[QUOTE=Neolk;17133468]No, it doesn't. .999 recurrcing = .999 recurring. We just accept it to equal one. Does .11111 recurring equal .2?
[editline]12:48AM[/editline]
Im saying I believe it to be so. Nothing is absolute, but I can have beliefs.[/QUOTE]
no, but 1.19999999999 should be unless i'm way off. Did you flunk math 11?
[QUOTE=Lankist;17133480]Your beliefs mean nothing if there are no absolutes.[/QUOTE]
Just because the answer isn't in clear cut daylight doesn't mean what I say doesn't matter. It matters to me and is correct to me, though in the grand scheme it is wrong.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17133483]No, .999 recurring is equal to one. Want the proof?[/QUOTE]
It wouldn't matter because he would deny it under the pretense that there is no objectivity and that there is such a thing as mathematical opinion.
[QUOTE=Neolk;17133468]No, it doesn't. .999 recurrcing = .999 recurring. We just accept it to equal one. Does .11111 recurring equal .2?
[editline]12:48AM[/editline]
Im saying I believe it to be so. Nothing is absolute, but I can have beliefs.[/QUOTE]
Your beliefs do not render things so. Saying Nothing is Absolute is an absolute. Stop the contradictions.
[QUOTE=Neolk;17133495]Just because the answer isn't in clear cut daylight doesn't mean what I say doesn't matter. It matters to me and is correct to me, though in the grand scheme it is wrong.[/QUOTE]
Then it is not correct to you.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17133483]No, .999 recurring is equal to one. Want the proof?[/QUOTE]
Please, it is too late for academic algebra.
You do not believe in your beliefs if you do not believe they are right.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17133483]No, .999 recurring is equal to one. Want the proof?[/QUOTE]
Sure.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17133497]It wouldn't matter because he would deny it under the pretense that there is no objectivity and that there is such a thing as mathematical opinion.[/QUOTE]
Dammit I really want to post the proof to flex my goddamn math muscles.
[QUOTE=Neolk;17133516]Sure.[/QUOTE]
Yay. Typing it up.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17133520]Dammit I really want to post the proof to flex my goddamn math muscles.[/QUOTE]
do it
[QUOTE=thisispain;17133521][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999[/url]...[/QUOTE]
No fuck you I'm doing this bastard
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17133520]Dammit I really want to post the proof to flex my goddamn math muscles.[/QUOTE]
Fine.
But only if you also explain the morbias strip.
[editline]10:52PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17133526]No fuck you I'm doing this bastard[/QUOTE]
fine
[QUOTE=thisispain;17133521][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999[/url]...[/QUOTE]
I'll wait for mathlete.
[QUOTE=Neolk;17133387]Good point outta left wing.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean? That I am left wing becuase the awnser to that Is no way.
[QUOTE=thisispain;17133534]Fine.
But only if you also explain the morbias strip.
[editline]10:52PM[/editline]
fine[/QUOTE]
I think the mobias strip would make his head explode.
i like morbias better
reminds me of a UT99 map
.999 can be expressed as the sum of this infinite series:
[IMG]http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x309/JohnnyMo1/Capture-27.png[/IMG]
which is essentially .9 + .09 + .009 + .0009... ad infinitum. Anyone with an understanding of infinite series can now see that this is equivalent to one because the sum of an infinite series is equal to the limit of the sequence of the series' partial sums, which in this case are .9, .99, .999, .9999... (approaching 1), but if you need further proof, the series is a geometric series. The sum of a geometric series is given by: s = a/(1-r) where a is the first term in the series and r is the common ratio, which is 1/10 in this case.
s = (9/10)/(1 - (1/10))
s = (9/10)/(9/10)
s = 1
Yes, motherfucker
[QUOTE=Lankist;17133565]I think the mobias strip would make his head explode.[/QUOTE]
He'd just deny it anyways.
I don't even understand that because I am a lawyer in a law thread.
oh damn
geometric series for the win
There goes my mathematical self-indulgence for the night.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17133588]I don't even understand that because I am a lawyer in a law thread.[/QUOTE]
well it's proof that 0.9999 is 1 which means it's evidence against him
and i'm the judge and i say guilty, defendant is sentenced to ass-rape prison
[QUOTE=thisispain;17133600]well it's proof that 0.9999 is 1 which means it's evidence against him
and i'm the judge and i say guilty, defendant is sentenced to ass-rape prison[/QUOTE]
Not the federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison!
It's only ass rape if you believe it's ass rape
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17133577].999 can be expressed as the sum of this infinite series:
[IMG]http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x309/JohnnyMo1/Capture-27.png[/IMG]
which is essentially .9 + .09 + .009 + .0009... ad infinitum. Anyone with an understanding of infinite series can now see that this is equivalent to one because the sum of an infinite series is equal to the limit of the sequence of the series' partial sums, which in this case are .9, .99, .999, .9999... (approaching 1), but if you need further proof, the series is a geometric series. The sum of a geometric series is given by: s = a/(1-r) where a is the first term in the series and r is the common ratio, which is 1/10 in this case.
s = (9/10)/(1 - (1/10))
s = (9/10)/(9/10)
s = 1
Yes, motherfucker[/QUOTE]
You allow 9 to not be a whole number, aka: if n= 1.34251 you get a real fucked up number that isn't .9 repeated.
Besides, it shouldn't even require math. Looking at it, .9 just isn't 1. Or shouldn't be.
[QUOTE=Neolk;17133313]Doesn't mean it is the right conclusion
And we need to analyze morality before we can analyze laws, because morality plays a big deal in the formation of laws.[/QUOTE]
God you're stupid. Are you sure your mother didn't just shove a rock up her vagina and give it a name?
[QUOTE=Neolk;17133654]You allow 9 to not be a whole number, aka: if n= 1.34251 you get a real fucked up number that isn't .9 repeated.[/QUOTE]
You can't even let n = 1.34251. You can't start with a non-integer term.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17133678]You can't even let n = 1.34251. You can't start with a non-integer term.[/QUOTE]
Why not? You sigma 1=infinity. 1.34251 is in there.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
