Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

omg new proof

Name: .999...9 =/= 1 2007-05-12 6:26 ID:/qcJW6wi

Assumptions
If A = B, then
a)  A-B = 0
b) A = (A+B)/2 = B

If A > B, then
a)  A-B > 0
b) A > (A+B)/2 > B


Let A = 1, B = .999...9
a) A-B = 1-.999...9 = .000...1 =/= 0
b) (A+B)/2 = (1+.999...9)/2 = 1.999...9/2 = 1.999...95 < A

Therefore, .999...9 =/= 1

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-12 7:48 ID:Heaven

.999...9 != .999...

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-12 9:11 ID:Heaven

I see you are trying to represent a real number with a string of characters.  However, you have not supplied enough information to allow us to accurately determine which real number you mean.

Please tell us the location of the final 9 in this string:
0.999...9
We expect this to be a natural number.  Failure to provide such a position will prevent us from determining your number, and will make the majority of your argument void.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-12 9:27 ID:y4fj88CN

>>2
Thread over

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-12 10:21 ID:TeKAZ/IS

>>4
you must be mistaken, this thread is just begin.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-12 10:53 ID:Heaven

>>5
No, I'm pretty sure it ended with >>2.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-12 11:46 ID:/+LKpq8R

11:15 Restate my assumptions:

1. Mathematics is the language of nature.

2. Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.

3. If you graph these numbers, patterns emerge. Therefore: There are patterns everywhere in nature.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-12 12:55 ID:i70X5Tab

>>4
>>6

This man is correct.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-12 17:04 ID:IksFMfq4

>Therefore, .999...9 =/= 1

Wait wasn't this already known?

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-12 17:46 ID:Q2RZVFW4

>>8
You lie the truth.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-12 17:53 ID:TeKAZ/IS

>>7
this is why philosophy students need to take more logic classes.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-12 18:01 ID:0uY1giCu

.   +    . = ..
..  +    . = ...
... +    . = ....

.
.
.

.... + . = ....

So we conclude . = 0, .... != ...., and that this thread fails.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-12 19:23 ID:5DLH4P1/

http://www.serbianschool.com/

NOW THAT YOU'VE READ THIS MESSAGE, YOU'VE GOT 24 HOURS TO LEARN THE SERBIAN LANGUAGE. IF YOU FAIL, YOU WILL DIE A HORRIBLE DEATH EXACTLY 24 HOURS FROM NOW. НE СEJ ТИКВE ГДE JOШ НИСУ НИКЛE!

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-12 19:32 ID:yFChcQtv

I AM A MATHEMATICIAN AT A PRESTIGIOUS ENGLISH UNIVERSITY, AND I DECLARE THIS PROOF TO BE COMPLETELY CONSISTENT AND CORRECT

IM CALLING THE KING OF MATHEMATICS AS I TYPE

THERE ARE A LOT OF TEXTBOOKS TO BE CHANGED

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-12 21:05 ID:wpGE5azS

>>7

Best. Movie. Ever.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-12 22:42 ID:bDh+13Hj

INFINITE IS NOT A NUMBER

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-13 6:22 ID:WJFxJ003

>>11
This is why you need to watch more movies :)

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-13 6:29 ID:hjQg5jZd

>>14
Dude, you know Grothendieck?  Fucking awesome!  Can you give me his number?

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-13 12:01 ID:6S5Kzpy/

>>1
There is no such number. In fact, these .9... numbers don't even exist. Sure, they can be expressed using summation, but that doesn't mean they exist numerically.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-13 14:02 ID:NmaKCHb0

.999...

= sum        9/(10^k)
  k=1 to inf

= sum        9*(1/10)^k
  k=1 to inf

= (sum        9*(1/10)^k) - 9
  (k=0 to inf           )

The first term is now a geometric series and therefore:

= (9/(1-.1)) - 9

= 1

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-13 18:07 ID:G9aUrKOP

consider 0.9 = 1 - 1/10
0.99 = 1 - 1/100
0.999 = 1 - 1/1000
0.9999 = 1 - 1/10000

Generalising, we have 1 - 1/k

if we let k tend to infinity, we will arrive at an "expression" for 0.999~

however, since k --> infinity => 1/k --> 0 => 1 - 1/k --> 1

0.999~ = 1

LEARN WHAT INFINITY IS, AND THEN GET YOUR HEAD AROUND WHAT 0.999~ ACTUALLY REPRESENTS. I'M SICK OF THIS FUCKING BULLSHIT FROM PEOPLE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IT AND COME UP WITH BULLSHIT "THEOREMS"

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-13 22:10 ID:6S5Kzpy/

.9... isn't a number. Saying something that isn't a number equals a number is ridiculous. Let's move on from this endless nonsense.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-13 23:29 ID:Heaven

>>22
You can post this however many times you want, it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-14 0:45 ID:2YwYUj/X

>>23
It is correct. Many mathematicians are arrogant, and later on they are rightly proved incorrected. Summation is a process, and it is not necessarily have a real number as its result. If you think it does, name the exact number. But you can't because it is proof by contradiction (no number you can provide equals ".9..." exactly).

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-14 0:51 ID:Heaven

>>24
1 is equal to 0.9... exactly. Also, definition of the real numbers. You don't know it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-14 1:05 ID:2YwYUj/X

I know the definition of the real numbers, but I am asking for A real number. You have not provided A real number that exactly represents ".9...".

sum(n=1, +inf)[(9)10^-n] != 1

Work with the equation a bit and you will see.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-14 1:56 ID:Hz3NeNTL

I'm having trouble with

"If A > B, then
a)  A-B > 0
b) A > (A+B)/2 > B"

if A = -15 and B = -22, A>B but A-B!>0

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-14 1:59 ID:Heaven

>>27
Yes it does, you fucking idiot.

Why are you even bothing with this? Nobody claims that whatever .999...9 is is equal to 1.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-14 2:04 ID:2YwYUj/X

>>1
>>27
Algebraic operations do not apply to infinite quantities, dipshit(s).

Name: 4tran 2007-05-14 2:17 ID:oDVG3nM6

>>24 see >>25
That's pretty much what kills all these claims.  All those .999... numbers are = 1.

>>26
But that infinite sum is equal to 1, as everybody above you proved...

Name: 4tran 2007-05-14 2:18 ID:oDVG3nM6

>>27
A-B = 7 > 0

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-14 2:58 ID:Heaven

>>26
"sum(n=1, +inf)[(9)10^-n] != 1"
M-M-M-Monster fail!

Here's an idea: Take a fucking high school calculus class so that you understand why you're wrong in this statement. Then, take a fucking analysis class so that you understand the definition of the real numbers. When you accomplish these two things - and it'll take you a while, since you seem pretty slow - you can come here and discuss whether or not 0.999.. = 1. But of course, if you've actually accomplished these two things, then you won't believe that 0.999... != 1, so it's a bit of a catch 22. (Catch 21.999... lolol)

Name: 4tran 2007-05-14 3:28 ID:oDVG3nM6

>>32
LOL - very 1336.999...

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-14 5:44 ID:0jzPHXQV

Everyone who has posted here knows that .999... == 1.  The people who are 'wrong' on this thread are acting that way intentionally.  I imagine half of the people who correct them to know this, the other half thinks the 'wrong' people are just wrong.  And the only people that believe .9999... != 1 are too busy laughing at us.



Name: Anonymous 2007-05-14 14:36 ID:zCqfq85R

here:
let X = 1 + 3 + 9 + 27 + ...
then 3X = 3 + 9 + 27 + 81 + ...
and X - 3X = 1 (by cancellation).  So 2x = 1 or X = 0.5 HOW

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-14 14:36 ID:zCqfq85R

i mean -0.5

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-14 15:24 ID:Heaven

>>35
You can't operate on non-convergent series and expect to get a correct answer. I'm not sure if you're the same idiot as before, so this might be redundant, but: learn high school calculus.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-14 17:03 ID:2YwYUj/X

>>32
I've taken these classes and got decent grades in them. You get bent out of shape when you are asked to provide something and can't do it. Reeks of phailure to me.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-14 17:07 ID:Jy5EhN97

>>37 Tell that to Euler.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-14 18:04 ID:bNubtrfo

Euler was a faggot

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List