.
>>17010779theyre defined equal chud
>>17010779>>17010786Im the anti relativity guy but i must say im also anti set theory. This equation only holds because the jew cantor defined that ACTUAL infinity exists, but its not. Only potential infinity exists, therefore the left side gets arbitrarily close but is not the same. Set theory killed math. But well i focus on relativity for now.
>>17010779THEY ARE NOT EQUAL OKTHEY JUST AREN'T
>>17010779AFAIK that's because it's 3 * 1/3 in decimal form and the explanation is simply base-10. However, nobody seems to agree on how to think about the value that approaches a limit in terms of pure mathematics as opposed to practical application?I think it was something called "hyperreal numbers" where an "infinitesimal" is a value, so I GUESS a value like that would be 1 - infinitesimal ≠ 1.Maybe someone knows this subject.
>>170112421/3 is an example of why this is true. But it's not the "reason." And, as you said, 1/3 only expands that way in base 10. We can generalize this concept with any base, though:>Let n be any natural number>Let m = n - 1>for any base n, 0.mmm... = 1To get even more general: (x - 1)/x approaches 1 as x approaches infinity.
>>17010779
>>17010779FalseNo matter how many 9 you add to 0.999... it will never be equal to 1.No matter how many boosters you take, you will never be fully vaccinated.
>>17011327as long as you have the latest booster youre defined as fully vaccinated chud
>>17011332Until the next booster comes, then you're an antivaxx terrorist, some animals are more equal than others.
>>17010779True. All repeating values can be represented over 9's. This has already been proven. 9 repeating is 9/9, which simplifies to 1. 83 repeating is 83/99. 1/7 is 142857 repeating because it is simplified from 142857/999999. With how many dumbfucks that don't know this in this thread alone, it's no wonder they're too stupid to understand basic fucking science. I'd be angry too if I were a jobless middle school drop out with no girlfriend, no car, no future, no nothing. This is hands down the most retarded board.
>>17011429Do you really argue math with personal attacks? Gtfo
>>17010779Equality in this case is a shorthand for limit equality, which is correct. Let S_n refer to the nth sum in this series 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ... For all non zero positive epsilon values, there exists N such that for all n > N, all values in the series S_n are within epsilon distance of 1. That's what the equal sign means.
>>17010779>>17011327x = 0.999…10x=9.999…10x=9+0.999…10x=9+x10x -x =9+x-x9x=9x=1
>>17011743we know but op is still a faggot
>>17011743>>17011758>muh limitsLimits aren’t necessary. All you need to prove 0.9… = 1, even under the most extreme finitist constraints, is the additive identity (0) and the definition of an integer X in decimal notation (X followed by a zero in any decimal you need or can get to).
>>17011752>not in LaTEXNgmi
>>17010779The universe is discrete, there are smallest elements, infinity decimal places holds no water in reality and discussing things that don't relate to reality is the realm of schizos.
So why when I use the pi=4 logic (because you can keep drawing smaller and smaller right angles forever) that's retarded and uneducated. But doing the same for 0.9999999999999999999999999999999... is perfect fine? You're doing the same thing just adding 9 forever. Oh there's infinity 9s. Ok, well pi is 4 and there are infinity right angles
>>17011908Are you having a stroke? How do right angles, around a circle of all things, lol, have any relation at all to decimal notation? Like even the first time you make a new right angle, it's completely inexpressible in decimals. Lol
>>17011908Your example does not hold because there exists (infinitely many) non-zero epsilon where there does not exist a boundary N for which all truncated values of pi past N digits in length are within epsilon distance of 4.
>>17011906This. Modern mathematicians are schizos.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrAw2q4C1mc
>>17011908This is basically a refutation of set theory. Wow why dont they teach this is college. Holy shit.
>>17012243On a second though its a limes problem in analysis but im pretty sure if you do this problem from a set theory standpoint it will lead to a "paradox", or refutation.
>>17011908>"""circle""" with no tangent lines
>>17010786>definedSo they are defined equal "artificially" ?Picrel, it depends on your level of mental gymnastic.
>>17012346>the letters on my shirt look different in a mirrorSo?
>>17012350>Basic mirrors cant reflect UV and infra-red.And?
>>17011752No offense but you can't multiply 0.999... because it is not a valid number. It is a made up representation like drawing shapes in the sand. It does not represent anything real (infinity when there is no such thing as infinity in a finite universe). Hence, the whole "proof" is broken. 1 != 0.999...just like1 != arbitrary shape in the sand
>>17012351you tell me, it’s your “argument”
>>17012359NTA but you can multiply anything with an algorithmic form by anything else with an algorithmic form. a single repeating digit, whether 0 or 9 or anything else, is so ridiculously easy that I can’t even imagine how you’re getting stuck on that
>>17011210>>17010779But for left side, you specify that it must end in a 9, and if it ends in a 9, it will be short by 0.1. Lol.
>>17012381additive identity is 0. definition of an integer in decimal notation includes as many trailing zeros as you can get to. 1.0… - 0.9… = 0.0…; the definition of the additive identity.
>>17012384Well yah the 0.0... never ends because it's infinite sure, but the 0.999...9 also never ends but you specify it must end in a 9 so by those rules the other one must end in a 0.000...1 at some point. It's all made up anyway since infinity is not a real number. But let me ask you this, what is 0.999...998? Hmmm? Lol.
>>17012479>0.0… never endsyes>0.999…9 also never endslol what? nothing else you write matters until you own up to this stupidity
>>17012491Neither end, but you are implying that the "last digit" which doesn't exist WOULD BE a 9 if it existed. So yeah the limit might be 1 by the made up definition math people made up, but based on the rules of this made up impossible scenario, part of the problem asserts the last digit would be a 9 if there were one, implying the last digit of 1 minus number would be a 0.001. But how can we discard this fact because there is no last digit? By definition 0.001 > 0. 0.00000001 > 0. Etc. Repeat. Anything 0.000...1 is > 0. Lol.
>>170124910.000...1 has no value, not because it is = 0, but because it is an impossible number that does not exist. The limit is 0 as x tends to infinity sure, but the limit is not really possible either in this scenario. This is a made up impossible scenario with made up rules and one such rule is 0.000...1, and not 0.000...0. Lol.
>>17012499>implying that the "last digit" which doesn't existlol what, no, only you are. that’s all you and nothing else you write matters until you own up to your stupidity here. rofl
>>17012507You talk exactly like a spoiled female bitch millionare with mental illness that uses chatgpt to make up all your responses and youtube videos to define your personality, lol.
>>17012507You do not even understand what I am saying because you rely on ai to do your thinking for you because you didn't go to school and your idiotic parents failed to homeschool you lol.
>>17012507The problem with homeschool is having dumb parents (teachers). Normal teachers at least need to have a degree and study teaching in school before they teach others. Lol.
>>17012507What ur doing is immoral by the way and I would appreciate if u stopped. Ur a shit person. Go obsess over someone else. Lol.
>>17012507>own up to ur stupidityHow about u own up to calling ur fans fags and telling me im retarded and telling me u hate chinese people. own up to ur own wrongdoings first asshole, lol.
>>17012507You talk shit about billionares not helping humanity and here you are, a multi-millionare, sitting in ur bed like always, looking up math on ChatGPT and calling ur fans gay. Lol.
>>17012507Explain how you were justified to say you like saying the n-word. Own up to that please. How are u justified to be doing this right now. Lol.
>>17012507You are entirely self-centered and delusional. You think everyone is at fault even tho u literally follow around people and harass them. Go talk to ur boyfriend and leave me alone pls. Lol.
>>17012507>schizo babbleOk.Lol.
>>17012507You follow me around hacking my friends and stalking me and trying to make me uncomfortable and calling me a freak and a retard and u make fun of ur fans and u make fun of black people and u hacked my friends and u follow me around online obsessively and u constantly insulting me. Why do u keep picking on me. Ugh. Go talk to ur 31+ year old boyfriend please i dont wanna talk to u. Stop following me. I just wanted to discuss math online. Lol.
>>17012507Sorry if that was rude but it is not ok for u to obsessively follow me around for years bullying me. Like hopefully u will realize i do not wanna be ur friend now and go spend time with ur bf. Please stop being mean it hurt me feelings. :/ lol.
>>17012507Ur doing the same shit Brandon did and you do not even see it somehow. Lol.
>>17012507Anyways yah sorry for being rude idk if u are the person Im thinking of but the way u talk is just like her so i assume it. but idk. if its u just pls stop talking to me idk how u keep finding me wherever i go. ur creepy. try to be nicer and more normal. do u really not see how it is wrong to follow me around and say rude things to me? eh if ur not her then sorry my bad i didnt mean to be rude sorry dude. Lol.
>>17012569let's go brandon!
>>17011908I like this example. It shows that even if every object in a finite sequence adheres to a rule, the limiting infinite case doesn't necessarily adhere to that rule. Like, you can't just assume that linear algebra rules for finite dimensions automatically is true for that of infinite dimensions, or a polynomial with finite terms vs a formal power series with infinite terms. You have to prove whether it is or isn't held.In OP's case, it can be proven to be true. In your case, it can be proven to be false.
