does 0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999etc..= 1
#1
Posted 29 November 2013 - 02:46 AM
#2
Posted 29 November 2013 - 03:52 AM
Yes
Because I can...
#3
Posted 29 November 2013 - 08:56 AM
Well there is that.
It is perfectly acceptable to fear and admire a being you could not possibly understand.
#4
Posted 29 November 2013 - 09:59 AM
Yes. Proof: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=TINfzxSnnIE
Because if you don't do it, who's going to?
#5
Posted 30 November 2013 - 10:25 AM
#6
Posted 30 November 2013 - 11:02 AM
Surely a "math god" wouldn't need to ask this question.
I CALL SHENANIGANS
“Shimatta! Bare… nan no koto kashira?”
#7
Posted 30 November 2013 - 10:21 PM
no, there is actually a thing in mathematics called repeating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
Essentially, the amount that each 9 adds to the number is exponentially smaller.
Similar to how you can half a number an infinite number of times.
Also similar to how pi != 4
#8
Posted 01 December 2013 - 03:01 PM
Pi does not equal four either. More proof: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=D2xYjiL8yyE And if you meant Pi factorial equals four, just no.
Because if you don't do it, who's going to?
#9
Posted 01 December 2013 - 03:50 PM
ummmmm, sorry if I lost you. I tend to use programmers notation for stuff.
In computer science, != means does not equal.
I put pi != 4
meaning pi does not equal four.
#10
Posted 01 December 2013 - 11:28 PM
Ah I thought you put the exclamation point meaning either factorial or just put it in the wrong place. I apologize.
Because if you don't do it, who's going to?
#11
Posted 02 December 2013 - 09:51 AM
Naw, its fine. I need to remember to only use things like that on programming communities.
#12
Posted 02 December 2013 - 09:00 PM
Ya, I've tried learning how to program before, but I could never really get the hang of it.
Because if you don't do it, who's going to?
#13
Posted 17 December 2013 - 02:10 PM
This makes me think of derivatives in calculus.
Like how a plotted function can *almost* touch a tangent line when it is exclusive, but not quite... but it pretty much does, or else your brain will explode.
I think the solid red dot means 'inclusive' so it actually does touch the line in that figure.
something like this may be more appropriate,
the domain: { -infinite < x < 1 } where x is like your .9 repeating.
#14
Posted 17 December 2013 - 02:21 PM
_
yes because 1/9 and .9/9 equal the exact same thing.
#15
Posted 17 December 2013 - 02:50 PM
_
yes because 1/9 and .9/9 equal the exact same thing.
http://polymathemati..._sorry_it_.html
Apparently all of this boils down to the Axiom of Choice...
I have always generalized that if using "Real" numbers like in Algebra, it is okay to assume .999... = 1.
However, when you consider limits, like in calc... I believe you have to treat them different.
#16
Posted 23 December 2013 - 05:29 PM
#17
Posted 12 January 2014 - 03:52 PM
Yes. Proof: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=TINfzxSnnIE
lol when I read the first message I thought of that too
#18
Posted 12 January 2014 - 07:32 PM
Yeah, I suppose it would be a question of theory vs practicality, but I would still say no.