[QUOTE=Super_Noodle;35313689]I've seen some of this chick's videos before, mostly math nerd stuff. She's got one video on how Pi is bullshit and etc.
It's going to be a lot harder to pass herself off as a math nerd when she's making simple high-school level algebraic mistakes like the ones in this video.[/QUOTE]
You realize who Vihart is?
[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;35316439]I don't think half the people in the thread have watched the video.
There's nothing between 0.999.. and 1.
There is no argument to be made here.[/QUOTE]
I watched the video, and it's a total crock of shit.
1 - 0.9999.... is a value that infinitely approaches 0 but isn't 0 (though we don't really have a way to represent this number, it doesn't mean it is synonymous with anther number). It's just as vague and intangible as 0.9999.... or any repeating number is.
This whole thing is just that 2 = 3 copypasta dressed up to not look so absolutely fucking stupid.
[QUOTE=VistaPOWA;35316495]You realize who Vihart is?[/QUOTE]
Not really, I'm assuming that's the chick making the videos.
Regardless, I don't care how many qualifications she has that I know you're itching to tell me about, if she's making simple mathematical mistakes and making bold claims based on those mistakes, she's spurting bullshit - no ifs, ands, or buts.
[QUOTE=Super_Noodle;35316590]I watched the video, and it's a total crock of shit.
1 - 0.9999.... is a value that infinitely approaches 0 but isn't 0 (though we don't really have a way to represent this number, it doesn't mean it is synonymous with anther number). It's just as vague and intangible as 0.9999.... or any repeating number is.
This whole thing is just that 2 = 3 copypasta dressed up to not look so absolutely fucking stupid.
Not really, I'm assuming that's the chick making the videos.
Regardless, I don't care how many qualifications she has that I know you're itching to tell me about, if she's making simple mathematical mistakes and making bold claims based on those mistakes, she's spurting bullshit - no ifs, ands, or buts.[/QUOTE]
You do realize this result (or what lead to this result) has been tested and accepted by some 300 years of mathematicians, right?
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;35316658]You do realize this result (or what lead to this result) has been tested and accepted by some 300 years of mathematicians, right?[/QUOTE]
I don't see how. Like I said, mathematically 1 - 0.999999.... is a mindfuck value that approaches 0 infinitely, whereas 0.999.. itself is a number that approaches 1 infinitely. It's similar to those exponential curves that approach infinity indefinitely.
In everyday logic, I could see how someone could consider 0.999.... to be 1, it just makes shit easier and in real life you very rarely deal with situations that use such a number.
I've just written a proof to show that you're wrong.
Excuse my shitty mouse drawing skills, but you get the idea.
[img]http://localhostr.com/files/yDNkmS7/precalcmotherfucker.png[/img]
[editline]27th March 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Super_Noodle;35316697]I don't see how. Like I said, mathematically 1 - 0.999999.... is a mindfuck value that approaches 0 infinitely, whereas 0.999.. itself is a number that approaches 1 infinitely. It's similar to those exponential curves that approach infinity indefinitely.
In everyday logic, I could see how someone could consider 0.999.... to be 1, it just makes shit easier and in real life you very rarely deal with situations that use such a number.[/QUOTE]
Just because you don't understand "mindfuck values", that doesn't mean they are wrong.
to be honest,I DONT GIVE A SHIT!
[QUOTE=Super_Noodle;35316697]I don't see how. Like I said, mathematically 1 - 0.999999.... is a mindfuck value that approaches 0 infinitely, whereas 0.999.. itself is a number that approaches 1 infinitely. It's similar to those exponential curves that approach infinity indefinitely.
In everyday logic, I could see how someone could consider 0.999.... to be 1, it just makes shit easier and in real life you very rarely deal with situations that use such a number.[/QUOTE]
It's really amusing seeing how certain you are about this. Who are you to decide wether mathematical definitions are redundant or not?
How the hell can a thread like this go for 7 pages ? It is mathematically proven. How the hell can one complain ?
[QUOTE=_Axel;35316805]How the hell can a thread like this go for 7 pages ? It is mathematically proven. How the hell can one complain ?[/QUOTE]
Like Super_Noodle, take a look a few posts above.
[QUOTE=Super_Noodle;35316697]I don't see how. Like I said, mathematically 1 - 0.999999.... is a mindfuck value that approaches 0 infinitely, whereas 0.999.. itself is a number that approaches 1 infinitely. It's similar to those exponential curves that approach infinity indefinitely.
In everyday logic, I could see how someone could consider 0.999.... to be 1, it just makes shit easier and in real life you very rarely deal with situations that use such a number.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand it either, but I sure as fuck am not going to contradict Euler and Gauss and Laplace and all those other motherfuckers like that.
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;35314600]Well, yeah, but I was using that example as to why 1/infinity couldn't possibly be 0. :v: Why are they different?
Also, a second question that sounds really dumb in my head. If there are no numbers infinitely close but not equal to a certain number, why do they stop being non-equal? I mean, if when the distance between the two numbers is infinitely small, they are equal, then the numbers stop being non-equal when the distance reaches an infinitesimal. Which happens after the distance is infinitesimal itself.[/QUOTE]
Stop using infinitesimals they are baaaad
[editline]27th March 2012[/editline]
Outside of geometric applications, thinking in terms of infinitesimals generally leads to really imprecise formulations of your mathematical thoughts.
[editline]27th March 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Super_Noodle;35316590]I watched the video, and it's a total crock of shit.
1 - 0.9999.... is a value that infinitely approaches 0 but isn't 0 (though we don't really have a way to represent this number, it doesn't mean it is synonymous with anther number). It's just as vague and intangible as 0.9999.... or any repeating number is.
This whole thing is just that 2 = 3 copypasta dressed up to not look so absolutely fucking stupid.[/QUOTE]
I hate to break this to you but she is right. Do you need me to type a proof up for you?
As far as I know, you shouldn't use infinitesimals outside of limits anyway. The simple fact of adding or dividing using infinite numbers makes no sense.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;35317077]I hate to break this to you but she is right. Do you need me to type a proof up for you?[/QUOTE]
Well, Wikipedia says I'm wrong, so I suppose you ought to as I'm none the wiser about this.
...now that I think about it though, if 0.999.... is 1, why are we arguing over this so much? I mean, everyone is saying they're the different symbols for the same thing, so in theory I guess that means that "0.9999...." is a vague and useless symbol replaceable by the more easily recognized and more easily written "1".
I always found this rather interesting (because I'm terrible at maths), one thing that always made me disbelieve it was that 0,999... would behave like the [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero[/URL], infinitely nearing 1 but never reaching it :v:
it doesn't work the same way though
[QUOTE=Super_Noodle;35316697]I don't see how.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/0.999_1_.jpg[/img]
[B]PLEASE, TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THE PROOF ON THE RIGHT.[/B] Don't tell me "IT'S NOT LOGICAL" or "IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE". Tell me what is mathematically wrong with the proof given to the right. Tell me what illegal operation was supposedly given here that disproves this equation, please.
Because until you do, all of your bullshit is null and void.
[QUOTE=Super_Noodle;35317223]...now that I think about it though, if 0.999.... is 1, why are we arguing over this so much? [/QUOTE]
Because there is a lot of people who don't understand basic math but they think they are eligible to argue about advanced math problems. That's where the entire argument comes from. People arguing about things they don't fully understand.
[QUOTE=_Axel;35317179]As far as I know, you shouldn't use infinitesimals outside of limits anyway. The simple fact of adding or dividing using infinite numbers makes no sense.[/QUOTE]
Infinitesimals don't even show up in limits if your're actually using them correctly. The way you learn about limits in early calculus are really just the intuitive understanding of a limit and not the full story.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(%CE%B5,_%CE%B4)-definition_of_limit[/url]
[QUOTE=Super_Noodle;35317223]Well, Wikipedia says I'm wrong, so I suppose you ought to as I'm none the wiser about this.
...now that I think about it though, if 0.999.... is 1, why are we arguing over this so much? I mean, everyone is saying they're the different symbols for the same thing, so in theory I guess that means that "0.9999...." is a vague and useless symbol replaceable by the more easily recognized and more easily written "1".[/QUOTE]
The notation 0.999... isn't vague at all. It's your misunderstandings of how the real number system works that cause issues. And we argue because, as you may have noticed, people have strong opinions on the matter and like to insist things which are not true.
I'll get typing up that proof. Should be pretty easy to follow.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;35317758]Because there is a lot of people who don't understand basic math but they think they are eligible to argue about advanced math problems. That's where the entire argument comes from. People arguing about things they don't fully understand.[/QUOTE]
Nobody was arguing till some math nerd decided to point it out.
I went through the maths of it all...
x = 0.999
10x = 9.999
10x - x = 9.999 - 0.999
This is where I got confused. Where did this subtraction come from? I can make 4.5 = 4 by subtracting .5 - that doesn't make them equal...
[QUOTE=David29;35318055]I went through the maths of it all...
x = 0.999
10x = 9.999
10x - x = 9.999 - 0.999
This is where I got confused. Where did this subtraction come from? I can make 4.5 = 4 by subtracting .5 - that doesn't make them equal...[/QUOTE]
They subtracted x from both sides, x is also equal to 0.9...
[QUOTE=David29;35318055]I went through the maths of it all...
x = 0.999
10x = 9.999
10x - x = 9.999 - 0.999
This is where I got confused. Where did this subtraction come from? I can make 4.5 = 4 by subtracting .5 - that doesn't make them equal...[/QUOTE]
You have x = 0.999...
10x = 9.999...
so 9x = 9
divide both sides by nine and you get
x = 1
[QUOTE=Bradyns;35292301]0.333..... is the decimal representation of the fraction (1/3).
It's the same thing.[/QUOTE]
0.3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 repeating.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;35317913]Infinitesimals don't even show up in limits if your're actually using them correctly. The way you learn about limits in early calculus are really just the intuitive understanding of a limit and not the full story.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(%CE%B5,_%CE%B4)-definition_of_limit[/url][/QUOTE]
My bad, I misinterpreted infinitesimals as infinite limits. I actually learned this definition earlier in 12th grade :v:
[QUOTE=Super_Noodle;35317919]Nobody was arguing till some math nerd decided to point it out.[/QUOTE]
Yeah dude totally. And fuck all those nerd scientists too, figuring out new shit, presenting it and confusing me. Nerd assholes. Can't they just fuck off and let me be an ignorant retard who thinks he knows everything but in reality I don't understand the basics.
GOD FUCKING FORBID SOMEONE WOULD TRY TO TEACH YOU SOMETHING AND MAKE YOU SMARTER
Okay, then let me ask you a question. if I use induction I can say that, for 1/n, for n = 1, the distance from the function to the asymotote is non-zero. I can also say that for 1/(n+1), the distance is also non-zero. I multiply each side by n, and divide it by 1/(n+1), which leaves a x n/(n+1), a =|= 0. So, shouldn't I be able to say that it never reaches 0? But then again I) can say the limit of n isn't infinity, so clearly I'm wrong. but why?
So you prove by induction that 1/n =/= 0 for all IN*, but I don't get what you're trying to do after that ?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;35317758]Because there is a lot of people who don't understand basic math but they think they are eligible to argue about advanced math problems. That's where the entire argument comes from. People arguing about things they don't fully understand.[/QUOTE]
I honestly don't blame them. Math [I]is[/I] pretty weird sometimes. Irrational numbers still confuse me pretty bad, although I've learned to work through in order to use the numbers.
You guys just gotta trust that if we aren't actually making any mathematical mistakes with our proofs, that it is correct.
[QUOTE=_Axel;35319656]So you prove by induction that 1/n =/= 0 for all IN*, but I don't get what you're trying to do after that ?[/QUOTE]
I'm asking why I can't extend that to infinity as well, not just the naturals. I mean n can tend to infinity.
[editline]27th March 2012[/editline]
is it because I can't reach a stage where infinity comes from n + 1? It doesn't seem very solid
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;35314600]Well, yeah, but I was using that example as to why 1/infinity couldn't possibly be 0. :v: Why are they different?
Also, a second question that sounds really dumb in my head. If there are no numbers infinitely close but not equal to a certain number, why do they stop being non-equal? I mean, if when the distance between the two numbers is infinitely small, they are equal, then the numbers stop being non-equal when the distance reaches an infinitesimal. Which happens after the distance is infinitesimal itself.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you mean by "why are they different?". Dividing by infinity makes as much sense as dividing by apple, as neither are numbers. It's not uncommon to adjoin [i]a point called[/i] infinity to the set you're working with to get something called its one-point compactification (i.e. turning an infinite line into a circle), but then you have to [i]define[/i] how other numbers interact with infinity, so you simply make the definitions infinity + 1 = infinity, and 1/infinity = 0 etc.
For your second question, given any number, there are numbers [I]as close to that number as you want them to be[/I], but that distance is still DEFINABLE. There's no such thing as "infinitely small", or infinitesimal distances.
This is the point: Consider the sequence of numbers {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999, ... }
Now give me a distance from 1. [i]No matter how small you define that distance to be[/i], if I go far enough out in that sequence, I can find a value 0.999...9 (with enough 9's) so that my value is [i]closer[/i] to 1 than the distance you gave. If a sequence has that property, we say that it [i]converges[/i] to 1, or that the limit of the sequence is 1.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;35293230]I'm sorry, how is this a flaw?
He declared an equation, then all he did was perform completely legal mathematical operations on it.[/QUOTE]
x = .999
12x = 11.988
12x - x = 11.988 - x
11x = 10.989
x = .999
Do I win?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
