Printable View
just saw an error that I can't edit anymore:
"By the way..."Infinitely small" was relative to the number 1. A 'number' greater than 1, but by an infinitely small margin."
should read
"By the way..."Infinitely small" was relative to the number 1. A 'number' greater than 0, but by an infinitely small margin."
Awwww. Come on. Where's the comraderie?! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by yasunobu13
I bet we would agree on more than we disagree about if we measured it all out. Same with most here probably. We shouldn't let moments where we agree be tarnished by moments where we dont. :)
you're just plang wrong. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by plang
again, there is no such thing as infinitely small. thats like saying something is infinitely purple.
only if you attack semantics rather than trying to understand what I'm saying.
i do understand what you are saying. the premise of what you are saying is based on a misunderstanding of the concept of infinite as it is widely understood in mathematical terms. is there a NON-semantic version of your argument to examine?
Your refusal to comprehend the idea of an 'infinitely small number" is the same reason you think 0.999... is somehow a whole number.
It may not be expressible in the english language, or in the current established mathematical language, but that doesn't prove or disprove anything.
The mere fact that 0.999... involves infinity is proof in itself that it's not, and never will be, a whole number. You can't have infinite 9s and also 1. Otherwise the 9s are not infinite.
Just out of curiosity, do you think that 0.333... is also equivalent to something else? (not including fractions)
im not the only one who thinks 1 = 0.999... i dont even believe that its true based on my expertise. in fact, my first reaction to the statement in this thread was that it was not equal. but, instead of blurting out my amature assessment, i listened to what others more informed than myself posted and also read up about it. as i cited a number of times here already, this matter has been examined, proofed, debated AND SOLVED in much more complex and educated terms than anything you have come up with here by any stretch of the imagination.
my refusal here is not of some commonly understood concept. my refusal is of your individual fantasy idea that there is an "infinitely small number". an idea that even i, with limited knowledge on this subject can learn in an evening that is not true. at least not in the math that the rest of the world is involved in.
i think you're simply refusing that there are mathematical understandings of infinite and that your understanding deviates from that.
according to what ive read, there are actually many many pairs of numbers like this that have a re-occuring number equivalent. i couldnt say what or if 0.333... has an equivalent other than 1/3.Quote:
Originally Posted by plang
Just out of curiosity, for those of you still trying to argue 0.999... does not equal 1.
Are you still arguing that there is no real number between 0.999... and 1?
what is the highest level of math that you have completed?
Well, since you've stopped talking about individual points and would rather attack my lack of personal credibility, I'll cease my arguments.
What I believe involving infinity is no more a fantasy that what you believe. I have read plenty of material on this subject since/while first stumbling upon the thread yesterday.
Some even talk about what you have to take on faith before you continue reading. Sure, it's been agreed upon by professionals, but that doesn't make it true.
All I'm saying is that infinite 9s are infinite 9s. Just 9s. Always 9s. It's a fault of the human brain to equate that to 1. Maybe it's even a fault of mathematics itself. Inifnity doesn't fit inside human perception. There's just not enough space.Quote:
Originally Posted by yasunobu13
But anyway. Believe what you want...Maybe as I read further my opinion will change. Who knows...
I was enjoying the debate, just for the sake of interesting thought...
I hope that wasn't directed at me as I had no intention to attack your credibility. Just a simple question to know where you and others were coming from.Quote:
Originally Posted by plang
if you meant FlashLackey, then, yeah, he does that sometimes, you can ignore it ;)
nah was directing that at FlashLackey...
It's all good :)
I think theres just an aura of agitation creeping in here. Since everyone else has lost interest, maybe we should just put it to bed.
actually, infinite is + and -... thus "big" and "small"... reminds me of my physics paper I did on infinite smallness and infinite bigness in terms of mass (separately and collectively) approaching positive and negative infinity...Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
it does exist actually.
it's more like saying things are relatively purple... relative to what though is up to you.
By the way, when I say fault of the human brain, I'm not suggesting than your brain is faulty, or more faulty than mine, or anything like that.
It's just the incomprehensible nature of infinity when you try to compare or merge it with finite things... I just don't believe that anybody is qualified to say that 0.999...==1, because it relies on self justifying arguments and a certain degree of belief.
but now I'm just repeating what random was saying.
Thank you :)Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
I knew I wasn't just being nuts...
diff eq and physics 3 for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by yasunobu13
I understand that 1/3 = .333 repeating, thus 2/3 = .666 repeating, and 3/3 = .999 repeating... and that's 1; however it just makes you think that .999 repeating is not 1 as a whole number. Nothing much more than that is being argued from what I've seen...
Here you go...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal
you are right about infinitely small numbers (infinitesimals). i was wrong on that point and i think you've sufficiently proven that to standards that are reasonable on an internet forum.
however, if you already knew what was in that link, why didn't you just post it to begin with? and if that link is sufficient evidence, why then would the other wiki article about 0.999... = 1 not be sufficient evidence? should i only consider wiki articles that you approve of?
i was, in fact, questioning your credibility on this subject. and again, if you have dedicated enough study to speak authoratively about it, why didn't you just do so? i was never at any point closed to the possibility that anyone here had any formal knowledge of this. it appears to me that its about 8 people who are just throwing their hunch out there and 1 or 2 that can recall an understanding of this with confidence. my hunch was that they are not equal. but, it turns out that hunch was wrong. just like my amature statement that there is no infinitely small number in math is wrong. however, it still stands that 0.999... = 1.
i dont see why you should take it personally if i question your credibility on a subject when you havent done anything to demonstrate that you have it. am i wrong entirely? are you a math expert or have had extensive training in math? any long stints in study on the subject? im open to that possibility. i just cant take a persons word for it, even an excited "this is definitely true", when everywhere i look i find the opposite position stated by qualified people. if you have found qualified support for your argument, why not cite it?
dont worry about agitation if you mean me. im not in the least. but, if you have become agitated, my apologies.
Prodigy - Their Law