ick that sigma looks hella bad... should look like this:
-------
\
\
/
/
-------
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-27 15:20
0.000~1
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-27 21:22
God damn it. I said that if I saw this question one more time I'd burn down the internet. You brought this all upon yourselves.
PS: 0.999~ = 1.
Thread is over.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-28 2:15
a real number is actually an equivalence class of the limit of sequence of rational numbers
Take the sequence .9, .99, .999, .9999, .99999, ...
Obviously it converges to .9 repeating.
However, it also converges to 1.
Thus the limit of the sequence converges to both .9 repeating and 1, so by definition the two equivalence classes (and thus the real numbers) are equal.
now gb2/food you fail at maths
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-28 2:21
>>8 >>9
0.9999~ < 1 formally.
Yet 1 - 0.999999~ = 0.00000~ = 0 thus 0.9999~ = 1 empirically.
Thus, maths fails as a sound model, but succeeds as a pragmatic one.
That's why so many maths geeks hate philosophy at first, until they study it and realize so much of it defines the strength of cases like this.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-28 2:27
there is no 'empirically' in math, shithead.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-28 9:40
I'm a Japanese student.
I'm from 2ch in Japan.
Nice to meet you.
And sorry for my poor English ability.
Name:
122006-02-28 9:41
I think 1=0.999999....
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-28 9:51
>>11
Ah the good old naive "maths is an apriori thing" crowd.
Pray tell, then, why we prove so many theorems by showing that there is no counter example, and disprove standing ones by trying to produce counter-examples?
I hate shitheads like you who are randomly dismissive. You guys like to feel comfortable with your epistemic model, even when it leads you to be blatantly wrong. That's why you guys never make it anywhere in academia and have to get dead-end jobs as software developers.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-28 10:27
日本人は無視ですか？
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-28 12:39
>>14
nonononononononononononono
SHARAMANDOUMAL to you
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-28 12:48
>>14
give me a counter example for this:
42 = 42 -> Math pwns Humanities or go back to your humanities!
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-28 12:51
a = a is always apriori motherfucker.
42 = 39 + 2 isn't.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-28 12:52
>>17
Oh, and maths doesn't really mean anything without philosophy.
More to the point, I stand by the fact that you fail academia. Probably got a second rate maths degree, or are working on failing one.
>>14 >>17
lol? mathematics is a formal system, and everything in it is derived from the ten ZFC axioms. there is absolutely no empiricism or philosophy involved.
Go back to masturbating to Spinoza and stop thinking you know anything about mathematics, shithead.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-28 14:10
>>24
>>> Whine whine whine whine whine
I reckon there's just one maths emo kid who's randomly pissed off at philosophy because his girlfriend dumped him for some humanities person, and keeps on flaming here. The rest of us, thankfully, know better.
Spinoza does suck though.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-28 14:23
whatever makes you happy, shithead.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-28 15:50
king氏ね
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-28 20:19
kill the king
Name:
Not named woman from Japan2006-02-28 23:05
"king" is one of the most fucking HN in math category of Japanese 2ch.
He(/she?) is a serious pedophilia.(however,in Japan, I think
most mathematicians are pedophilia.... )
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-28 23:18
All this bullshit about philosophy and empiricism doesn't matter, since the guy was originalyl wrong anyway. Here is a formal proof that 0.999~ = 1.
x = 0.999~
multiply both sides by 10
10x = 9.999~
subtract x from both sides (remember x = 0.999~)
9x = 9
divde both sides by 9
x = 1
ZOMG 0.999~ = 1
Now shut the fuck up.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-01 0:51
oh lol, I did do the orginal one wrong.....
the thing in the sum should be:
(9/10^1)+ (9/10^2) + (9/10^3) .... (9/10^N)
Haet forgetting the easy ways just because I learn some fancypants limits.
>>32 >>6
you can always use unicode 8721dec
N
lim ∑ (9/10^k)
x→∞ k=1
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-01 10:03
Be cool.All right?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 1:35
>>10
.99~ is not less than one, dipshit, they are literally the same number! That's like saying 1 < 1. You need to stop thinking of real numbers as "numbers"
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 4:24
>>37
I know, when will people learn, right? But this is fourchan, and includes a lot of the "fine" american values in its userbase (thank you american education ministry for limiting people's selves for them) so you have to come to expect these things, maybe just ignore the stupid comments and work on your self so that one day maybe you won't have to read world4ch to relieve boredom. Of course, it makes for less gifted minds, and more
SSSSCCCIIIIEEENNCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
but again it's 4chan, so who cares if it goes to shit!