsdjdas
3*(1/3) = .9 repeating
But 3*(1/3) = 1
Thus, by transitivity, we have .9 repeating = 1
It actually isn't, but I will happily show you another proof.Lukeje said:It's a misleading and broken proof.
HAHAHA that is golden! I think 0.999999999999 = 1 should be the forum meme.TheNumber1Zero said: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.Vanguard_Ex said:It begins.
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]
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).Stall said:It actually isn't, but I will happily show you another proof.Lukeje said:It's a misleading and broken proof.
Yes. This infinitely small amount is an `infinitesimal'. We define them to be equal to zero.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?
Which naturally means it won't be.Vanguard_Ex said:HAHAHA that is golden! I think 0.999999999999 = 1 should be the forum meme.
Well that's an exaggeration. Maybe 50 percent, but not nearly everything.Lukeje said:I think the implication was that the articles on Cracked are always lies, or something. Maybe.ZeroMachine said:I honestly have no clue what you mean.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?
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.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).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfinitesimalLukeje said:Yes. This infinitely small amount is an `infinitesimal'. We define them to be equal to zero.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?
[sub]Also, this is going to snowball out of control very soon...[/sub]
Well fine.TheNumber1Zero said:Which naturally means it won't be.Vanguard_Ex said:HAHAHA that is golden! I think 0.999999999999 = 1 should be the forum meme.
Personally I find a different question gnawing at me now...
What does 0.999999999998 equal?
No, of course not. Sorry if that's what you thought I meant. It's just formatted better there.Stall said:Are you implying that I don't understand what I just wrote out? I just looked at the wiki for the structure.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).
It equals nearly 1 with a slightly larger error than 0.9r=1Vanguard_Ex said:Well fine.TheNumber1Zero said:Which naturally means it won't be.Vanguard_Ex said:HAHAHA that is golden! I think 0.999999999999 = 1 should be the forum meme.
Personally I find a different question gnawing at me now...
What does 0.999999999998 equal?
Oh, it equals 1. Seriously.
Nah it definitely equals 1.SirFlamingLoboOfDoom said:It equals nearly 1 with a slightly larger error than 0.9r=1Vanguard_Ex said:Well fine.TheNumber1Zero said:Which naturally means it won't be.Vanguard_Ex said:HAHAHA that is golden! I think 0.999999999999 = 1 should be the forum meme.
Personally I find a different question gnawing at me now...
What does 0.999999999998 equal?
Oh, it equals 1. Seriously.
Vanguard_Ex said:Oh, it equals 1. Seriously.
Agree to disagree?SirFlamingLoboOfDoom said:It equals nearly 1 with a slightly larger error than 0.9r=1