>>11
Stop, you'll fall into their jewish trap. Now they'll claim you have different sets of infinite numbers, and those are in fact numbers themselves. Even more absurd, they'll claim the set of finite numbers and ``infinite numbers'' are of different sizes (what the fuck). Perhaps it's no surprise this idea has a hebrew rune א associated with it.
Just giving the jews one infinity is enough for them to mess up everything!
>>12 octave says e=2.7183, though i guess it could have an endless number of decimals (but can you prove that it does? (probably...) /and wouldn't you just end up rounding at some point anyway, like when you wanted to actually use it?)
well, i can see 1/3 = 0.3333 (recurring) being a simple example of an endless decimal number, but then can't you just divide 3 instead of multiplying by 0.333333(...etc)4..?
and once again, e is not a number either, its a symbol. For all practical purposes can you not only show me a finite number..?
>>14
It's just a nice way to construct some properties when you consider it to actually be an infinite precision number. A hack for math that will probably go away in a few hundred years for a more precise way of saying the same things.
>>15
1/3 is not an infinite number just because it can't be fully represented with our numeral system. The infinity lies within the system, and not the number itself. It's just another number. Trying to represent it with the decimal system is like trying to take a shit with your dick (in this example the ternary system is your ass).
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-07 12:17
positive numbers are the first dimension, negative numbers are the second, zero is the third
i know this may be hard to understand, but bear with me. for infinity to be able to exist, first infinity needs to exist. since it does not, infinity can't exist. i'm not trolling by the way, i came to this conclusion after thinking about it for about an hour straight. unfortunately i can't remember my train of thought, but i'm pretty sure i'm right.
>>23
Let base-e consist if the digits 0e and 1e.
Let 0e = 0.
Let 1e = e/2.
It follows that 10e = e, 11e = 3e/2, 100e = 2e, etc.
It turns out that base-e is not that foreign of a concept, it's actually the natural base of the universe. log10 is introduced in algebra to explain the concept of logarithms, but in calculus it becomes clear that loge, or ln, For instance, when you hang a clothes line, its curve can be represented by a hyperbolic function, which is an inverse of ln.
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-07 20:17
>>34 e/2
Irrational. Show me e apples right the fuck now.
>>16 but the problem is, you can never reach that infinite precision, you must always settle for a finite precision instead. Really, the only way you can have perfect precision is to work with (dum-dum Duum) finite (decimal?) numbers... 1+1 = 2 for example is perfectly precise. Even using that simple example from before, 1/3 = 0.333, then 0.333 * 3 = 0.999. You can use as many decimal places as you like, but 0.99999999(etc) never really equals 1, otherwise you start to break the infinite number of numbers rule...
>>19 well you can call it undefined, since an infinite number of nothing still sums to nothing, so what about 0/0 then? how many nothings in nothing?
Unprovable theorem #x : Any [real] number with an infinite/unknown number of decimal places either loops [such as 0.333], or ends [pi, maybe e, etc..?]...
Summing an infinite series is probably the execption, because the equation itself is broken..
...If you do manage to get infinite (exact) precision from a finite number of terms of an infinite series, then your series has terminated, no?
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-07 23:19
>>38
That seems rather true to me, assuming you are talking about the reals.
Every rational must have a repeating decimal.
A decimal expansion is a special case of an infinite series, a geometric series in base 10 with each coefficient being 0-9.
In fact, this could be a counter example: