That is exactly what i am arguing, you are saying that an infinitely small number cant exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by yasunobu13
right?
Printable View
That is exactly what i am arguing, you are saying that an infinitely small number cant exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by yasunobu13
right?
i got the same thing as ihoss when i ran it.
yep. the code should have been:Quote:
Originally Posted by yasunobu13
Code:for (var i = 1; i>0; i*10) {
gap = 1/i;
if (gap==0) {
trace("999... = 1");
}
}
Honestly i don't know, don't care, and no amount of earth math is going to convince me that any number other than 1 is equal to 1.
I am out of time to be bored enough to go on about this any more.
what about 2/2 http://ihoss.not-a-blog.com/images/smilies/haha.gif
It's pretty sad that no amount of math will convince you of simple mathematical concepts like two numbers can equal each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by random25
It's pretty sad that primitive human conceived math will convince you that two different numbers can equal the same exact amount.
And now that i am on my lunch break i will paypal $1 to anyone that can prove to me that i actually exist.
Well what's a number, anyways? It's a human deriveration. Singularity is a human concept meant to break down the world (as a whole) we live in. Everything's interconnected in some way, eventually lead back to its conception.Quote:
Originally Posted by random25
As far as proving if you exist, you don't. Since everything is the byproduct of a greater product, without classification, you're, in essence, part of a singular entity that derived from nothing.
You are classified as an individual. That gives validity to your existence. The same applies to a number between 1 and .9999. Just because we haven't classified its existence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
What we're dealing with here, though, is a set of conflicting views of infinity. And a misconception of mathematical limits. If we limit a convergent row to infinity, the answer of the summation is in fact a finite, and very real answer. What most of the 'disbelievers' do, I suppose, is that infinity, or in this case 0.(9), is to make an imaginary link between infinity and time, i.e. continually adding another 9 to the already really long list of nines. The point is though that there is no time connected, at every moment there are an equal amount of nines after the decimal point (an infinite amount).
0.(9) isn't a point on the line between 0 --- 1 that gradually keeps going more and more to the right, it is already at the absolute right point, i.e. 1.
On the notion that mathematics are flawed: yes, there are many irregularities. For instance, there are a couple of regular discrete functions that cannot be derived. I'll have to dig into the library to find examples, but they exist. But for the most part, mathematics work. And in fact mathematics work quite aptly in the whole 0.(9) = 1 debacle. We hold ourselves to a set of axioms, by which our mathematical system works. To say that mathematics are flawed because you cannot grasp the concept of infinity (which, in fact, does exist in our galaxy, unlike Subway claims) is silly.
God, what a geeky thread. I love it. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by adit_ya_sharma
Just started taking a class on propositional/predicate logic as part of my pre-reqs for a masters in CS, so all this talk of proofs etc. is like being trapped in one of those nightmares where you show up to an exam and you haven't studied (and yes, I am naked).
I think the way to solve this out is to realize that the symbol 1 is actually a representative of a concept, not an object in and of itself: its existence comes only through its application. There is no "1," only "1 paperclip." When used in mathematical formulas, it is actually a variable representing an object with that property "1".
Therefore, we should compute equivalence in the case as being the state in which two variable carry the same value within a function, not if they are comprised of the same form (which is what the first proofs prove). As with any variable, it is possible for x and y to carry the same value within a function without disproving each other's existence, is it not?
Can an expression be written where F(1) != F(.9999...)? If so, then it is false. Otherwise this is indeed <whips out text book, flips though pages> a tautology.
Its nothing to do with time, it is about the amount of digits in the number.Quote:
Originally Posted by wouter999
Its not just a long list of nines it is a never ending list of nines.
Where? If you think quantum mechanics is a reality, and quantum mechanics is currently the most proven theory, than there simply can't be anything infinite as there's a smallest possible unit while at the same time entropy makes it impossible for you to get more energy than what's already there and the limit of speed will always limit your maximum lengths, so you get always a finite amount of whatever you look at. Well, you could say that there's no end to time, but time is an illusion anyway, only moments exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by wouter999
Fredi
1 / 2 = .5 * 2 = 1
1 / 3 = .333~ * 3 = 1
1 / 4 = .25 * 4 = 1
1 / 5 = .2 * 5 = 1
1 / 6 = 0.16666666666666666666666666666667 * 6 = 1
1 / 7 = 0.14285714285714285714285714285714 * 7 = 1
1 / 8 = 1.25 * 8 = 1
1 / 9 = 0.11111111111111111111111111111111~ * 9 = 1
1 / 10 = .1 * 10 = 1
the same issue comes up at 1/9.
way too much math for a coffee lounge IMO...
:p
Well, I've asked random four or five times now, but he still refuses to respond.
"What are your problems with the proofs at the beginning of the thread anyway?"
Anyone who still thinks 0.999... does not equal 1, then you have a simple task in front of you. Two proofs that show 0.999... = 1 are at the beginning of the thread. If they are flawed, then you should be able to point out the flaw in both of them. If they aren't flawed, then 0.999... = 1.
You talk as if the speed of light is a proven fact. Sure Einstein was super smart but then explain to me how gps would work using Einstein's theory. It doesn't, instead scientists have to use a different theory (of which I've forgotten the name) which came out a bit before Einstein's theory of relativity. Until we come out with a theory that can be use to explain everything then nothing should be taken as fact because in this other theory, the speed of light is not the cosmic speed barrier. It's just another issue dealing with infinity. Something about when you approach the speed of light your energy increases to infinity or something like that. So you can't say that there is no infinity when your claim includes infinity in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subway
I was under the impression that 1 = 1. and .999... = .999...
Or at least this is to be assumed for every-day math.
It approaches the speed of light, but it's never at exactly the speed of light as long as you use finite energy and as you don't have infinite energy, you never have to deal with infinity.Quote:
Originally Posted by swak
Fredi
1/3=.333~Quote:
Originally Posted by ViRGo_RK
2/3=.666~
3/3=.999~
3/3=1
so .999~ == 1
Those proofs only prove that our system of math is fundamentally flawed when it comes to dealing with infinite numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by yasunobu13
Only the number that should represent the quantity 1 is the number 1.
1 = 1
0.999... = 0.999...
0.999... < 1
1 > 0.999...
There are no infinite numbers there. Do you mean repeated decimals? Just because a number can be represented in more than one way doesn't mean that anything is flawed. It would be flawed if the same number represented in different ways could create different mathematical results.Quote:
Originally Posted by random25
Since that is not the case, mathematics is sound in this respect. You can use 0.999... in any calculation where you can use 1 and get the same result.
20 + 1 = 21
20 + 0.999... = 20.999... = 21
Just because you want it to be different doesn't mean that anything is flawed.
saying 0.999... = 1, is just as wrong as saying 0.999... = 0.999999999.
numbers are just labels representing amounts.
1 = 1
0.999... = 0.999...
a = a
b = b
apple = apple
orange = orange
honestly I'm no math expert, i just like to argue.
You have yet to show me anything that will make me believe that our math system is not flawed and 0.999... = 1.
OK,
Prove to me that i really exist and i will admit that 0.999... = 1.
GPS and RelativityQuote:
Originally Posted by swak
Random, proving that you exist and proving that 1=0.999... are two completely different things. The first one is a philosophical problem that takes nothing for granted and questions the existence of the entire world. I can't prove that I'm not just a brain in a jar receiving data from some computer making up the world I'm lining in. I could question the existence of everything (except myself, according to Descartes, including myself, according to others), even free will.
The second statement is based on some axioms. Its a scientific/mathematical statement, which means that it assumes the world we live in is real, and if it is not, then it simply tries to understand this, virtual, world. I won't get any of the math 'more' correct if I start questioning the reality of the world we live in, so I won't be bothered. I'll just assume that it is real, and that everything that I interact with is also real. If things are not real, then I'll pretend they are, because it will help me understand the world.
To prove that you exist means that I have to base my logic on axioms, but if I doubt you exist then I can also doubt everything else I have observed in my lifetime, and proving anything will be impossible. For the math question, I base my proof on observations that I have made (if you have a coin and I have a coin, then we have two coins in total). If I try to prove your existence, then I have to give up on the math proof until I have proved/disproved your existence. Since I can't prove your existence without first dying (assuming I will go to another world from where I can observe this world), I will base my mathematical proof on (my assumption of) your existence. If you claim to not exist then nothing in the world can be certain, and there is no point in living.
Conclusion: As much as it/you bothers me, I just have to assume that you exist.
It's not flawed and it was shown in the first post of the thread. You still have yet to say what is wrong with the proofs.Quote:
Originally Posted by random25
Numbers can have different representations but still be equal.
3.5 = 3.5000000 = 35*10^-1 = 7/2 = 35/10
Your only argument seems to be that it feels wrong. An argument based on intuition, not facts. It's really not that hard, just tell me why the proofs are wrong. This is what, the 6th time I've asked? And still no response. Makes me think you're not even reading these posts.
Is this really a response to disprove mathematical evidence?
"Those proofs only prove that our system of math is fundamentally flawed when it comes to dealing with infinite numbers."
'I don't like it, so hundreds of years of work by billions of people must be wrong'
It seems the whole thing is dependant on accepting that 0.333... is a real number. It's not imo, it's a map, it's an idea, it's undecided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
Listen...
1/3 is an idea. It's not a number, and it can't be applied to 1.
0.3333... is the closest numeric representation available to us when expressing 1/3, but it simply does not cut it.
0.33333333333 * 3 != 1.
Therefore 0.3333... != 1/3.
They are conceptually not on the same plane of reality. that's all there is to it.
Many fractions can cleanly be applied to the number 1. 1/3 can not.
Now stop the nonsense :)
I gave you the reason i am arguing:Quote:
Originally Posted by yasunobu13
1) your "proof" is based on math which was, as many of you may have already guessed, created by semi-evolved primates.
2)I am bored, and i like to argue with people on the interweb while i am bored.
OK, I'm done arguing,
I will now process this discussion logically.
I think i understand how to perceive the situation in the way you are referring. Heres a nice story to help out:
For three days three primates took one piece of food and split it evenly between themselves.
On the third day the primates had eaten a total of one piece of food each.
So one divided by three equals the fraction one third, 1/3 or 0.333...
and one third three times equals one.
So 0.333...*3 cant equal 0.999... it must equal 1.
The primates realized how surprising this was, and agreed that they should let everyone know. Immediately they began to alert the others of the situation over the interweb.
How about that?
I'm not sure about your second proof though, how could you even do that one if it starts of with 0.999...
No. 1.333... is an inadequate representation of the fraction 1/3. It's the closest we have (which is why this argument was started), but it is not the same. There can be no same. A fraction is an idea that is not bound by numeric logic. It's a different entity. You can't apply a number to it!
It's wrong. Wrong I tell you!
man. cant believe this thread is still going on.
i declare yasunobu the winner. now go home. :D
This reminds me of that old frog jumping thing...
If a frog jumps half the distance towards its target, does it ever reach it?
Of corse it doesn't. If the frog ever reached its target, that jump would not have equaled half the distance. It will forever be moving towards it, but will remain an infinitely small distance away.
The same is true for 0.999999999999999... You say it equals 1 because we can't figure out where else to place it. But you know there's a discrepancy there. It's intuitively obvious. Why is there 1, and also 0.999...? How can two numbers be different but the same? does 0.333333333... == 0.34?
oh and Flash Lackey...Home time is 6pm (my local time). I won't forget...
I think the first proof is wrong, if we are going to use 0.333... to represent one third of one, the proof should be:
1/3 = 0.333...
0.333... * 3 = 1
So how does 0.999... even come into the equation?
And the second proof,
If it starts off with x=0.999... how could the rest of the proof even be calculated?
Our system of math cant work with a never ending number such as 0.999..., so we would have to use 1 instead.
So shouldn't x actually equal "undefined" or "unmeasurable" or "infinite" from the start, not 1, there by proving that our system of math cant process an infinite number.
By saying 0.999... = 1 you are actually saying we cant do infinite math yet,
so instead of using a number that is almost 1, we are going to just go ahead and use 1.
And 0.999... cant actually exist because if it did it would automatically be 1.
3*3 = 9Quote:
Originally Posted by random25
0.3 * 3 = 0.9
0.333... * 3 = 0.999...
Why do you keep saying "infinite math" it's very confusing.Quote:
And the second proof,
If it starts off with x=0.999... how could the rest of the proof even be calculated?
Our system of math cant work with a never ending number such as 0.999..., so we would have to use 1 instead.
So shouldn't x actually equal "undefined" or "unmeasurable" or "infinite" from the start, not 1, there by proving that our system of math cant process an infinite number.
By saying 0.999... = 1 you are actually saying we cant do infinite math yet,
so instead of using a number that is almost 1, we are going to just go ahead and use 1.
0.999... is a number with a 0 before the decimal point and all 9's after the decimal point. Saying that it is not a number goes against elementary school math.
You can create the number in the same way you create 1/3 = 0.333... or are you saying all recurring decimals are improper mathematical entities?
Oh, so now you agree 0.999... = 1. That's a property of equality that I stated before. We can swap 1 into any mathematical statement that uses 0.999... can achieve the same result. They are just different representations of the same number.Quote:
And 0.999... cant actually exist because if it did it would automatically be 1.
Glad you finally came around. ;)
Foolish humans!
0.999... is a number smaller than 1 by an infinitely small amount! the 9s go on forever! 9 is smaller than 10! At what point do the 9s do their magic sneeze and tick over to a whole number?!
How could any mistake be made about this?
yasu, .333 repeating times 3 is not .999 repeating.
I can't believe this thread has been going for so long......
Christopher Mitchell
Three thirds equals 1, not almost 1 :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by yasunobu13
The "..." means that the number is followed by an "infinite" amount of 9s.Quote:
Originally Posted by yasunobu13
That makes it an "infinite number".
Trying to use our system of math on an "infinite number" cant work correctly.
0.999... could exist in theory,Quote:
Originally Posted by yasunobu13
but your way of thinking suggests that it is equal to one and not equal to one at the same time.
It has to be either 1 or not 1, almost is not close enough.
The number can only be completely and accurately be represented by 0.9 followed by an infinite amount of 9s. which is not completely 1.
There you go, thats the cave man flaw in our math system.Quote:
Originally Posted by yasunobu13
Three thirds have to equal 1!
No i was only saying that is what you are implying.Quote:
Originally Posted by yasunobu13
Not "can" swap, "have too" swap.Quote:
Originally Posted by yasunobu13
No,Quote:
Originally Posted by yasunobu13
1 represents 1 whole item.
0.999... represents almost 1 whole item.
In these two comments you seem to be contradicting yourself,
Which is it? do you think 0.999... exists or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by yasunobu13
Again no,Quote:
Originally Posted by yasunobu13
The only thing i have seen proof of is the fact that three thirds of one equals one.