• Zero equals infinity?
    119 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Bledrix;25380475]Since when did math involve letters??[/QUOTE] I was being sarcastic BTW for the people that actually believed me......but hey keep the dumb ratings coming!
[QUOTE=gtaftw;25380254]:psyboom:[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Bledrix;25384643]I was being sarcastic BTW[/QUOTE] Being sarcastic doesn't ultimately avoid it being completely dumb in the first place. It was a dumb sarcastic remark bro Besides, whether or not this proves anything, I'm throwing it in. Let n equal any value it damn well wants: &#8734; - &#8734; = n Nothing special. &#8734; - n = &#8734; Woopdeedurr p.s [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel[/url] <- reference cited
[QUOTE=aVoN;25384457]That "1/&#8734;" expression is bullshit. This is never used in math. Only by those, who don't know how to deal with infinities. Just the limit [img_thumb]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{x}[/img_thumb] is defined as zero. Anyway, your "0.9999 = 1" proof is similar to this one here: [img_thumb]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?x := 0.\overline9[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?\Rightarrow 10 x = 9.\overline9[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?\Rightarrow 10 x - x = 9 x = 9.\overline9 - 0.\overline9 = 9 [/img_thumb] divide by 9 [img_thumb]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?\Rightarrow x = 1[/img_thumb] No magic, paradox or similar stuff used. Just plain math and logic which shows that [img_thumb]http://math.daggeringcats.com/? 0.\overline9 = 1[/img_thumb].[/QUOTE] I think you're taking what I'm saying in the wrong context completely. Go back and reread a little bit. Any constant over &#8734; is equivalent to 0, but many people for whatever reason don't want to accept this (mainly people who haven't taken calc). So I'm trying to make it more mathematically obvious to them by saying that .999... would be the same as taking subtracting an infinitely small number from the number 1. This makes sense to people. Now you can obviously say that 1 - (1/&#8734;) is 1 because (1/&#8734;) goes to 0, but if you're trying to make an example apparent to someone who doesn't believe this, you have to do it in a bit of a different way. The proof the other user provided which you also provided did not convince the user I responded to, so I expanded upon it and showed it a bit differently to help their understanding.
[QUOTE=Pepin;25384874]I think you're taking what I'm saying in the wrong context completely. Go back and reread a little bit. Any constant over &#8734; is equivalent to 0, but many people for whatever reason don't want to accept this (mainly people who haven't taken calc). So I'm trying to make it more mathematically obvious to them by saying that .999... would be the same as taking subtracting an infinitely small number from the number 1. This makes sense to people. Now you can obviously say that 1 - (1/&#8734;) is 1 because (1/&#8734;) goes to 0, but if you're trying to make an example apparent to someone who doesn't believe this, you have to do it in a bit of a different way. The proof the other user provided which you also provided did not convince the user I responded to, so I expanded upon it and showed it a bit differently to help their understanding.[/QUOTE] There is no expression like [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?\frac{x}{\infty}[/img], just [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{x}{n}[/img]. That's what I was going to show you. The user who didn't got that proof simply made a mistake with subtracting. I got your idea but what you sloppily wrote ("[img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?1 = 0.\overline9 - \frac{1}{\infty}[/img]") actually has to be written as [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?1 = 0.\overline9 - \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{n} [/img], which already implies that you used [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?1 = 0.\overline9[/img] without any proof. (Since [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?1 = 0.\overline9 - \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{n} = 0.\overline9 - 0 = 0.\overline9[/img]).
[QUOTE=Bledrix;25384643]I was being sarcastic BTW for the people that actually believed me......but hey keep the dumb ratings coming![/QUOTE] Turn ratings off in your control panel. You will be glad you did. If someone has an opinion about something you have said but they don't tell you why, do you really need to know they had the opinion in the first place? Would you rather Avon had explained his response in this thread or if he had just rated the post he responded to with a disagree rating? When people respond to dumbs this makes anyone look butthurt because it seems like they are trying to counter feeling bad about everyone ganging up on them. Just opt out of the meaningless distraction of ratings.
[QUOTE=PositorUduro;25385670]Turn ratings off in your control panel.[/QUOTE] No no, let him see how not funny he is.
[QUOTE=aVoN;25385205]There is no expression like [img_thumb]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?\frac{x}{\infty}[/img_thumb], just [img_thumb]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{x}{n}[/img_thumb]. That's what I was going to show you. The user who didn't got that proof simply made a mistake with subtracting. I got your idea but what you sloppily wrote ("[img_thumb]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?1 = 0.\overline9 - \frac{1}{\infty}[/img_thumb]") actually has to be written as [img_thumb]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?1 = 0.\overline9 - \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{n} [/img_thumb], which already implies that you used [img_thumb]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?1 = 0.\overline9[/img_thumb] without any proof. (Since [img_thumb]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?1 = 0.\overline9 - \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{n} = 0.\overline9 - 0 = 0.\overline9[/img_thumb]).[/QUOTE] Using the whole limit thing is just going to confuse someone who doesn't know what it is. They can understand what you mean by 1/&#8734;, but doing it with the limit it is just going to confuse them. If you put it into terms and logic that they can understand, it will be much easier for them to grasp the concept than throwing in terms and concepts they are not familiar with. Also, I wrote .999... = 1 - 1/&#8734; not 1 = .999... - 1/&#8734;. That's not going to make much of a difference to you, but presenting the concept to someone less knowledgeable in the first format will make sense to them because that would be a simply way to get .999... You have to think more in their terms.
you have zero friends is not the same as you have infinite friends
:bravo: Great job at copying from wikipedia
Wikipedia does have certain quality so being mistaken for Wikipedia, I suppose, is a compliment.
Somewhere in the universe a black hole was formed because of you.
about that 0,999...=1 I looked a bit at it and saw that 0,999...=(inf-1)/inf But isnt arithmethic operations on infinities undefined?
Zero == Infinity Infinity =/= zero
[QUOTE=Surma;25395637]about that 0,999...=1 I looked a bit at it and saw that 0,999...=(inf-1)/inf But isnt arithmethic operations on infinities undefined?[/QUOTE] Yes some operations aren't defined and therefore no one who knows what they're talking about writes it as "(&#8734;-1)/&#8734;" Instead you use limits [img]http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/6691/53472384.gif[/img] all of which has been said in this thread a few times already this browser math plugin is useful, thanks JohnnyMo1
[QUOTE=Pepin;25386363]Using the whole limit thing is just going to confuse someone who doesn't know what it is. They can understand what you mean by 1/&#8734;[/quote] 1/&#8734; is no valid expression, and limits are taught in every school. If they do not understand limits, they will most probably also getting confused with "1/&#8734;". [QUOTE=Pepin;25386363]Also, I wrote [u].999... = 1 - 1/&#8734;[/u] not 1 = .999... - 1/&#8734;. That's not going to make much of a difference to you, but presenting the concept to someone less knowledgeable in the first format will make sense to them because that would be a simply way to get .999... You have to think more in their terms.[/QUOTE] Here, the same thing applies what I wrote: You assumed [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?1 = 0.\overline 9[/url] from the beginning. Also: The problem he had was not with any infinities or similar, it was with subtracting. Here is another thing, they could understand (series are not hard to understand): [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?k := 0.\overline 9 = 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ... = \sum_{i=1}^\infty \frac{9}{10^i}[/img] [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?10 k - k = 9 + 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ... - 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ... = \sum_{i=0}^\infty \frac{9}{10^i} - \sum_{i=1}^\infty \frac{9}{10^i} = 9 + \sum_{i=1}^\infty \frac{9}{10^i} - \sum_{i=1}^\infty \frac{9}{10^i} = 9[/img] No invalid "1/infty" expression used.
Now look what you've done. [URL=http://img408.imageshack.us/i/33563295.png/][IMG]http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/992/33563295.png[/IMG][/URL]
[QUOTE=alienmartian23;25380306][img_thumb]http://knowyourmeme.com/i/000/046/123/original/magnets.jpg?1270937748[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] the picture called me a ho :saddowns:
infinity is infinity because its not an actual value
I think I figured out the problem. The first proof incorrectly assumes that [i]all[/i] series have the following property [img]http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/4079/gifby.gif[/img] This isn't true for the series [img]http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/3564/79764158.gif[/img] because (as shown in the OP) [img]http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/2604/70859895.gif[/img] so for this S(n): [img]http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/2954/gifh.gif[/img] [img]http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/7821/gifyc.gif[/img] [img]http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9858/37748339.gif[/img] [img]http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/4732/gifvz.gif[/img] but for n=0 there is no S(n-1) so not even n=0 is valid. [editline]14th October 2010[/editline] whereas if it was true, it would be true for all n
No wonder aVoN has Rodney McKay in his avatar :|
I read through this thread, didn't understand a thing and now I have a headache. :saddowns:
Zero isn't infinity, I don't even understand ANY of that maths and I know zero does not equal infinity.
[QUOTE=Recurracy;25401373]Zero isn't infinity, I don't even understand ANY of that maths and I know zero does not equal infinity.[/QUOTE] If you don't understand it, how can you claim it's wrong? [editline]14th October 2010[/editline] My opinion about a Chinese book I've never read is that it's badly written
I have zero apples, I do not have infinite apples. Your argument is invalid
If you take 100, divide it by 2, you get 50. Right? Now divide that by another 2, and continue. 25 - 12,5 - 6,25 - 3,125 - 1,5625 etc... You never get zero, same with your theory. Sure, if you stop adding shit to the box it never gets full, but if you take less shit in every scoop, that means you always take less, not a zero quantity. Therefore, your theory is flawed.
[QUOTE=FreeBee;25401812]If you take 100, divide it by 2, you get 50. Right? Now divide that by another 2, and continue. 25 - 12,5 - 6,25 - 3,125 - 1,5625 etc... You never get zero, same with your theory. Sure, if you stop adding shit to the box it never gets full, but if you take less shit in every scoop, that means you always take less, not a zero quantity. Therefore, your theory is flawed.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what you're getting to. The limit of the sum of those terms would be 200. It's an example of a series that has a real limit and whose sequence has a limit of 0. It's not an example to counter mine. [editline]14th October 2010[/editline] That's exactly the kind of a series I was talking about in the OP's first sentence
[QUOTE=FreeBee;25401812]If you take 100, divide it by 2, you get 50. Right? Now divide that by another 2, and continue. 25 - 12,5 - 6,25 - 3,125 - 1,5625 etc... You never get zero, same with your theory. Sure, if you stop adding shit to the box it never gets full, but if you take less shit in every scoop, that means you always take less, not a zero quantity. Therefore, your theory is flawed.[/QUOTE] You can still have an infinite series converge to a value. This is very common in calculus. How do you think they came up with the area and volume equations (although this is more a summation of infinitely small heights or widths)?
[QUOTE=FreeBee;25401812]If you take 100, divide it by 2, you get 50. Right? Now divide that by another 2, and continue. 25 - 12,5 - 6,25 - 3,125 - 1,5625 etc... You never get zero, same with your theory. Sure, if you stop adding shit to the box it never gets full, but if you take less shit in every scoop, that means you always take less, not a zero quantity. Therefore, your theory is flawed.[/QUOTE] You do at the limit. The "infinitieth" term.
[QUOTE=Vita;25380542]Reminds me of this. Proof that 1+1 does not equal 2. x = y -x^2= -xy x^2 - y^2 = x^2 - xy (x + y)(x - y) = x(x - y) x + y = x 1 + 1 =2 2 = 1[/QUOTE] Just showing steps is not a proof.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.