[QUOTE=Phantasy;35310379]The goddamn thing is though, I see you're point, but .9 repeating is definitively equal to .9 repeating, not one. It's common sense.[/QUOTE]
How is this thread six pages long? Why can't you people understand this is a mathematical fact? You're thinking of numbers too literally. A number is a symbol [b]representing[/b] a value. To post this for the [i]third[/i] time:
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;35298915][t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/0.999_1_.jpg[/t]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...#Algebraic_proofs[/url]
[b]Infinity does not exist in this context.[/b] If it is infinitely close to one, then it is one. This is not a hiccup in the law of mathematics, it's just how our numerical system works. Refer back to this post:
[QUOTE=calzoneman;35298730]Central to understanding the problem is understanding the concept that written numbers are just symbols that represent a value. Since 0.999... is written differently than 1, most people assume that they are not equal. However, although they are represented differently, they are equivalent to the same value, in the same way that 3/4 and 0.75 represent the same value. [b]It's an issue of notation, not of approximation.[/b][/quote][/quote]
[b]You can have two symbols represent the same value.[/b] Just because they look different, does not mean they [i]are[/i] different. Stop closing your minds you morons.
[QUOTE=JoshJosh117;35310951]fukken close this shit already[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;35310981][b]You can have two symbols represent the same value.[/b] Just because they look different, does not mean they [i]are[/i] different. Stop closing your minds you morons.[/QUOTE]
No! That's heresy. Clearly 2/3 and 4/6 are not the same value!
[QUOTE=woolio1;35309702]That actually was meant to be a joke.
I guess not everyone has a sense of humor.[/QUOTE]
it didn't really look like a joke at all
[QUOTE=Phantasy;35309960]How fucking stupid would you have to be to seriously think 0.9 repeating is 1? for fucks sakes[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Phantasy;35310379]The goddamn thing is though, I see you're point, but .9 repeating is definitively equal to .9 repeating, not one. It's common sense.[/QUOTE]
seriously how dumb of a post can you get
[QUOTE=shill le 2nd;35304589]0.111... = 1/9
0.222... = 2/9
0.333... = 3/9
0.444... = 4/9
0.555... = 5/9
0.666... = 6/9
0.777... = 7/9
0.888... = 8/9
0.999... = 9/9 = 1 end of thread[/QUOTE]
this post should be good enough
it's basically 0.999... = 9/9 because 9/9 is one whole, which makes it [B]1[/B]
i'm too old for this shit
0.9... doesn't equals 1 you fools get real!
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;35301162] You can't be infinitely close to something and not be there.[/QUOTE]
Asymptotes.
[QUOTE=Dwinnon;35311884]Asymptotes.[/QUOTE]
But a function is never "infinitely close" to its asymptote. They go to the value they approach in the limit, and for any finite value of the domain they are a finite distance from the asymptote.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;35312089]But a function is never "infinitely close" to its asymptote. They go to the value they approach in the limit, and [B]for any finite value of the domain[/B] they are a finite distance from the asymptote.[/QUOTE]
In other words for [I]every[/I] possible value in the domain, there is a definable difference between the function value and the asymptote. :)
[QUOTE=shill le 2nd;35304589]0.111... = 1/9 0.222... = 2/9 0.333... = 3/9 0.444... = 4/9 0.555... = 5/9 0.666... = 6/9 0.777... = 7/9 0.888... = 8/9 0.999... = 9/9 = 1 end of thread[/QUOTE]0.111... = 1/3 ; 0.222... = 1/2 ; 0.333... = 3/3 = 1; 0.333... = 1 I hope this thread is closed sooo...
[QUOTE=Kaelazun;35313319]0.111... = 1/3 ; 0.222... = 1/2 ; 0.333... = 3/3 = 1; 0.333... = 1 I hope this thread is closed sooo...[/QUOTE]
What?
0.111... =/= 1/3.
[QUOTE=Paramud;35313403]Fuck it, I'm converting to base nine.[/QUOTE]
In which case wont you be confused by 1/2 = 0.4444... instead?
[QUOTE=Kaelazun;35313445]Why not? 0.333.../0.333... Isn't 1 now?[/QUOTE]
Yes, but 0.111... still does not equal 1/3.
[QUOTE=krail9;35313447]In which case wont you be confused by 1/2 = 0.4444... instead?[/QUOTE]
0.499999... *
[editline]FUCK DAMMIT JOHNNYMO1[/editline]
Why hasn't this thread been closed already?
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;35313460]Yes, but 0.111... still does not equal 1/3.[/QUOTE] So 0.333... is not 3/9 now? I thought you supported that.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;35313460]0.499999... *[/QUOTE]
There's no nines in base nine correct?
[QUOTE=Kaelazun;35313582]So 0.333... is not 3/9 now? I thought you supported that.[/QUOTE]
I can't work out whether this is a terrible trolling attempt or if you actually lack basic arithmetic skills.
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.
I really think it's about time we lock this thread.
[QUOTE=sami-pso;35308256]Yes and you lose 0.1 making it impossible for it to be 1 again.[/QUOTE]
It's a fucking equation. Nothing is gained or lost. You failed math.
[editline]27th March 2012[/editline]
Christ. ITT kids who failed math apply "common sense" or "logic" to something they don't understand.
[QUOTE=Kaelazun;35313582]So 0.333... is not 3/9 now? I thought you supported that.[/QUOTE]
Hey bud, I'll give you a tip on math.
1/3, 1/6, 1/7. These are all fractions, right? You see the number on the left? That's called the [I]numerator[/I]. The number on the right is called the [I]denominator[/I].
As the [I]numerator[/I] gets bigger, the size of the number increases. However, as the [I]denominator[/I] increases, the size of the number gets smaller.
You appear to be doing it backwards.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35314072]Hey bud, I'll give you a tip on math.
1/3, 1/6, 1/7. These are all fractions, right? You see the number on the left? That's called the [I]numerator[/I]. The number on the right is called the [I]denominator[/I].
As the [I]numerator[/I] gets bigger, the size of the number increases. However, as the [I]denominator[/I] increases, the size of the number gets smaller.
You appear to be doing it backwards.[/QUOTE]
He had 0.3...=3/9 and he divided everything by 3. [I]Everything[/I].
kaelazun
3/9 = 1/3 you can multiply or divide both numerator and denominator by whatever you want and it will be the same. However if you have an equation and you divide both sides of the equation you get 1/3/3 or 3/9/3 which is gonna be 1/9 or 3/27. Which is the same thing. Just like 1/2 and 2/4 is.
ITS BASIC FUCKING MATH THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING TRYING TO DISPROVE ADVANCED SHIT
/rage
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;35314086]He had 0.3...=3/9 and he divided everything by 3. [I]Everything[/I].[/QUOTE]
what the fuck's a reciprocal fuck math its to hard but 0.99999999999999999999999999999999 does NOT EQUAL 1
[QUOTE=sealclubber;35310319]"Probability zero" and "impossible outcome" are not equivalent things---impossible outcomes is a much stronger idea. That is, ALL impossible outcomes have zero probability of occurring, but just because something has zero probability of occurring does not make it impossible. Your example is fine: The probability of two people choosing the exact same number from the set of natural numbers is 0, but clearly not impossible.[/QUOTE]
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=yawmwen;35310855].9... is equal to 3/3.[/QUOTE]
well fuck me.
[editline]27th March 2012[/editline]
checkmate?
Since this is a math thread now, I'd like some help with the following
"Find the points on the intersection curve between the surfaces x^2 + y^2 = 1 and x^2 - xy + y^2 - z^2 = 1 closest to the origin by the use of Lagrange's multiplier"
JohnnyMo, I guess you are familiar?
Gradient of surface equation 1: (2x, 2y, 0)
-||- 2: (2x - y, 2y - x, -2z)
Grad1 = lambda * Grad2
=>
I. 2x = lamb*(2x - y)
II. 2y = lamb*(2y - x)
III. 0 = lamb*(-2z)
Conditions:
IV. x^2 + y^2 = 1
V. x^2 - xy + y^2 - z^2 = 1
I. and II. gives:
x = - (lamb*y)/(2(1 - lamb))
y = - (lamb*x)/(2(1 - lamb))
I'm now at a loss since I'm not sure wether to calculate values of lambda or not..
Since the system of equations is overdetermined I should be able to find x, y and z. But at the same time I'm confused about z since it's lost during the gradient comparison in the beginning, which shows that unless z is zero, lambda has to be zero, which contradicts any value of lambda I happen to calculate.
potato
[QUOTE=Anglor;35316238]Since this is a math thread now, I'd like some help with the following
"Find the points on the intersection curve between the surfaces x^2 + y^2 = 1 and x^2 - xy + y^2 - z^2 = 1 closest to the origin by the use of Lagrange's multiplier"
JohnnyMo, I guess you are familiar?[/QUOTE]
do your own homework
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;35316345]do your own homework[/QUOTE]
I would if I had one
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.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
