Do you pass or fail the IQ test of understanding that ".999" repeating forever after 0 means the 9s are forever/eternally approaching 1 and thus never ever reaching 1? Just like there are many ways to show through TA that Bitcoin will crash to $1, there are many ways to show through math that the forever repeating ".999"s will reach 1. In reality however of course, Bitcoin isn't dumping to $1 nor will the ".999"s forever approaching 1 ever reach 1.
>>59613824.999 repeating is 1, name a number between them, you can't because there isn't one, they're the same number just a silly representation due to decimals and base 10.
>>59613977You failed one of the most simple IQ test in existence. Less than 1 isn't 1, nor can it ever become 1. That's all there's to it. Failing to understand that means you're low IQ.
>>59613824I've been drinking and ingesting yeast products tonight. I feel like I should have something to contribute here but I guess I'm just a brainlet. You offered the subject in a cool way though. You're alright OP.
>>59613985It's not less than 1 because it's the same number fucking idiot.
>>596140120.99* _<x<1
my fav jokeAn infinite number of mathematicians walk into a bar. The 1st orders 1 beer, the 2nd orders 1/2 a beer, the 3rd orders 1/4 a beer, the 4th orders 1/8 a beer and so on. The bartender says "You guys are assholes" and pours two beers.
Infinite decimals is exactly equal to 1 because of fraction conversion, fraction representation, and real number limits. Mathematically it’s incorrect and applying that to BTC has no correlation because BTC is set by external factors, market sentiment, and probabilities aka NOT MATHMATICAL CERTAINTIES.
C'mon. /biz/tard are dumb enough as it is. Why do you want to fill their heads with nonsense on top of it?>>59613977 is correct. That's it. Go home, idiots.
>>59613824>".999" repeating forever after 0 means the 9s are forever/eternally approaching 1 and thus never ever reaching 1?this is wrong, it is not "approaching" 1, it is infinitely smaller than 1 which by definition means they are equivalent. The same way an infinitely small number,0.000000000000000000000000000...is equal to 0
>>59614062In engineering we call this “product limitation” as in when designing OP’s Bad Dragon Puff the Magic Prostrate Ticklier TM the product specified 1 foot, we allow a fraction of a cm off but it is still within product specifications.
>>59614062>OP doesn't know how to use limit functions
>>59613824>.9999... = 1Not true at all. Try walking into a bank and trading .999999999.... for $1. You'll get laughed right out.
>>59614004You ought to try sourdough
>>59613977>Name an integer number between 2 and 3 >You cant therefore 2 and 3 are the sameWoah
>>59613977Below 1 is the 9s. What precisely is so mentally difficult with that?
>>59613977Inbetween them is the repeating 9. Now your turn: When will the 9 have repeated enough times for the 0 to flip over into a 1?
>>59613824>In reality however of course, Bitcoin isn't dumping to $1 nor will the ".999"s forever approaching 1 ever reach 1.This is copium, and desperate. Listen to your gut here.Sell already.Floating-point.
>>59614028Bartender can't serve because they can never finish ordering and he can't know if the guy number n+1 won't order a whiskey.
>>59613985No two 1’s are the same anon.Even this 1 isn’t the same as this here 1 or this 1 over here which isn’t the same as that there 1 over there, and here’s another 1 that isn’t the same as any of those and so on and so forth.There are no two one’s alike. It takes a unique human lack of perspective that we all share which means that we take two ones that aren’t the same but we see them as sufficiently similar and we then go and call them the same. Organise that sufficiently, coherent logic and all that, and you can have a system that manifests as logic, enables heuristics and affords us a semblance of sense amidst the Borgesian chaos and harmony but in no way is it ever an accurate reflection of the world anon. We impose this order of 1’s onto the reality of things because not aggregating would drive us nuts. We take an infinite shade of blues and call them alike. We take an infinite conglomerate of whatever’s and call them ones of this and ones of that. There are no two things alike.It’s us who struggles to accept this so we brute force the 0.999 into being 1’s. And prior to that we made the 0.9998 and the 0.999987 into one and the same to make it all more manageable.What is causation but correlation between two close enough events running at 0.999 until shown or recalled otherwise. It’s us who says it’s this or that. Sergey told you that if he had one piece of advice for you it was to go read Nietzsche. And if Nietzsche had one piece of advice it might have been to understand Hume’s necessary connection. And yet here we are chasing numbers unable to escape our Faustian spirit.
>>59613977>>59613824Floor(.999...)=0, floor(1)=1, therefore 0.999...!=1. Checkmate mathfags.>inb4 floor is not defined blabla
x = 0.999...10x = 9.999...10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999... -> 9x = 9 -> x = 1
>.99999 repeating equals one because trans rights are human rights or something
>>59613824Ngl an iq test without someone to supervise it seems to me the same as those zodiacal tests, for that I prefer to see my Koto as a weeb to his cumjar
>>59614062> "0.999..." is smaller than 1 Yes. Go on.>w-which means it's the same as 1Topkek. What we've got here is an instance of the NPC mind knowing "0.999..." is smaller than 1 yet his internalized Ministry of Truth catches himself in this crimethink and wrongthink thought, so he simultaneously feels the need to perform doublethink mental gymnastics to convince himself smaller than 1 really is the same as 1 at the end of the day after all. The NPC mind, everyone.
>>59617367Do those displays of confident idiocy actually convince people?Nevermind. Don't answer that. I just heard myself.
>>59617367Alright let me say it another there, by definition there is no finite difference between the two thus they are equivalent.
>>59617534But there is an infinite differenceInfinite > finite Check em
>>59617534The nines aren't finite, as you know, so arguments like asking people to locate a finite difference between 1 and the nines is a strawman argument and misdirection as nobody has ever claimed there is any finite number between 1 and the nines nor has anyone claimed the sequence of nines are finite; the entire point is they are repeating forever - which means they are forever beneath 1, never getting to 1. >>59617590Infinite vs finite, yes. It all boils down to people mentally capable and willing to accept infinity or eternity versus people who have a major mental problem with it and very badly want it to not be real because it hurts their worldview somehow (jews have a huge problem with it; their way of thinking and their religions rely on everything being finite, in contrast to the White way of thinking). The infinite difference, exactly, not a finite one. "Infinite difference" is the same as "never the same". As the nines are endless, it's the same as saying they will never reach 1. Beneath 1 is forever the repeating 9.
>>59613977>name a sex betwen a troon who got his dick cut and put on some implants and a real woman>you canttherefore axe wound troons = real women , checkmate conservaturds
are trannies in the room with us now?
>>59613824>>59613977>>59613985>>59614004>>59614012>>59614044>>59614062>>59614145>>59616036I have diarrhea right now and you people aren't helping with this...
>>59613824Hey retard what is 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3
asdasd
The <1=1 followers without realizing it are denying the 9s keep repeating. They know the 9s keep repeating, but at the same time they deny it. If they would truly fully accept the 9s keep repeating, then they'd be forced to conclude 1 is never reached. It's extremely ironic because their entire argument is at its core "the 9s repeat so therefore it becomes 1", their very argument hinges on them admitting the 9s are repeating... while at the same time, they can't accept that means there's always forever a 9 at the end.
>>59618727>there's always forever a 9 at the end.I don't think you realize what infinity means anon
>>59617590Checked
>>596138240.99999 repeating isn’t a number, it’s a limit. the limit is 1if it’s a number then give me an expression for it that doesn’t equal 1. this should be easy for you
>>59618727>If they would truly fully accept the 9s keep repeatingThey can't because they reject endlessness. So they're actually rejecting 0.999... itself. This is the essence of their problem. That's why they want to turn it into 1. So that they're no longer dealing with an endless sequence - something which to them mustn't exist.
>>59618806>the limit is 1The limit value of 1 is never touched by the 9s below it. >give me an expression for it that doesn’t equal 10.999..., where ... is infinite 9s.
>>59613824I have an iq of 120, but I feel like I have below 85.
>>596139851/3 = 0.333333333333 repeating2/3 = 0.666666666666 repeating 3/3 = 0.999999999999 repeating3/3 = 1not that hard to understand
>>596138241 divided by 3 is 0.333 repeating0.333 repeating times 3 is 0.999 repeating0.999 repeating is equal to 1
>>59613977 >>59614012 >>59620062>999 repeating is 1>it's the same number fucking>0.999 repeating is equal to 1Say that to yourself while looking directly into your own face in the mirror.>>59620027>3/3 = 0.999999999999 repeatingYeah that's as high as you get by combining three forever repeating 0.333333333333 -- in the end you're stuck with forever repeating 0.999999999999, it never turns into 1, no tricks to make it happen. It's like picrel, you can't do it.
>>59620325x = .999…multiply both sides by 1010x = 9.999…separate the integer10x = 9 + .999…which would also be10x = 9 + xnow subtract the variable from each side9x = 9divide by 9x = 1you’re retarded
>>59616074>>59616349>>59618245>>59620027>>59620403Here's TA demonstrating BTC going to 1k. BTC really did go to 1k because TA says so. The TA proves it.
>>59620513This. Engaging in mathcope is sad and useless since no amount of equations or circular reasoning can make the sub-1 value of "0.999..." into 1. Their fundamental problem is they miss that the "..." means the 9 continue on forever, unceasingly, and thus that eternal sub-1 value is forever nearing 1, never becoming 1.
All the anons doing math, you are not thinking correctly about the issue. It's not some math equation that has to be solved: you are not being challenged to solve some math puzzle, but rather you are challenged with a simple logic issue involving a yes-no question: is 1 1? Yes 1 is 1. Is 0.999999etc 1? No, that's less than 1. That's it. And naturally you know that is indeed so. You know it. But in your eagerness to "solve" the "problem" as a math challenge in order to satisfy your ego's desire to feel good and also to prove to yourself you are able to parrot something you've been told, you forget that you know. Additionally as a result of that aforementioned eagerness, you may be unable to consciously recognize that you are in fact thinking incorrectly about the issue. But you can trust me, someone who can think about this perfectly calmly and rationally, when I say that you are in your thoughts indeed approaching the issue in the entirely wrong way. If sometime in the future you are able to recognize the error in your thinking then, and only then, will you be able to begin thinking correctly about this.
>>59614155Why does it need to be an integer?
>>59621230It isn’t less than one because if it was, there would be a number between it and one, and there isn’t. Simple as. The fact that it gets closer and closer to one FOREVER means that it equals one, it would only be less than one if it didn’t keep getting closer FOREVER, but it does.
>>59621230>>59621725Actually, here’s a better question than what number is between it and one; what number is one minus 0.99…? If one is bigger, it should be some positive number
>>59621230>Is 0.999999etc 1?Yes it literally is, in the same way that 7-6 is 1.>No, that's less than 1. Incorrect, it's less than one by 0. Meaning, it's 1.
>>59613824Ok.Show me 4 (four) things that needs that many 9s.That should be easy. For instance I describe a cat, I can show you 4 cats. I can show you 4 buttons in Elden Ring, I can show you 4 daily routines I do.
"Infinity" is a made up concept. It's not real. Purely hypothetical. Just another stupid "dark number" kind of thing.
