Oh thank god.popa_qwerty said:
Having read through a good majority of this thread, it becomes REALLY hard to tell which posts are jokes. Still, I give it a 10 for brilliant trolling.
Poll: 0.999... = 1
- Thread starter quhouv vhqwiufv qwiu
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Having read through a good majority of this thread, it becomes REALLY hard to tell which posts are jokes. Still, I give it a 10 for brilliant trolling.
And yet we have imaginary numbers, we have pi. These aren't real, they aren't there, and yet we accept that they exist, that we can use them, and that they are true.emeraldrafael said:
and this world of empty space is nothing but what we conseve it to beGlademaster said:I hate this theorem worse than the making 2=1 through dividing by 0.havass said:
OT: Yes technically speaking in maths 0.9999... is equal to one. For more counterintelligence ideas. Since every atom is mostly empty space me, you, your family, the walls around you and everything you have ever known is mostly empty space. Thus everything ever is a waste of space.
ps pardon my bad English
ummm... that's not what I meant. the difference between you and you losing a strand of hair is so small that it pretty much does not exist. you are (1 whole) - (1 strand of hair). The strand of hair is small enough to not make a difference. You are still 1 whole.emeraldrafael said:
in the example you make, the germ is the 1 whole, therefore it (no matter how small) exists.
Simple reason to ignore the "proofs" for 0.9999 to equal 1 is this:
The definition of "infinity".
When i to any halfway sane person say "0. and then add an infinite amount of 9's" then by golly, all that will follow WILL be 9's. Infinite times 9 means infinite times 9. Any PHD that claims otherwise can go fuck themselves and die in a corner, for abusing authority to claim that a tautology is false.
How they are "proving" that 0.999... is equal to 1, is be REDEFINING infinity and the rules to handle it. In other words, they keep the words, but change the meaning. That is called cheating.
With this, i do not mean to say that there is no reason for changing the meanings. There may well be - but if you change the meaning, then please also change the words, because else you're quite simply deceiving people.
If for example we hypothetically were to define "@n" to mean "as close as possible to n", then 0.9 associated with the operator @1 would indeed mean "well, here we have 0.9, make that as close as possible to 1", and obviously, the ideal return value would indeed be 1. Which is quite different to saying "infinite times 9". There are other ways to achieve it. I dont care which one they use, its all fine by me, as long as what the symbols mean equals how they are used.
Or we could go the metaphysics route, by questioning if a value can even be infinitely precise, and if there always for practical reasons will be some inaccuracy. That too is okay by me.
But FFS, do not say "infinite times 9", and then do something else.
The definition of "infinity".
When i to any halfway sane person say "0. and then add an infinite amount of 9's" then by golly, all that will follow WILL be 9's. Infinite times 9 means infinite times 9. Any PHD that claims otherwise can go fuck themselves and die in a corner, for abusing authority to claim that a tautology is false.
How they are "proving" that 0.999... is equal to 1, is be REDEFINING infinity and the rules to handle it. In other words, they keep the words, but change the meaning. That is called cheating.
With this, i do not mean to say that there is no reason for changing the meanings. There may well be - but if you change the meaning, then please also change the words, because else you're quite simply deceiving people.
If for example we hypothetically were to define "@n" to mean "as close as possible to n", then 0.9 associated with the operator @1 would indeed mean "well, here we have 0.9, make that as close as possible to 1", and obviously, the ideal return value would indeed be 1. Which is quite different to saying "infinite times 9". There are other ways to achieve it. I dont care which one they use, its all fine by me, as long as what the symbols mean equals how they are used.
Or we could go the metaphysics route, by questioning if a value can even be infinitely precise, and if there always for practical reasons will be some inaccuracy. That too is okay by me.
But FFS, do not say "infinite times 9", and then do something else.
I suppose it's true that the terminology could be confusing people, because if there's nothing but nines, how can it be one?Lyx said:
That doesn't change the fact that an infinite amount of nines means the distance between it and one is infinitely small, which makes them the same number.
Regardless, I've been at this for four hours, and by golly, I'm going to bed!
FYI pi is a real number pi is the ratio of the circumference to the radius of the same circleRabid Toilet said:
imaginary numbers are negative square root and do not cross the x intercept i think
Sorry I didn't format it very well :|. I think another member translated it into words earlier.stinkychops said:Is that inductive proof? I'm having trouble with the formatting.BlacklightVirus said:
Regardless this is a well accepted fact and I disagree with the notion that it is counter-intuitive. It simply demonstrates the issues infinity proposes. There have been many threads on this topic, all of which continued on for many many pages where people repeated the same questions and answers. Have fun
Dammit, alright fine, I'll do one more post, but then I'm going to bed!popa_qwerty said:
Pi is an irrational number, in that it can't be expressed as a fraction. Thus, you can't have pi apples, it's not physically possible. Just like you can't have an infinite number of nines after the decimal place.
Imaginary numbers do not exist, because they do not appear on the number line. Thus, you can't have the square root of -1 apples. Just like you can't have an infinite number of nines after the decimal place.
And yet we accept that these things are real, and we use them as though they are true. That's the comparison I was making.
Now seriously, stop quoting me, I'm leaving.
In that case, i rather trust my "intuitive definition", which is based on actual observation what happens and logical considerations about what our minds CAN mean by saying "infinity", rather than some invented claims without proof (unless one considers an axiom a proof - i don't, and never will).Lukeje said:
I have observed what happens when the concept of infinity is appliedLukeje said:
And that is plain repetition. The "program" doesn't even contain the "instruction" to make the leap which you'd like it to make. Which is why infinity cannot exist - it doesn't ever make any final statement... it just repeats without ever "returning".
But we're talking about the same infinity. We're ALL talking about .999 followed by an infinite number of nines. Some of the proofs require that you correctly extrapolate from that same concept of infinity, but that's not the same as saying that there are different concepts of infinity at work. We have the same basic concept of infinity, many people are just wrong about the ramifications of that concept. It's like asking someone to multiply humongous numbers in their head: there's a very good chance they'll get the wrong answer, but that's not because they're using a different multiplication, they're just making an error in a very difficult computation. Extrapolating from a basic idea of infinity is a very, very difficult computation.Lyx said:
The biggest problem though is that you're trying to characterise .999... as a process: give me the closest number that's less than one, but isn't one.
.999... is a number, not a process. It is, in fact, a number that is equal in value to 1. If you still don't want to believe that a number can have two representations, you should take a look at the link I posted earlier showing independent reasoning about why a number system often assigns two representations to the same real number.
Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.999...#Impossibility_of_unique_representation
There are also some problems with your conception of tautology. I cannot for the life of me think of the name of the problem, but the canonical example has to do with the sentence "The Morningstar is the Eveningstar." The example is from Wittgenstein if I remember correctly. If anyone can think of the name, that might be helpful.
Edit: People saying that your intuitive idea of infinity is wrong are...wrong. Your intuitive idea of infinity is the only idea of infinity that exists. The theory of mathematics you have built is, however, flawed in the ways it EXTRAPOLATES from the basic concept you share with virtually everyone. You can pretty handily show that the theory you form from those extrapolations it isn't internally consistent and that the theory used in mathematics is essentially the only logical extension of your basic intuition.
Dont mock these people, this proof is correct. Let me write it differently for you.Sturmdolch said:
EDIT: I see what you did there... your saying x = 1 because 0.999 rec = 1. So 9x SHOULD be 8.999
1/3 = 0.333 recurring. times 0.33 recurring by three. You know have 0.9999 recurring logically. However you have 3/3 if written as a fraction. This shows that 3/3 = 0.999 recuring AND 3/3 also = 1. Therefor 0.999 reccuring must also = 1.
No infinites there, just fractions of an irational nature. These are logical. These work. You cannot tell me that 3/3 does not = 1 but that 1/3 = 0.33333 recuring. These are both true. Leading to the logical conclusion that 0.99999 recurring = 1.
Im sorry did you just say infinite minus 1... Do you have any idea how the infinite works?! Its a concept not a number. You cannot have one less infinite value... that doesnt make any sense. Infinite cannot be edited by any normal functions of math, it is INFINITE nothing you do can make it larger or smaller because it is already of infinite size. Anything smaller than the infinite ISNT the infinite. I think you know what youre talking about but you worded it wrong. Sorry if thats the case, it just reminded me of idiot class mates asking about infinity and going:Biosophilogical said:
"Is infinity plus 1 larger than infinity?"
This irks me.
@Jaime
I disagree. .999... is a process, not a number. I have never seen anything else, and i cannot even MEAN anything else... this is not just a matter of "imagination".... the value which you claim infinity is, is not constructable in our minds. It also isn't constructable in a machine. In fact, it NOWHERE is constructable.
It does not exist. All that exists is a looped process.
I disagree. .999... is a process, not a number. I have never seen anything else, and i cannot even MEAN anything else... this is not just a matter of "imagination".... the value which you claim infinity is, is not constructable in our minds. It also isn't constructable in a machine. In fact, it NOWHERE is constructable.
It does not exist. All that exists is a looped process.
