I doubt he can do it-=raska=- wrote:
no thread is not done, thread is right.Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
thread done.
if not, prove that the statements (verified by mathematicians) on this site are false. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.99
(.9~)!=1. It is arbitrarily close to one. And the difference is arbitrarily close to 0. If that's all you wanted to prove, gg. End of story.
Last edited by jonsimon (2006-11-29 16:20:20)
That's not what I wanted to prove. I DID prove that .9999~ is EXACTLY 1, not arbitrarily close to 1, nor the difference arbitrarily close to 0.jonsimon wrote:
(.9~)!=1. It is arbitrarily close to one. And the difference is arbitrarily close to 0. If that's all you wanted to prove, gg. End of story.
Last edited by Onionpaste (2006-11-29 16:22:03)
0.99999 = exactly 1
its 2 symbols meaning 1 number, not 2 different numbers.
its 2 symbols meaning 1 number, not 2 different numbers.
qft-=raska=- wrote:
also 1/3 = 0.33...
1/3 x 3 = 1
0.33... x 3 = 0.999... = 1
good point...never thought about it that way...i suppose its right then.
My brain 'splode.Yaocelotl wrote:
I doubt he can do it-=raska=- wrote:
no thread is not done, thread is right.Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
thread done.
if not, prove that the statements (verified by mathematicians) on this site are false. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.99
*dead*
btw I dont understand why you added the factorial at ,9~jonsimon wrote:
(.9~)!=1. It is arbitrarily close to one. And the difference is arbitrarily close to 0. If that's all you wanted to prove, gg. End of story.
Maybe it's a != or "not equal as"-=raska=- wrote:
btw I dont understand why you added the factorial at ,9~jonsimon wrote:
(.9~)!=1. It is arbitrarily close to one. And the difference is arbitrarily close to 0. If that's all you wanted to prove, gg. End of story.
Its not a factorial, it means the boolean function not. So in the context I was using it, != means not equal to.-=raska=- wrote:
btw I dont understand why you added the factorial at ,9~jonsimon wrote:
(.9~)!=1. It is arbitrarily close to one. And the difference is arbitrarily close to 0. If that's all you wanted to prove, gg. End of story.
...ok didnt know this symbol. Not equal as is ~. On this thread "~" is used as the symbol of infinity, but usually infinity is the "dead 8".Yaocelotl wrote:
Maybe it's a != or "not equal as"-=raska=- wrote:
btw I dont understand why you added the factorial at ,9~jonsimon wrote:
(.9~)!=1. It is arbitrarily close to one. And the difference is arbitrarily close to 0. If that's all you wanted to prove, gg. End of story.
edit :
oh ok... ty then.jonsimon wrote:
Its not a factorial, it means the boolean function not. So in the context I was using it, != means not equal to.
Last edited by -=raska=- (2006-11-29 16:31:09)
If it is, he could always go to his character map and make the symbol understandable eh? ≠ ftw.Yaocelotl wrote:
Maybe it's a != or "not equal as"-=raska=- wrote:
btw I dont understand why you added the factorial at ,9~jonsimon wrote:
(.9~)!=1. It is arbitrarily close to one. And the difference is arbitrarily close to 0. If that's all you wanted to prove, gg. End of story.
!= = ≠Onionpaste wrote:
If it is, he could always go to his character map and make the symbol understandable eh? ≠ ftw.Yaocelotl wrote:
Maybe it's a != or "not equal as"-=raska=- wrote:
btw I dont understand why you added the factorial at ,9~
no that means "is not equal to"Onionpaste wrote:
If it is, he could always go to his character map and make the symbol understandable eh? ≠ ftw.Yaocelotl wrote:
Maybe it's a != or "not equal as"-=raska=- wrote:
btw I dont understand why you added the factorial at ,9~
~ means "is almost equal to"
Fail, ~ means long string of same numbers-=raska=- wrote:
no that means "is not equal to"Onionpaste wrote:
If it is, he could always go to his character map and make the symbol understandable eh? ≠ ftw.Yaocelotl wrote:
Maybe it's a != or "not equal as"
~ means "is almost equal to"
uuhhhhh this was a very random topic. simple algebra though.......I think....
And I used the ~ symbol because the "dead 8" (can't find it on my char map for the life of me) represents infinity as a number, not a quantity of something. And, ~ looks kinda sorta not really like the line you put over a decimal to show it repeats indefinitely.-=raska=- wrote:
...ok didnt know this symbol. Not equal as is ~. On this thread "~" is used as the symbol of infinity, but usually infinity is the "dead 8".Yaocelotl wrote:
Maybe it's a != or "not equal as"-=raska=- wrote:
btw I dont understand why you added the factorial at ,9~
It isn't though. It's just an anomaly of the mathematical system we use (not that there's another one where it wouldn't = 1). The numerical system doesn't deal with 0.99999~ very well at all. What is it? Rational? Irrational? It makes no sense. We need an entirely new mathematical system.Onionpaste wrote:
That's not what I wanted to prove. I DID prove that .9999~ is EXACTLY 1, not arbitrarily close to 1, nor the difference arbitrarily close to 0.jonsimon wrote:
(.9~)!=1. It is arbitrarily close to one. And the difference is arbitrarily close to 0. If that's all you wanted to prove, gg. End of story.
There we go, problem solved. Now someone come up with a new numerical system that doesn't have any nasty anomalies.
It's not that 0.9999~ = 1 it's that you can't prove the 2 numbers are distinct. But I challenge anyone to give me a practical example.
It reminds me of a (rather crap) joke one of my lecturers used to make about physicists and engineers. There is a hot woman a few feet away but the biggest step you can take towards her is half the remaining distance. The physicist would sit there pondering the impossibility of the situation and the engineer would already have taken the first few steps and grabbed her 'cos he was close enough.
I was talking about the guy who used the != sign to mean not equal to, he could have used ≠, and no, ~ does not mean almost equal to in this thread. It means the decimal repeats indefinitely.-=raska=- wrote:
no that means "is not equal to"Onionpaste wrote:
If it is, he could always go to his character map and make the symbol understandable eh? ≠ ftw.Yaocelotl wrote:
Maybe it's a != or "not equal as"
~ means "is almost equal to"
Aren't there two lines in the almost equal to version though? Like a wavy =?-=raska=- wrote:
no that means "is not equal to"Onionpaste wrote:
If it is, he could always go to his character map and make the symbol understandable eh? ≠ ftw.Yaocelotl wrote:
Maybe it's a != or "not equal as"
~ means "is almost equal to"
Gen. Payne wrote:
I remember there was something out there that could prove 1=2. I gotta try to find that.
Found it (it is, in fact, false; try to find the error, you may get karma)
a = b
ab = b²
- (ab) = - (b²)
a²-ab = a² - b²
a(a-b) = (a+b) (a-b) <--- (a-b) = 0
a = a+b <--- Division by zero, undefined.
a = 2a
1 = 2
It does in most programming languages, that maybe why.Onionpaste wrote:
I was talking about the guy who used the != sign to mean not equal to, he could have used ≠, and no, ~ does not mean almost equal to in this thread. It means the decimal repeats indefinitely.-=raska=- wrote:
no that means "is not equal to"Onionpaste wrote:
If it is, he could always go to his character map and make the symbol understandable eh? ≠ ftw.
~ means "is almost equal to"
(!= not equal)
there is no fucking way .9999999999~ = 1
dumbfucks. omfg. 1 = 1
.999999999~ = .9999999999~
but if it helps you sleep at night to think that, then by all means.........
i still see NO proof whatsoever.
dumbfucks. omfg. 1 = 1
.999999999~ = .9999999999~
but if it helps you sleep at night to think that, then by all means.........
i still see NO proof whatsoever.
Last edited by Des.Kmal (2006-11-29 16:39:07)
Add me on Origin for Battlefield 4 fun: DesKmal
1/9 = 0.111...
2/9 = 0.222...
3/9 = 0.333...
4/9 = 0.444...
5/9 = 0.555...
6/9 = 0.666...
7/9 = 0.777...
8/9 = 0.888...
9/9 = 0.999...
And 9/9 also = 1. Therefore 0.999... = 1.
Edit: @Kmal: 0.999... is an infinitely long number. It's not a 0. followed by two nines, or five nines, or a hundred nines, or a googleplex of nines. It's infinite nines.
2/9 = 0.222...
3/9 = 0.333...
4/9 = 0.444...
5/9 = 0.555...
6/9 = 0.666...
7/9 = 0.777...
8/9 = 0.888...
9/9 = 0.999...
And 9/9 also = 1. Therefore 0.999... = 1.
Edit: @Kmal: 0.999... is an infinitely long number. It's not a 0. followed by two nines, or five nines, or a hundred nines, or a googleplex of nines. It's infinite nines.
Last edited by k30dxedle (2006-11-29 16:40:03)
LOL, so true; there is a feud between physicists and mathmaticians about this and many types of problems.Bertster7 wrote:
It isn't though. It's just an anomaly of the mathematical system we use (not that there's another one where it wouldn't = 1). The numerical system doesn't deal with 0.99999~ very well at all. What is it? Rational? Irrational? It makes no sense. We need an entirely new mathematical system.Onionpaste wrote:
That's not what I wanted to prove. I DID prove that .9999~ is EXACTLY 1, not arbitrarily close to 1, nor the difference arbitrarily close to 0.jonsimon wrote:
(.9~)!=1. It is arbitrarily close to one. And the difference is arbitrarily close to 0. If that's all you wanted to prove, gg. End of story.
There we go, problem solved. Now someone come up with a new numerical system that doesn't have any nasty anomalies.
It's not that 0.9999~ = 1 it's that you can't prove the 2 numbers are distinct. But I challenge anyone to give me a practical example.
It reminds me of a (rather crap) joke one of my lecturers used to make about physicists and engineers. There is a hot woman a few feet away but the biggest step you can take towards her is half the remaining distance. The physicist would sit there pondering the impossibility of the situation and the engineer would already have taken the first few steps and grabbed her 'cos he was close enough.
You run into the problem where if a=b is true then in this line a(a-b) = (a+b) (a-b) you find that a-b=0 which when you multiply you get 0=0Gen. Payne wrote:
I remember there was something out there that could prove 1=2. I gotta try to find that.
Found it (it is, in fact, false; try to find the error, you may get karma)
a = b
ab = b²
- (ab) = - (b²)
a²-ab = a² - b²
a(a-b) = (a+b) (a-b)
a = a+b
a = 2a
1 = 2
EDIT: DAR! Solid144 beat me.
I'll get back on the 0.9999999... = 1 thing later
Last edited by Stags (2006-11-29 16:42:42)