Uh-oh....checking out the homepage of english wikipedia

[mugs]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: pray4mojo

Originally posted by: BoberFett
While the mathematical proofs can't be argued, people like DanOMGWTFBBQ who call others idiots for disagreeing should be slapped silly for being elitist, ignorant assholes. Perhaps it's you who should be insulted for not being able to fathom a concept like infinity?

Plot the point (.9, .9) on a graph. Then add another decimal and plot that point. Continue ad infinitum. At what point does the resulting line intersect the point (1,1)?

Oh, I just realized, DanOMGWTFBBQ probably still works with chubby crayons, so I'm sure (.9, .9) not only intersected with (1,1), but (0,0) and (2,2) as well.

not too sure what you mean but if you mean plot (.9,.9) then (.99,.99) then (,999,,999) and so on, then yes it will intersect (1,1) when you do that an infinite amount of times.

It will? If you keep zooming in further and further the two will intersect? Not logically.

Perhaps people like DanOMGWTFBBQ are frustrated that even in the face of overwhelming evidence people STILL argue that .999... != 1

 

[brikis98]

on a related note, i can't remember the mathematician's name, but there's a guy who argues that all of this "infinity" stuff is nonsense in the real world. we can't actually count to infinity, you can't divide a particle into an infinitely small part (dx), there is no .99999... since you can't, in the real world get infinite 9's and so on and so forth. and if it doesn't exist in the real world, it doesn't make sense in math or physics either (since the two are describing the real world). i'm not doing his explanation any justice, but it was interesting to listen to. i don't buy it, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[ForumMaster]

about time. but can we please stop with this stupid argument now? the wiki article is very convincing (and correct) so can we stop this stupid argument now?

 

[imported_Trippin315]

Will this one be locked as well?

 

[preslove]

I just got a great sig idea...

 

[TheoPetro]

unless you have taken and understood up to calc 2 you should not be allowed to post in any threads like this. I think that needs to be a new rule.

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
While everyone who is familiar with math would agree that they're the same number, a philosopher would argue that they're different.

Different ways of thinking about a problem.

Of course, this all goes back to those philosophical questions such as "Is the universe that you see exactly the same as the one I see?", and "How can you prove that anything really exists outside of your head?"

Ding Ding Ding. I understand exactly why 0.9999~ = 1.

Doesn't mean I won't argue that there is something fundamentally wrong that you need to prove it instead of it being self evident just like any other equation with no variables.

Originally posted by: TheoPetro
unless you have taken and understood up to calc 2 you should not be allowed to post in any threads like this. I think that needs to be a new rule.

Fine. I'd like to add that only people capable of actual arguement be allowed to post too. Just restating a proof is a rather poor arguement when someone questions the validity of said proof.

(Hope you realize I am not directing that at you.)

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
It will? If you keep zooming in further and further the two will intersect? Not logically.

What you just described is never equal to 0.9999..... It is an equation that bounds it. Did you even read the wikipedia article? It handles this situation.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro
unless you have taken and understood up to calc 2 you should not be allowed to post in any threads like this. I think that needs to be a new rule.

exactly, the problem is people are mistaking loose math talk for rigorous proof

look folks, I'll just quote a calc book here:

"The limit of an infinite series is sometimes called its 'sum at infinity,' but of course this is not a sum in the usual arithmetical sense when the number of terms is finite. You can't obtain the "sum" of an infinite series by adding because the number of terms to be added is infinite. When we speak of the "sum" of an infinite series, this is just a short way of naming its limit...