[QUOTE=_Axel;35328173]That's differential calculus. I have no idea what quadratic algebra is, though. In the French equivalent of 12th grade, we rarely talk about math types anyway. In my main math class we mainly do calculus, whereas in speciality math class we study arithmetic and very basic complex analysis.[/QUOTE]
Quadratic algebra is solving quadratic equations. (x + 1)(x – 3) = 0 for example.
Anyways, basic complex analysis is the biggest fucking oxymoron I've ever heard.
I didn't even notice :v: I say basic complex analysis because we actually only learn about transformations and composition of transformations.
[QUOTE=_Axel;35328273]I didn't even notice :v: I say basic complex analysis because we actually only learn about transformations and composition of transformations.[/QUOTE]
See? You're already way ahead of me.
I know about 3 words in math. Variable, operation, equation. Everything else seems like a foreign language to me. I'm going to be getting educated in math again soon, though. It's too fucking interesting not to learn.
[QUOTE=Zoran;35326402]We is first person plural. First person implies that I'm part of we. I never implied I was any better than anybody else.[/QUOTE]
Everyone, let's leave it at this, we don't want to derail a math thread with English and grammar.
Actually in programming, 0.99999... does not equal 1.0.
This is gay. could you discuss anything more meaningless?
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling" - JohnnyMo1))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Combin0wnage;35328822]Actually in programming, 0.99999... does not equal 1.0.[/QUOTE]
Uh, what?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;35327474]No dude, 0.9.. never equals 1 same way 0.0...1 never equals 0 because [B]infinitely small numbers exist.[/B] [/QUOTE]
No they don't.
There is no number between 0.9.. and 1
If there is, please name it.
[editline]28th March 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=VistaPOWA;35329048]Uh, what?[/QUOTE]
Most programming languages always round down I think.
[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;35329549]No they don't.
There is no number between 0.9.. and 1
If there is, please name it.
[/QUOTE]
It's called sarcasm.
Read my post again. Entire post.
[QUOTE=Combin0wnage;35328822]Actually in programming, 0.99999... does not equal 1.0.[/QUOTE]
In programming 0.9... can't exist.
Quick question seeing as this is Math Thread 2012
If 3/3 = 0.999999... then couldn't 6/3 = 1.999999999999...8?
Don't hurt me for asking this but I am just curious about that 8
[QUOTE=The freeman;35332174]Quick question seeing as this is Math Thread 2012
If 3/3 = 0.999999... then couldn't 6/3 = 1.999999999999...8?
Don't hurt me for asking this but I am just curious about that 8[/QUOTE]
There wont be any eight in the end because the number is infinite.
[QUOTE=Hakita;35332193]There wont be any eight in the end because the number is infinite.[/QUOTE]
So the 8 disappears because it is infinite?
Well the 8 would have to appear in the last digit of the decimal expansion but there is no last digit.
[QUOTE=_Axel;35328273]I didn't even notice :v: I say basic complex analysis because we actually only learn about transformations and composition of transformations.[/QUOTE]
Please, compress everything you've learned in one semester into 5000 words.
[QUOTE=Combin0wnage;35328822]Actually in programming, 0.99999... does not equal 1.0.[/QUOTE]
There's [I]no such thing[/I] as 0.9... in programming. You can't have repeating decimals (unless you have a special class to represent them as a rational number, which [i]would[/i] be stored as 1).
Okay.That's neat and all, but how does that change anything?
[QUOTE=Nikita;35334343]Okay.That's neat and all, but how does that change anything?[/QUOTE]
It's a problem that help clarify our whole construction of the real numbers which affects everything in mathematics and any field which uses it extensively.
[QUOTE=shill le 2nd;35333856]There's [I]no such thing[/I] as 0.9... in programming. You can't have repeating decimals (unless you have a special class to represent them as a rational number, which [i]would[/i] be stored as 1).[/QUOTE]
Well programming can extend to analog, (submarines at one time used a discrete/analog hybrid computer). So if stored a "perfect" 1/3 then converted that to a decminal representation then it would be .33... and combinding three decimal representations of these prefect fraction bits would be .99.... and combinding three of the stored fractions then converting it to decimal representation would be 1.
Also some calulators take .99... = 1 in consideration
On a side note when I was a little kid like 8 or 7, I thought .99.... =/= 1 and that the universe was slowly eating itself into nothing because of that.
[QUOTE=Krinkels;35332781]Please, compress everything you've learned in one semester into 5000 words.[/QUOTE]
ComplexAnalysis.RAR
[QUOTE=Ithon;35335034]Well programming can extend to analog, (submarines at one time used a discrete/analog hybrid computer). So if stored a "perfect" 1/3 then converted that to a decminal representation then it would be .33... [/QUOTE]
Analog is even worse at storing an exact number.
[QUOTE=Krinkels;35332781]Please, compress everything you've learned in one semester into 5000 words.[/QUOTE]
My complex lesson alone is over fifteen pages long :v:
This thread in a nutshell. :v:
It's an april fool joke by the way.
Well, she does say april fools in the end.
Heh I didn't even notice.
Regardless of the fact that it's an April fool's joke, she's right about the fact that the common algebraic proofs are generally bad.
why does this thread still exist
Wow how did a 7th grade pre-algebra proof make 9 pages?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;35403145]why does this thread still exist[/QUOTE]
because you like rainbows
[editline]2nd April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=I Am A Rock;35404750]Wow how did a 7th grade pre-algebra proof make 9 pages?[/QUOTE]
7th graders think it's wrong because they have misconceptions about the nature of infinity, limits, convergence, the real number system and repeating decimal expansions.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
