And if you disagree... you're wrong
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
And if you disagree... you're wrong
They're approximately equal, not exactly equal. It's like saying Pi is equal to 22/7. It's not wrong, just making too much of an assumption
>>768411581
When Comp Sci tries maths
>>768412713
>>768412869
Actually no, they're exactly equal, unlike pi approximations. It's a quirk of notation regarding infinity. OP is still dumb for calling it "checkmate" though.
>>768411581
>>768411581
>be engineer
>think 0.999999... =1
>>768412987
>Exactly equal
No, it's fucking not. It looks very close due to perspective. Like how 1 billion could seem negligibly close to 1 if you compare them to Tree (3).
Periodic 0.9 = 9/9 = 1
...And That's A Good Thing.
>>768413542
You know about the concept of limit anon?
repeating digits are a tool of Satan
0.999999999999999999999999999999999 = 9/9 = 1.000000000000000000000000000000024
It's just a fact. A math fact.
>>768413542
Are you baiting or falling for the bait yourself? They are equal. They both represent the same quantity.
>>768413622
Diff anon, but a limit is something to approach but never reach.
The limit of 1/x at 0 is -infinity from the left, Infiniti from the right.
It never actually equals anything at 0. It's undefined/DNE.
>>768411581
0.9999 = 1 | *10
9.9999 = 10
9.9999 - 0.9999 = 10 -1
9 == 9
True
>>768413827
- infinity and infinity is the same thing.
.99999999999999999⬜⬛1
hexamobolt timecrumbus niggahs
> 1 - 0.99999999999999999...
> 0.000000000000000...
> 0
>>768413994
mm infinite chocolate
>>768411581
I have to disagree. It's a good approximation that works for all practical intents. Nothing we ever will use will ever need to differentiate between 0.9(bar) and 1.
But, what's 1/3? 0.3333
What's 2/3? 0.6667
But 0.3333+0.3333 is 0.6666
It's all just as good of an approximation as we can get with decimals.
>>768413975
not on a cartesian plane brainlet
>>768413827
The value of x, with x approaching the limit of 0 is a negligible value, one of the basis of calculus, and as,
0.9+x lim(x) =1
x→0
0.9=1
>>768414444
checked
>>768414444
quads of 4 speak the truth
>>768413975
Theoretically they mean the same, but on a graph they're on opposite ends of the y-axis.
>>768414391
It's not an approximation. 0.9 bar does not equal 0.999 or 0.9999. It is notation that represents an infinite number of 9s after the decimal. It is equal to 1.
>>768411581
"close enough" isn't good enough in math and science, you colossal faggot.
1/3 = .33333...
3 * 1/3 = 1
3 * .33333... = .99999...
1 = .99999...
Really not that hard to understand.
this is why I come to /b/
x = 0.999999...
10x = 9.99999...
10x - x = 9
x = 1
>>768413842
That's not a proof of anything except things can be 10x greater
>>768414391
you're rounding
Questions like this separate the retards from the morons.
>>768414764
We're familiar with the 0.666(bar) concept.
We're aguing whether or not an infinite series of .9s indeed equals 1.
You obviously think it does. Why is that?
I think it is an approximation and your argument so far is I forgot to bar the last decimal in this typed text. I don't know the proper alt+#### for barred numbers, sorry.
>>768415178
Yes. That's what we have to do with decimals. They're not perfect. They get split and rounded so we can continue with our practical math.
Thas why I'm saying 0.9999(bar) is still an approximation of 1. That last 9 got split and rounded. It's not perfectly exact.
>>768414889
Not OP, but that's funny considering "almost everywhere" convergence is one of the common methods to demonstrate convergence in analysis. Which is to say, "close enough" is actually good enough at times, you colossal faggot.
Besides, 1-0.9999... = {1}, which is a single point, which has Lebesgue measure 0, implying L(1)=L(0.9999...).
>>768414905
This proves uniornically proves God exists. Of course with math we know that 0.99999…=1, but at the same time we know that it isnt. Holding these two contradicting notions in my simultaniously has given me a unique perspective on life. On one hand we logically know that 0.999999… is one, but we are also aware that this is a ridiculous claim. Just like how we logically know that God can't be real, yet we know that to claim otherwise is ridiculous.
>>768415003
when you try to look smart but you're a retard
>>768415742
>Low quality bait
>>768411581
Out of curiosity, is 0.000...0001 = 0?
I imagine OP going to a bar when he's old enough, meeting some chick, they go back to his car, he whips his cock out and so does she. OP thinks.... "Ehhh, close enough. .9999999 equals 1"
>Then op has a mouthful of cock
You would figure that if you had to go out of your way to denote an infinite amount of digits under 0, that caused the literal symbolic depiction of the value in question to differ from that of the symbolic depiction of 1 or 0, that they would plainly be different. Not sure why people decide that there needs to be an infinite range of digits after a symbol meant to depict an absence of value, if they could have just wrote 1. Maybe that's not what they intended to do.
>>768415812
>God tier redpill
>>768415841
Where exactly do you want to set this 1 after an infinite sequence of 0s? Do you have any idea what "infinite" really means?
>>768415532
>>768415661
There is no "last 9" to round. It's only an approximation if you stop adding 9s on the end and work with that finite number of 9s.
>>768415841
No, that's a finite decimal number once you write the 1 at the end.
>>768413210
/thread
>>768411581
Well, if you substract 0.p9 from 1, it's gonna be 0.p0, but if you substract 1 from 0.p9, it's gonna be -0.p0.
>>768413558
>>768413679
That's like saying that 8/9 = 9/10 because 0.88888888888888... = 9
Use your brain
>>768415841
> 0.000...0001
that's not even a numer
>>768416482
*0.9
>>768416482
>>768416561
0.8 repeating does equal 0.9...You're starting to get it!
>>768416802
0 is 1? Because suddenly 0.8... is 0.9... and now I must believe that 4 is 144.
>>768415757
you are the one who is retarded
>>768416802
So 8/9 = 9/10 ?
>>768411581
poop=pizza
>>768417182
I mean...
>>768411581
1/3 = 0.3(bar) | *3
3/3 = 0.9(bar)
1 = 0.9(bar)
Checkmate, atheists.
>>768416919
>>768417157
Sorry, misspoke. 0.89999999... equals 0.9
>>768416802
Actually it doesn't, not at all. Even if you added 0.01 to 0.8period8 it wouldn't be 0.9.
>>768416919
we've known 0=1 for a while now. it's how we discovered quantim mathematics
>>768417657
See >>768417514
Got ahead of myself since they basically straw manned the argument
0.999... * 10 = 9.999...
0.999... * 10 - 0.999... = 9.999... - 0.999...
0.999... * (10 - 1) = 9
0.999... * 9 = 9
0.999... = 9/9 = 1
Ever nonzero terminating decimal number has 2 ways of being represented, e.g. 0.43 or 0.42999...
>>768411581
No matter how many 9s you put after the decimal, there will always be an infinite amount of 1s needed to make it a whole
>>768417157
If 0.999999999... is equal to 1.000000000... because there can be no number between this biggest real decimal value and 1.000000000... itself, then I could easily reason that every other possible real number is equal to all other real numbers, where all real numbers have an infinite decimal expansion. Seriously. There's something wrong with that axiom.
The error: 1/3 = 0.333333
Stupid
![raw[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/OgNsEyS.png "raw[1].png")
>>768412713
>it's like saying pi is equal to 22/7
>real numbers are made distinct from one another by having at least one value in between
>the difference between 0.999... and 1.0 is infinitesimal to the point of being nonexistent
>0.999... is not numerically distinct from 1.0
>0.999... = 1
>>768411581
it's actually very easy anons:
Proof 1:
0.999... = 10*0.0999... = 9*0.0999... + 0.0999... ->
0.999... - 0.0999... = 9*0.0999... ->
0.9 = 9*0.0999... -> (multiply by 10/9)
1 = 0.999...
Proof 2:
If 0.99... < 1 then there has to exist an epsilon with 0.99... + eps = 1.
For any such epsilon, you could always add another 9, so it would be wrong. Therefore 0.99... < 1 is false.
Becuase 0.99... > 1 is trivially also false 0.99... = 1 has to be true by contradiction.
>>768417829
Ah, okay, that makes more sense then.
Just not complete yet.
0.99999... isn't a number. It's an infinite fractal used to label the number right before 1.
Since you can always add another 9 to any decimal number before 1 and thus create a new number which is even closer to 1, there is an infinite number of numbers betweeen 0.9 and 1.0. We just use 0.9p to visualize a number right before 1.0 which we can't ever determine.
TL;DR 0.999p =/= 1.0 because 0 point period 9 isn't actually a number, just as much as infinity isn't.
>>768418417
0.999p IS a number, it's called 1.
>>768418058
until you recognize that real numbers lie on an infinite spectrum and the numbers themselves are just coordinates.
>>768418569
Weak bait response.
At least think of a bait that someone could believe next time you say anything at all, faggot.
>>768418058
Anon, if you have 2 numbers that differ even in a single digit of their infinite decimal expression, then you can allways find infinitely many numbers between them
My god many if you are bad at elementary Maths
1/3 = 0.333...
3/3 = 0.999...
>>768418417
except 0.9999 repeating is a number and is equal and equivalent to 1. listen to your math teachers you are not a genius
>>768418714
reply to my proofs then I'm this anon: >>768418335
>>768415661
you don't fully understand the concept of infinity if you truly believe this
>>768418417
Kind of. 0.999.... represents an infinite number of 9s after the decimal, which can't be written. But it is notation that represents the same quantity/value as 1.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum+9*(1%2F10)%5E(j%2B1),+j%3D0..infinity
faggots
>>768418589
I recognize the concept of an infinite spectrum and coordinates. That is why I'm finding a problem here. If each number is a coordinate on this infinite expanse, if each number is exactly a representation of a point on the expanse, as infinitesimal as possible, why is there now no distinct difference between 0.99999... and 1.00000... ? Sure, it's infinitesimal. But it is said that you can't meaningfully measure an infinitesimal; infinitesimal things are negligible. How are you making this distinction between the two real numbers that supposedly have no real numbers between one another, to make them coordinates on an infinite spectrum?
As far as I understand, the original case was that, if you had even set out to turn the real numbers into coordinates, these two real numbers would instead be the same coordinate exactly. Because 0.99999...
>is
the limit here. Infinitesimals are problematic when you try to treat them in a practical manner- that is my whole gripe.
>>768418777
This is not what I can find to be the case for 0.99999... and 1.00000... so far. 0.99999... is the closest you can get to 1.00000... and there is nothing, seemingly, in between them in terms of a number that has even one different digit. So now, transitively, if 3.99999... and 4.00000... enact the same conditions and properties as the former two real numbers, It's just as well that every real possible number that inevitably can be expressed with infinite decimal expansion
>is
its neighbor, and its neighbor is its neighbor, and there is genuinely no distinct identities for any of these real numbers, anywhere, when conceptualizing an infinite spectrum for them to all lie on.
>>768415532
>You obviously think it does. Why is that?
Because it has a mathematical proof. This concept is actually recognized as a thing in mathematics, where 0.9 periodic = 1
Put simply:
1/3 = 0.3 periodic
3(1/3) = 1
Therefore: 0.3 periodic * 3 = 1
but: 0.3 periodic + 0.3 periodic + 0.3 periodic = 0.9 periodic
Therefore: 0.9 periodic = 1
■
>>768419434
because they are not different numbers they are two representations for the same point on the number line.
>Infinitesimals are problematic when you try to treat them in a practical manner
don't, infinitesimals are never practical
>>768411581
99% of 4channers are shitheads
Oh it's this thread again
X=0.999
10x=9.999
9x=9
X=1
you stupid niggers everything that repeats have the same amount of 9s below it like 0.586586586... = 0.(586) = 586/999
>>768419542
But this entire thing started with an infintesim... you know what? Forget it.
>>768418810
I'm not a genious, no, but you're obviously just an idiot.
>>768419434
1.0000 is not an infinite decimal expression.
It's a FINITE expression. That's the difference.
The definition of an infinite expression is that there is always a number greater than zero left at the end, no matter how far you go beyond the dot.
>>768418881
If you fucking read my post you replied to before replying to it, then you'd know exactly what I think about your thoughts on the topic.
As I said, 0.9p isn't a number, it's an unrealistic representation of a non-finite number before 1. The only purpose of 0.9p is to express the last number before 1.0, it's only and sole purpose is to represent that number, so, by it's nature, it cannot be equal to one.
>>768411581
Now disproove
>>768419882
numbers dont have purpose they just exist and we observe them
>>768411581
It is never equal
Source: im not a fucken idiot
>>768419990
You can devide by infinity retard
>>768419778
Well, read carefully again. I didn't say that 1.00000... was an infinite expression. I said that, conceivably, every real possible number that inevitably can be expressed with infinite decimal expansion is its neighbor. Not that 1 was infinite. 4 isn't infinite. I've only got the decimal point included because I wanted to convey the granularity and show that, yes, it's all 0s at the end. That 0.99999... is 1(.00000...). But at this point I genuinely don't even want to continue. It's mad.
>>768420520
You mean like 1.9999999... = 2 and 2.999999... = 3 etc.? That is true by the same principle.
>>768419990
1/inf = 0
3 + 1/inf = 3
1 + 1/inf = 1 and thus
0.999... + 1/inf = 1
So yes, it's true faggot. You just agreed with OP.
>>768419882
Anon, the problem is, that you can find a lot of irrational numbers, that are obviously greater or equal to 0.999 and smaller or equal to 1.000
But you don't even need to go that far.
Also the decimal system is limiting, let's try the hexadecimal system for example:
What about 0.FFFFFFFFFF...? That is also equal to 1, but it is obviously greater or equal to 0.99999..., am I right, which is greater or equal to 0.111111... in the binary system.
Also we could formulate a 10^(1000)-"decimal" system, where by my choosing K represents the digit (10^(1000)-1) then
0.KKKKKKKKKK..... would also be equal to 1, but greater or equal to 0.999999....
>>768420520
Anon, there are also numbers that don't have a finite expression at all. Like irrational numbers for example.
>>768413542
They are actually exactly equal. This can be proven by a dozen different methods
>>768420886
Yes, I know. I'm going to shoot myself.
>>768411581
multiplying nothing 9 times = 1?
so 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=1?
are you retarded?
>>768420783
1/inf = 0
0*inf = 1
Retard check you logic
>>768420783
why are you over-complicating something so simple
>>768411581
Why does this thread even exist? Are you guys actually retarded? If you don't believe OP, just look it up! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
>>768421242
Because he is a dumbass thats why
>>768421283
Check your privilege
>>768413210
/thread
>>768421118
0*inf is undefined.
But 1/inf is definitely 0.
it's like inf + inf = inf, but inf - inf is undefined.
>>768421242
Because I explained why this sentence is false:
>The only purpose of 0.9p is to express the last number before 1.0
>The last
That 1 = 0.999... was already proofed in multiple different ways in this thread, so there is really no need to debate that. We only want you to understand.
>>768417075
This is a correct mathematical proof. Just deal with it
>>768412869
compsci students are so incompetent, i tought a class on hashing once and they hadnt heard of the markov inequality
>>768421584
Oh, comp sci students are SOOO incompetent, they don't know something we learned in Math Master Stohastiks courses... such embarrassment!
Jesus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
>>768419475
I always looked
1/9 = .1111...
2/9 = .2222...
9/9 = .9999... = 1
But again .1111.... or anything repeating is just an approximation with decimals.
You could argue those are all theoretical numbers since they don't actually come before or after anything in a number sequence.
>>768421540
0+0+...=undefined
Yea you shure are a moron
>>768421540
inf-inf is definitely 0 it's simply x-x no question about it
>>768422257
>>768422366
inf - int, and 0*inf is not something that appears just like that in an equation. In normal mathematics, you rarely use the infinity symbol like that
The question, in this case, would be: "what is stronger?" The 0 or the infinity. Same with inf - inf. For example, there are countable and uncountable infinities. With the second category being definitely a larger infinity then the first one.
so inf - inf could actually be inf, or it could be 37.
This is actual intermediate level mathematics, so if you are unironically struggling with the topic of this thread, then there is no way in hell you would understand it.
>>768419475
>Box master race
Also ITT: probably underage morons who have never taken any math
>>768423058
Nigga you are tring to tell me that if you add zero dollars to your bank account infinite times you get 1$
negative infinity + infinity = ?
If you add infinite dollars and spend infinite dollars what will you get?
You guys are all fucking stupid. They are only equal if you define them to be equal, thus the question is fucking stupid. You are all morons for not realizing this, no matter which camp you belong to.
>>768423058
also 1/inf is called an infinitesimal look it up
It's called a "click" every once in a while when you stretch a number too much it snaps. It's basically like how you can put X amount of pressure upon your head turning it sideways until your spine snaps. The numbers get bent in time until "click" it snaps and changes,
>>768423339
No, that's why it's undefined.
If you add zero dollars to your bank account an infinite amount of times, then the energy used to execute this command would be infinite, thus creating an infinitely large black hole. Time would literally stop.
This is why we don't use real-life examples with infinity, it does not work that way.
>>768423476
No. If what you said was true, then this would have to be an undecidable statement under the usually accepted axioms. But but it isn't. It is decidable, and it is definitely 1 on the real numbers.
>>768423517
Yes, and there are infinitesimals of different strengths also, it's especially interesting in series, and sums if you are looking at convergence.
>>768423705
That's absolutely retared but megusta
/thread
>>768423705 By the way this field of math is called Reality Physics (It is all maths)
>>768423476
I can't tell if yall motherfuckers are trolling or just retarded. If you have real numbers in base 10 and understand repeating decimals you can show those two are equal.
>>768424148
We aren't discussing physics here and even then we could just ask "how long would it take to get to >0$ if we add zero dollars per second to your account?" Im winnig just give up already
>>768424274
You are a fucktard. By definition repeating decimals is not a single entity, hence which one of the many iterations are you referring to? Dumbass.
>>768424430
Anon, you don't understand the concept of infinity.
You can't apply induction to it like that. What you do here is the same as saying:
inf = 1+1+1+1+...
= 2-1+2-1+2-1+...
now, we can just move the ones, so that they match up nicely, as they are infinitley many -1's we will never run out:
= 2-1-1+2-1-1+2-1-1+2-1-1+...
= 0
HAHAHAHAHHA, anon so smart, anon btfo mathematics.
HUHUHUHUHUHUHU. AHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAHH
Now anon, this is what you are doing here.
We are trying to EXPLAIN TO YOU why this is true - not debating, mind you.
But you are just acting like a nigger, those with closed ears don't want to listen, so ignorance shall be their fate.
>>768424880
Now do the same to 0+0-0+0-0....
Math is pure autism
>>768425145
0+0-0+0-0+0-...
= (1-1)+(1-1)-(1-1)+(1-1)-...
= 1-1+1-1+1-1+1+...
= 1 - (1-1) + (1-1) - (1-1)+...
= 1 - (0) + (0) + (0)+...
= 1
And this is why 0*inf is undefined.
>>768424463
Confirmed troll
>>768412713
Wrong. They are exactly equal.
Infinitely repeating 0.9 is not equal to an approximation because it is impossible to approximate without dropping digits and altering the data.
>>768425464
Not sure if you followed the appropriate series expansion for multiplication....It's certainly true for *something*.
>>768424880
I do understand that but what you are arguing about ist the same shit that >>768425197
is referring to its just plain ingnorance about the fact that 0 cant be multiplied or added to anything else than zero and positive numbers cant be added to give negative numbers thats just common sense and 2-1+2-1+2-1 simply isnt 2-1-1+2-1-1 because the one is jmping between 2 and 1 and the other is jumping between 2 then 1 then 0 then 2 again it never arrives anywhere but 0+0+0 never moves in the first place
Common sence, do you have it you bitch nigga
>>768425464
Where did this shit come from you are jewing the math by creating money out of depth
>>768425464
Why man you are allowed to remove brekits in math? I thought that shit is like deffinig the value you are cheating
ITT: Why geeks dont have girlfriends
>>768425635
>>768425643
>>768425702
Because of shit like this, you never use inf in actual math. You normally write lim x->inf then you have an x that is ascending, and then you prove that it converges into something if it gets large enough.
inf is very weird, and I actually didn't break any laws with the 0*inf series.
>>768425702
All that garbage does is prove you cannot interact with infinity algebraically.
For the same reason you cannot divide by zero, because it completely breaks and allows any number to be equal to any other number which is obviously false.
So unless you agree than 1 = 6 then:
You cannot divide by zero
You cannot add, subtract, multiply, or divide with infinity. Infinity is a concept.
Y’all still arguing about a calc II summation question?
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1.
1/3 = 0.33
0.33 + 0.33 + 0.33 = 0.99 = 1.
Simpletons.
>>768426560
Add overlines to the last digits to show they are infinitely repeating of course.
>>768425541
Fucktard confirmed. No arguments so resorts to pure ad hominem. Go fuck yourself.
>>768413842
I can do that too
>0.47 = 1 | *10
>9.47 = 10
>9.47 - 0.47 = 10 -1
>9 == 9
>>768420518
you can't write infinite 9s either, I may be wrong but we can't conceptualize "real" inifnity
>>768426162
If infinity is a concept then how many decimal numbers does Pi have?
Also i though that you cant devide by 0 because you cannot rearrange the equation 1/0=inf inf*0=1 but no matter how often i add zero dollard to my bank account i will never have 1 dollar expect if i never actually add 0 dollars but add 1 then subtract 1 and add 1 and decieve the bank so it thinks that the next move is to add one again that is basically what you did there in your nice little equation
The problem with 0=1 is based on ignorance because 1+(-1)=0 and 1+(-1)+1(-1)=0 but thats just creating money and depth you cant money without depth because then you break the equation symmetry it really that simple do that trick with the rearranging with (-1)
Also that problem with the 2-1-1 is created by 2-1 changing into 2-1-1 its that simple why are little shits like me capabe of using simple common sense to bend your stupid rules?!
>>768426560
>>768415003 <that one is more plausible
>>768411581
What kind of practical applications can this be applied too?
What are significant figures?
For any practical application there will be an exact value, 0.999 is not 1.000, 0.9999999999 is not 1.0000000000
>>768427618
Math got really stupid in the past hundred year all those really smart guys are just figuring shit out that will never be conceptualised in the real world
>>768425464
No. This "proof" is falsely assuming that this infinite series has an odd number of elements. The only way this can work is if there isn't a leftover element at the end of the series. If there were an even number of elements there'd be a lone 1 all the way at the end of the series, still waiting to be subtracted. But there is no odd or even number of elements in an infinite series.
>>768416802
No?
0.88888888888888888... would be approaching 0.89, not 0.9
>>768427618
you're fucking retarded dude
>>768427775
Sphere packing in the 16th dimension
>>768428200
Ok. Explain?
>>768412713
Its been mathematically proven to be correct
>>768427474
What do you mean more plausible?
They are two ways to prove the same thing.
Some numbers require infinitely repeating decimals to be accurately represented in base 10.
Fractions (1/3) or infinitely repeating decimal notation (0.333 Overline to indicate intinitely repeatning) are two different notations to explain the same value.
They only become approximations when you remove the infinity portion by rounding the number. 0.33 + 0.33 + 0.33 = 0.99 <NOT EQUAL> 1
If you perfectly preserved the infinitely repeating digits and add up to 0.99 OVERLINE then it's perfectly equal to 1.
0.999... = 1
0.9 =/= 1
0.99 =/= 1
0.999 =/= 1
0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 =/= 1
>>768428731
Correct.
>>768428793
0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 =/= 1
>>768428936
Your Mom = Gay
This is the same as 0.333... x 2 = 0.666... 7
Which we can all see is just wrong.
>>768428980
no = u
>>768428439
By more plausibe im mean that that 9.999...-0.999... isnt hard to understand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...#Dedekind_cuts
1/3=0.333.... end of discussion
>>768429218
0.333... = 1?
>>768429469
1=3*1/3=0.333...*3=0.999...
>>768429469
No you retard.
0.333... = 1/3 = 0.333...
>>768414764
I agree with this anon. If carried out ad infinite, they are the same in all practicle matters.
>>768427286
I win
>>768429945
I feel sorry for you.
>>768428088
>infinite series
>leftover element
Bait.
>>768430241
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(0.333...)+%2B+(0.333...)+%2B+(0.333...)
If 0.999... Does not Equal 1, then 3(1/3) Does not Equal 1.
Sorry, you must concede to truth and confusion infinity or believe in a lie.
>>768430344
All that we know is based on what we ultimately cant proove so all lies are in some way true and all truth is in some way a lie
>>768430444
kill yourself
>>768430498
I cant because death is an illusion
>>768430666
Stop trolling me and getting trips.
>>768430666
Nice try, satan
>>768430737
Trolling is just a verb that refers to an action which has no diffinite deffinition
How mush i hate these JUST GOOGLE THAT SHIT THERE IS LITERALLY A DEFFINITION WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THESE
Saged
>>768431706
>>768429138
>>768421814
>they don't know something we learned in Math Master Stohastiks courses
thats second or third semester undergrad math for compsci, they just didnt know it
>>768414905
1 ≠ .9999...
∴ 1/3 ≠ .3333...
>>768432190
You ≠ Correct
>>768430117
I bet it's rough going through life with a low IQ
>>768413994
can someone explain the chocolate thing to me, i don't get how it works
>>768432641
The chocolate thing is an illusion. It looks like you aren't missing a piece when you actually are.
It's a very clever illusion, but that's all.
>>768432641
in the animation, the pieces that are being put back together grow by a tiny bit, and the extra square thats left over is the same area by which the moving pieces grow. see this
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/05/04/17/33D63B4200000578-0-image-a-105_1462379588796.jpg
the sliver in the middle is what would actually be missing
>>768420932
No they're not. .9999... is infinitely close to 1 but never 1.
>>768413994
>lmao I see no 1
>must be 0 den xDDDDDDd
0.00000000000000...0000001 you dumb nigger.
>>768411581
>y those have $0!!?
>>768433360
Wrong.
>>768414444
check
>>768433360
This guy gets it
>>768433360
>infinitely close
explain what you think that means
Have y'all brainlettos taken analysis?
>>768434273
>asymptote
>>768414537
shit son, that's cool as fuck
>>768427197
0.47 * 10 is 4.7
did you pass elementary school?
>>768434707
ok, now explain what you think an asymptote is
>>768435103
lol i love that he said aymptote.
>>768433531
Nope. Sorry you're dumb.
>>768434273
Can you not read? You clearly don't understand the concept of infinity.
>>768435442
>Can you not read? You clearly don't understand the concept of infinity.
i understand it, but someone that says "infinitely close" and means "but still different" probably doesnt, so to clear up whatever bad ideas he got, he should explain them so we can pinpoint where he goes wrong
>>768419647
>/thread
>>768435103
>a line that continually approaches a given curve but does not meet it at any finite distance.
>infinitely close
>>768435711
ok, and how are two numbers lines?
>>768435711
>>768435813
wait, what do you mean by "does not meet it at any finite distance"
>>768411581
You seem like the kind of person I’d want to borrow 100 dollars from.
>>768436043
Why? If you pay him back 99.99.... dollars you would make no money.
>>768435442
Infinity isn't a number which you seem to think it is..
>>768420932
name one
>>768435846
not 768435711 here
an asymptotic line can approach a given value but never actual reach it over a finite distance.
for any value other than infinity, the line will not reach the value
>>768435678
>>768419647
>10x=9.999
>9x=9
Magic everywhere in this bitch
>>768436679
>never actual reach it over a finite distance
what does "over a finite distance" mean
Does anyone here even care that the majority of themselves are using the language of real numbers in spite of some trying to haplessly argue away sentiments of R*? Does anyone even care about that shit? Do we all think that the
>real
in real numbers is meant to denote the "right" number set, or are we too focused on the OP?
This thread has been up for 5 hours and seldom anyone has even regarded it. One or two passing anons. I hate everything.
>>768436779
finite distance is any measurable distance
you could stretch the line out to the edge/beginning of the universe and it would still not reach the asymptotic value.
WTF, this thread is still going? For the ones who are denying it, do you really think you have disproved all of the mathematical proofs for it? And not just the ones in this thread. If you did, mathematicians everywhere would be very anxious to see it and see your alternative proof.
>>768435813
Do you really not get the comparison?
>>768435846
It does not meet at a finite (measurable) distance. It's infinitely close. 1/infinity
>>768437121
>asymptotic value.
a second ago we were at curves, now we're at a value. try one more time
>>768437145
>appeal to authority
kys
>>768412713
22/7 is anywhere close to pi you fucking retard
>>768437160
>Do you really not get the comparison?
i want you to explain what you think the comparison is, because lines are not numbers. lines are not points, and theyre 2-dimensional at least. so explain how you think what you said makes sense
> It does not meet at a finite (measurable) distance
distance from where?
> It's infinitely close. 1/infinity
1/infinity is zero, which means you should be agreeing that 0.99..... = 1, yet you dont, so what do you think 1/infinity means
>>768437358
Lines are one dimensional. Stop.
>>768413320
1/9 = 0.11111...
2/9 = 0.22222...
3/9 = 0.33333...
4/9 = 0.44444...
5/9 = 0.55555...
6/9 = 0.66666...
7/9 = 0.77777...
8/9 = 0.88888...
9/9 = 0.99999...
>>768437406
>Lines are one dimensional. Stop.
no, they arent, they are sets of at least pairs of coordinates
>>768437506
finally someone understands
>>768411581
they are two different numbers who's linguistic and mathematical representations could be used to show that they are "equal"
>>768437639
>different numbers
what makes numbers different?
>>768437506
9/9 an 1 aren't numerically the same thing. 9/9 is an expression of the division of the number 9 by itself, not the exact same thing as the number 1.
>>768437234
You're probably trolling, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the people in this thread would actually think that kek
>>768437746
x/x equals 1 for any value of x whether you want it or not you dumb cunt
>>768437544
Describe said pairs of coordinates. Illustrate it. Portray a line that has two dimensions.
>>768411581
0,99999.…< 1
>>768418780
Thats just a flaw in our counting system though. If we counted in dozenal then 1/3 would be equal to .4 which would make 3/3 = 1. Dont act smart when you are just a gay cunt.
>>768437906
the x and y coordinates. a line is made up of infinitely many points in some multidimensional space, each of these points has at least two coordinates
1/3 = 0.33333...
2/3 = 0.66666...
0.33333... + 0.66666... = ?
1/3 + 2/3 = ?
3/9 + 6/9 = ?
>>768438152
Gay
>>768438118
You're confusing the plane for the line. I'm asking you to draw a line that covers both x and y coordinates, two dimensions. A series of vectors that simultaneously cover the area of a square or a triangle, or an entire section of graph. Can you do that?
You can't do that.
The line constitutes one dimension. It exists and extends through one dimension alone. Length. One means of extension, literally. It never has width. Lines do not have area. They aren't the polygon you're thinking of, they are literally one dimensional component of the polygon, which, together with another dimensional component, establish the nature of width. Lines don't have y coordinates. They can simply lie on y coordinates on a plane that has two dimensions. A line itself has one dimension. Is one dimension. Draw a line. A straight line. Even draw a curved line. It has a thickness of 0.
You can't draw a perpendicular line inside another line. The dimension for that doesn't exist.
>>768437358
Its a comparison of the difference in absolute value between numeral x and numeral y and the difference in distance between a point on curve A and a point on line B
>0.999 & 1
>infinitely close
>curve A asymptotes towards line B
>infintely close (as the lines approach infinity)
>distance from where
As they approach infinity
>1/infinity is zero
Grab a graphing calculator and punch in y=1/x and then find y=0 on that graph
>>768438560
youre missing the point. a line consists of multiple points with multiple coordinates, a number is a single point with a single coordinate. it doesnt make sense to say a number is an asymptote to another number
>>768438714
> Its a comparison of the difference in absolute value between numeral x and numeral y and the difference in distance between a point on curve A and a point on line B
take two lines that are asympotic to each other, then any two points on those two lines will have a nonzero distance from each other. thats not the case with 0.99.... and 1
>> 1/infinity is zero
> Grab a graphing calculator and punch in y=1/x and then find y=0 on that graph
i dont think you understand what "infinity" means if you think you can find it on a finite-sized chart
>>768432190
what are you suggesting 1/3 = ?
>>768411581
Makes sense. Alright, we're moving on.
>>768438809
You're missing the point, literally. The point on a graph is not two dimensional either. It possesses neither coordinate, inherited from the plane it would reside in, as a property of its extension. It is exactly, dimensionless. You're going far ahead in using
>multidimensional
to convey the appropriate idea of how contingent the nature of dimensionality is when it comes to geometry, but that's exactly what is also tripping you up. A line consists of multiple points. Think about what happens if you break down a line into its more simple components. You say a line is two dimensional, so naturally, if you break down a two dimensional thing, you should end up with things that only have one dimension and one means of extension. Great. Let's break down the line, shall we? You said lines are made up of points. So let's say that a line is two dimensional.
How does a point extend? Wait, oh yes, it doesn't extend at all. It's a point. It extends nowhere.
>asymptote
I'm not talking about the asymptotes, I'm not that anon. I want to make it painfully clear.
A line is one dimensional.
>A
line. A line has no area. You haven't yet drawn a line that has area to prove that a line is two dimensional.
Of all the stupid shit in this thread, this had better be bait. That is basic geometry.
>>768438925
>thats not the case with 0.99.... and 1
Show me.
>a finite-sized chart
By default the bounds are set to negative and positive infinity. i don't know what you're talking about
>>768438099
Well yes, it's a flaw in our counting system because 1 CAN be represented as 0.999... while in base 12 the fractional and decimal representations look cleaner because 12 is divisible by 3 and 4 while 10 is not, which leads to these infinite decimals that equal whole numbers. The numbers behind the representations don't change.
>>768439172
alright, just to calm down your reeeeeeing, of course in geometry a line is a one-dimensional object, but thats not the point i was making, its a set of tuples of coordinates, unlike a number, which is just a singleton. it makes no sense to compare two asymptotic curves with two numbers
>>768439281
>>thats not the case with 0.99.... and 1
>Show me.
what do you think 1 - 0.99.... is?
>> a finite-sized chart
> By default the bounds are set to negative and positive infinity. i don't know what you're talking about
i have no idea how that would be charted in finite space, but even if it was, then you would find that 1/x intersects the x-axis "at infinity" (although charting that just does not make any sense)
Will you retards ever stop making these threads?
>>768413980
⬜⬛
wat
>>768412869
Comp sci should have known to use ==
In most languages = is assignment, == is equivale nce.
But used as an assignment operand OP is still wrong
>>768417853
thats the true proof
>>768439727
>lines are not points
>theyre 2-dimensional at least
Wow, you didn't just come out and just mention the tuples the first time around, instead word-for-word typing that liens are not points and that lines are two dimensional at the very least. What a miscommunication.
>>768440433
i was thinking of curves because he was talking about asymptotes; clearly a mistake on my part to switch in the word "line" there, but hardly reason for the triggered-snowflake level of rage this guy >>768439172 had
>>768440717
An asymptote is a line, genius.
>>768412713
They're exactly equal.
>>768440857
doesnt have to be, and in the context in which you usually learn about limits, its usually curves that are asymptotic to each other that you get confronted with, not lines
>>768439851
>what do you think 1 - 0.99.... is?
I think its equal to 1/infinity
>i have no idea blah blah
Its not charted in finite space, the domain and range of the function is positive and negative infinity, respectfully. And 1/x never reaches y=0. The distance between the curve and the x-axis gets smaller and smaller as the value of x approaches infinity, but that distance never reaches 0 because no matter how big x gets, f(x) is still a fraction not equal to 0. You're just truncating the series since it's so small and then saying it's zero. Like I said before, punch in y=1/x into a graphing calculator and look for y=0 and you will get UNDEFINED because nowhere on that graph, from -infinity to +infinity, does the the function equal 0.
0.999999999999999999 is not equal to 1.
0.9... is equal to 1.
0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 is not equal to 0.9...
>>768441345
>the domain and range of the function is positive and negative infinity
My mistake. It should be (-inf,0)U(0,+inf)
>>768441593
What function are we talking about?
>>768441166
>doesnt have to be
Draw me an asymptote that isn't a line.
>curves
Curves are also lines, even by your earlier admission when you went out of your way to change your statement from
>lines are not points
to
>a line consists of multiple points with multiple coordinates
and your mention of tuples, which is sufficient enough to describe a graphed function. Probably an asymptote with vectors scaling both the x and y axis. So when you mentioned pairs of coordinates, your tuples, that was good. Because it actually describes the better half of an asymptote. But what it doesn't do, is make asymptotes or curves two dimensional. All lines.
Context included. No one should have taught you that asymptotes have area.
>>768411581
1/3=0.3repeating
2/3=0.6repeating
3/3=1 not 0.9repeating
The law of 3 breaks my brain.
>>768441345
>I think its equal to 1/infinity
and what do you think that value is?
> Its not charted in finite space
you have an infinite-sized calculator?
> the domain and range of the function is positive and negative infinity
i understand that the domain and range are of infinite size, but the calculator on which you chart it isnt
> And 1/x never reaches y=0
yes thats correct, because we never "reach infinity" because infinity isnt a number, its a shorthand for "we keep going and going and going and dont ever stop". just like 0.99.... doesnt mean "do really really really many 9s", it means "keep adding 9s without ever stopping"
> The distance between the curve and the x-axis gets smaller and smaller as the value of x approaches infinity, but that distance never reaches 0 because no matter how big x gets, f(x) is still a fraction not equal to 0.
yes, and
> sum from i=1 to i=n of 9*0.1^i
> (this is "exactly n 9s after the decimal point")
never reaches 0.99.... either
> You're just truncating the series since it's so small and then saying it's zero
no, you cant truncate it, that changes the value
> Like I said before, punch in y=1/x into a graphing calculator and look for y=0 and you will get UNDEFINED because nowhere on that graph, from -infinity to +infinity, does the the function equal 0.
no, thats not the reason, the reason is that "infinity" isnt part of the domain. theres no point on the graph that has x-coordinate "infinity"
>>768415003
>10x - x = 8.99...
ftfy retard
>>768441818
3/3 = 1 = 0.9repeating
>>768441818
1/9 is both 0.9 repeating and 1. 0.9 repeating = 1.0 - (1/infinity), and 1/infinity is zero.
>>768441793
>Draw me an asymptote that isn't a line.
y = x^-1 is an asymptote to y = x^-2
> Curves are also lines
y = x^2 is a curve thats not a line
> Probably an asymptote with vectors scaling both the x and y axis.
?
> Context included. No one should have taught you that asymptotes have area.
no one did. what you should have come across in your mathematical education is that in different contexts, technical terms can mean different things. we werent talking geometry, so no reason to expect me to talk about geometry
>>768442090
Wth do functions have to do with the number 9.9...
>>768441918
As dumb as this statement is, I'm surprised you are able to navigate the internet
>>768442217
the same that asymptotes have to do with it, nothing
>>768442090
So you graphed some curves? Great. Those are one dimensional.
>y = x^2 is a curve thats not a line
Okay, tell me what a line is again. Be really specific.
>mathematical education
Did you think geometry wasn't a part of math?
>in different contexts, technical terms can mean different things
Not the way you're trying to.
>we werent talking geometry
Yes, yes we were. What exactly is a graph?
>no reason to expect me to talk about geometry
You just got finished insisting that y = x^-1 and y = x^-2 are asymptotes that contain no lines. Draw this on paper. Graph it using a calculator or a website of your choosing. Just, giving me a function isn't proving anything in the way of geometry besides what's already apparent.
>?
Do you remember when you typed
>pairs of coordinates
>tuples
That's what that is. Say, (1,4). You're putting things on a plane. Planes posses two dimensions, two axes. Lines are made up of points, yes? You're familiar with them. A line on a plane can move one way at any angle to these axes, but if you were to describe this, you would have to define the magnitude of the point, the vector, with respect to the x and y axes. (1,4).
>no one did
I'm getting the strangest impression of the opposite, and I don't know why. Maybe it's because you keep working to continue to defend the idea that geometry isn't important and we should just all forget about it. Even though geometry defines a lot of what you want to say about your asymptotes.
Finally, an arguement about shit that isnt retarded. Can /b/ always be this way...
btw, they're exactly equal
>>768442925
>Yes, yes we were. What exactly is a graph?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_of_a_function
"In mathematics, the graph of a function f is, formally, the set of all ordered pairs (x, f(x))"
this is the sense in which i was talking
> You just got finished insisting that y = x^-1 and y = x^-2 are asymptotes that contain no lines
> Draw this on paper.
the drawing isnt the asymptote, the curves (as in, the mathematical objects) are asymptotes to each other. it doesnt matter that you can draw it, or that it often gets drawn, what matters is the behavior
> Just, giving me a function isn't proving anything in the way of geometry
again, im not talking geometry
> That's what that is. Say, (1,4). You're putting things on a plane.
no, im expressing relations between objects. just because you like geometry so much doesnt make this about geometry.
> I'm getting the strangest impression of the opposite, and I don't know why.
>>768442925
my comment got sent without me meaning to, mustve pressed a button accidentally. anyway:
> Maybe it's because you keep working to continue to defend the idea that geometry isn't important and we should just all forget about it.
i didnt say forget about it, i said im not talking about geometry.
> Even though geometry defines a lot of what you want to say about your asymptotes.
TIL limit theory is geometry. someone dig up cauchy and tell him that his foundational contributions to analysis were really about drawings
>>768443346
>set of all ordered pairs
Pairs. There's the pairs again. You were talking about pairs. What has pairs, again?
>the drawing isn't the asymptote
Yes, yes it is. And, a mathematical object need not be drawn to express its dimensionality. It matters that you can draw it in so far as you can demonstrate, visually, how the dimensionally is expressed. You don't have to. But suggesting you don't need to is counter-intuitive to the nature of graphing a function. Graphing, a verb. Creating a diagram. That usually includes drawing. And it's a common practice, because it conveys and depicts the behavior of the function far more easier than anything else.
>im not talking geometry
>>768437358
>lines are not points
>and theyre 2-dimensional at least
>>768438118
>infinitely many points in some multidimensional space
Woops.
>im expressing relations between objects
Okay, you're officially retarded. That is literally an expression of what you are doing when you are expressing relations between objects. Between functions. Literally, your mathematical objects. Without even using geometry in terms of a diagram.
>i didnt say forget about it
You suggest as much with consistently moving away from geometry where it legitimately serves you. Not too long ago you said
>doesnt make this about geometry
When one of the first things I called you out on was exactly a geometric aspect.
>limit theory is geometry
Way to use hyperbole.
Motherfuckers.
Everyone in this thread is right, but I have another way to look at it.
0.999repeating implies that it has infinite 9s behind the decimal.
So when we take 0.999repeating x10, we actually end up with 9.999repeating with (infinity-1) 9s behind the decimal.
If we take the original times 100, it actually equals 99.999repeating with (infinity-2) 9s behind the decimal and so on.
Soooo, then, 0.999repeating x infinity= (infinite 9s).00000=\= 1xinfinty therefore 0.999repeating =\=1.
The problem with the equation is and will always be how to deal with infinity.
>>768428123
Ya,
.8999...=.9
>>768411581
To designate a value as .999 repeating is to explicitly indicate that it is not 1. Whether you treat them the same depends on the application.
>>768444091
Haha I think your proof only proves you are retarded.
