/X/ is to stupid to get it /SCI/ is to dogmatic to admit it
>>421397081=.9999asymptotic functions are hard to convey to euclidian geometer niggash, praetors measure of the earth >
>>421397081=.9999 is the first tenet of basic Calculus
7 perfection3 completion 6 imperfection 777 complete perfection 666 complete imperfectionWhat's with all the math hootsba.
>>42139708math is hard
>>42140478Sounds like superstition. Didnt Nikola Tesla start acting very superstitious in his later life when he went "crazy"?
>>42139708So basically you're both too stupid and dogmatic to admit that you're wrong about your schizobabble math? Gee, thanks for letting us know, OP.
x =0.9999999999...10x=9.999999999...10x-x=9.9999999999...-0.9999999999...9x=9x=1But there are surreal number:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number
>>42142538why is math so jewish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number
>>42144356When greek and roman letters are all used you start to look at other alphabets and nobody wants to write out gook moonrunes
>>42144378idk man there are other jewish easter eggs like minus the 32 paths of wisdom from Fahrenheit to see the triangle in boiling aka separationand the circle in freezing aka binding such are saint peters keys the yin and yang you can also the nature of man in its own temperature
>>42139921at least call it average.we are talking dimwit level.
>>42145417u luv it
>>42139708If that's the case, why do you keep coming back to post the same boring thread?
>>42139884Can you explain the epsilon delta definition of the limit then? I never understood it.
>>42146466Reminds me of the Plank Constant situation
>>42146278
>>42139708This is literally accepted by mainstream math and sci. Here is a proof of it:x=.999...10x=9.999...9x=9x=1.999...=1
>>42149262i was speaking more so on the image but that equation and its implication pisses people off just as much
>>42146466I don't know what you mean by epsilon delta, sry. But the Limit I learned in Calculus for Engineers is this:The curve is not a well-defined 1.0 because it is curved; it is not a point. Now if you want the integral of the function of the curve you're getting the area of the space between the curve and the axes. So you basically fill up the curve with infinitismally small rectangles, and calculate the area of each rectangle multiplied by the # of rectangles. If you imagine the curve being approximated by rectangles with straight top edges, you will notice that there's always going to be an infinitismally small space between the curve and the rectangles' area. That's what is essentially the .000001 The rectangles can only ever approach the curve as 1.0, no matter how small you make the rectangles (because straight edges can't exactly mesh with a curved function). That's the definition of a limit iirc
>>42149527Or I just invented, the Paradox of the PointSee the integral merely approaching the limit (1.0) yet never reaching it as the Paradox of a Heap. Now suppose there is a point. (Assume there is Something). Proceed to remove n infinitismally small rectangles from the point. You'll never end up with nothing, proving that Something is a mere assumption
>>42139708"To stupid, or not to stupid. That is the question."Shankespeare
Stop turning yourself stupid dear friends. Just be.
>>42153980the irony of this statement
>>42149257Autism then
>>42154088checked
