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.
>>77
Funny thing is, .99999999 repeating *is* equal to one whole object.
I asked myself the same thing.. I reasoned that if 1/9 is .1111 repeating, and 2/9 is .2222 repeating, and then for each n<10, n/9=.nnnnn, then I figured out "oh noes! 9/9 is .99999999! (repeating!)"
That being said, if all you are trying to say is that the inexactness of real life procedures limits our ability to divide a single object perfectly, then I'd dare say that you are taking positively the most retarded approach I can think of to prove it.
>>93
For the record, Mr. "0 doesn't exist" is a far better troll than LordRiordan.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-15 19:40
Of course 0 doesn't exist as a number, it's the absence of all mathematical value. It's a bit ironic though, don't you think? Besides infinity and irrational numbers, 0 was ultimately the last number created. The last "number" created, representing nothing, was created last. Wouldn't it make sense for a symbol representing nothing to be created as soon as the "nothing" (whatever existed before the universe) was over? Nothing was the first thing to exist. sorry if that doesn't make any sense... any thoughts?
Name:
LordRiordan2006-12-15 19:51
0 represents nothing. I started that most recent thread too.
0 = nothing
When health = 0, then character dies.
When there is NO MORE HEALTH IN EXISTANCE... Zero represents that theres nothing there. NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING
your fundamental flaw is the same as those who can't accept that 0.999 recurring equals exactly 1: you can't comprehend recurrence.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-16 0:44
3 * 33.333... GET
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-16 11:31
But 0.9999... will never equal exactly 1. Yes, one will get extremely close to reaching 1, but a decimal point with an infinite amount of 9s will never reach 1. Read the Number Devil.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-16 11:58
>>100
100 GET? or not? WE MUST DISCUSS IF 3 * 33.333... REALLY EQUALS 100!!
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-16 12:44
>>101
Numbers aren't processes. You fail at math and at life.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-16 13:04
>>101
If you have a finite amount of 9s, then yes, each time you add a 9 you get closer and closer to 1 without ever equaling it. However, an infinite amount of 9s is infinitely close to 1, i.e. it is equal to 1.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-16 14:15
>>104
You said it - infinitely CLOSE - never equal
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-16 14:28
>>105
So what's between 0.999... and 1.0...? Note that if you put anything after the "infinitely many" 9's, you DON'T HAVE INFINITELY MANY 9'S.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-16 15:00
>>103
Logically, there is nothing wrong with what 101 said. An infinite number of .9999999... can never equal 1. The only real number that can equal 1 is 1, unless it's converted to a+bi form.
>>108
So do you not understand the meaning of "between" or are you claiming that 0.999... != 0.999...?
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-16 16:56
>>105
Infinitely close is the same as equals, go take some high school math classes if you don't understand. For example, if you used a tool with finite precision to measure something with the value 5, you only know that it is close to 5 within that precision; you cannot actually prove that it is 5. As the precision approaches infinity, you can prove that it is closer and closer to 5, and finally at infinite precision, you know for a fact that the value is equal to 5.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-16 17:54
So basically it comes down to what one's definition of "infinite" and "equal" are... >>110
Yes, one can never know for a fact whether or not a predetermined distance is equal to 5, it's merely labels that mathematicians have approximated. But who's to say that there isn't an exact measurement of anything, it's just that we have no way of knowing...
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-16 19:36
>>109
No, when I said: .999... is between .999... and 1
I meant the first .999... has more nines than the second.