Think about it... how can you have 3 equal parts of an object? The decimate representation is impossible and one side always has to be bigger then the other. This is also why there is no such thing as 360 equal degrees in a circle as one degree has to be off by a little bit... There are no 360 numbers that will add up to 1 whole object either.
Name:
LordRiordan2006-12-18 23:18
Re:160
Thanks for getting me the number. I doesn't matter what base you are in, whatever equivalent piece of the pie you pick it's all the same. Doesn't happen.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-18 23:38
>>161
Fine, then we're back to what I said a long time ago. Since the base 3 representation of the base 10 number 0.5 is 0.1111111..., we conclude that you can't cut something in half either. And the base 3 representation of the base 10 number 0.2 is 0.01210121..., and so on. Hence, you've made the incredible discovery that math is an abstraction! OMG STOP THE PRESSES!
Name:
LordRiordan2006-12-18 23:50
Then why is there argument over it? Don't be an asshole. :p
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-19 0:11
LAFFO
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-19 0:29
Here's another proof, in addition to 118 and 127, this time with limits:
>>163
I'm arguing because this has been pointed out a number of times, yet you keep coming back to the thread to spout the same sophomoric bullshit all over again. Furthermore, you keep swinging back and forth between two very different claims: (1) that you cannot always divide by 3 "in real life," and (2) that you cannot divide by 3 in a purely mathematical sense. It's already been shown that the latter is nonsense, and it was agreed upon early in the thread that the former is correct. I don't know if you're taking agreement with (2) to imply agreement with (1), or if you think that making the same false claim over and over again will somehow change peoples' minds, but I see no reason for you to continue posting in the manner that you have been.
Name:
LordRiordan2006-12-19 17:14
Your proper english doesn't scare me.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-20 2:38
OP is either a troll or is now pretending to be one since his shit has being ruined.
For those interested, the 0.999... = 1 argument has been successfully and succinctly proven by >>118>>127>>165 and 166. The problem is one that throws a lot of people, but the above proofs should clear it up for anyone who has a shred of common sense.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-20 2:39
>>169
Unfortunately, "anyone who has a shred of common sense" is a group which makes up only about 5% of /sci/'s population.
Name:
LordRiordan2006-12-20 3:30
I've been trolling and loling. :p
Name:
LordRiordan2006-12-20 3:30
Although it has brought up a good discussion. :p 172 GET
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-20 5:02
You're dumb. Rational numbers are those which can be represented as a fraction. Just because '1/3' isn't very easily represented as a decimal doesn't mean it's not a number. You are dumb. Take some higher level math courses and start complaining about how the number 'i' doesn't exist.
Name:
LordRiordan2006-12-20 13:11
Whats with 13 dimentional math?
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-22 18:27
>>174
13 is a bad luck number, let's have 14 dimensions and set n to 0
Explain "redness" to someone that's blind. Feel free to use as much physics as you want.
Notice that I didn't say "the colour red", which is very easy. I said "redness"; the effect you get from looking at something that is red that makes you respond. Use all the psychology you want.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-01 17:51
>>181
I don't need to, they are mathematical dimensions.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-02 18:36
Really, how does hyperspace and polytopes and multiple spacial dimensions relate to the American experience of the black man today?
So is there any definate answer to this that is written in a book somewheres?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-03 1:49
>>188
Read the fucking thread, you arrogant cockbite. .000...1 has no meaning. Infinitesimals do not exist in the reals - give me one number such that x/2 !< x, x!=0.
>>195
Yes, since books are never wrong. Every book that isn't full of shit will tell you this. Go fucking Google it.
Name:
LordRiordan2007-01-03 2:03
Don't be a retard 196. 1 - .9999... doesn't equal 0. Not that I'm positive on what you are trying to get at as you never really make a reference to any subject.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-03 2:07
I thought the >>188 was pretty clear. If it doesn't equal zero, what? .000...1 is not a number.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-03 2:18
>>196
"give me one number such that x/2 !< x, x!=0."
lol. -1.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-03 2:30
Heh, whoops. Forgot the absolute value bars. Second try:
Find any x such that |x/2| !< |x|, x != 0.