Meira! I'm calling you out!

[Nai_Calus]

There haven't been nearly enough 42s lately.

Plus, I was vaguely worried that you hadn't been on AIM in four days until I remembered that oh yeah, I can check forum activity.

But yes. I demand more 42s. Lest I be forced to take them up myself.

[Randomness]

You already put 42 in the poll though. 41.999999... is exactly equal to 42.

[Sef]

Uh oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh

[Out_Kast]

For those of you that didn't know, there are no girls on the internet.

[Nai_Calus]

On 2008-04-20 07:08, Randomness wrote:
You already put 42 in the poll though. 41.999999... is exactly equal to 42.



I wondered when someone would bring that up.

You know, that bugs the flying fuck out of me. I don't care if the difference is utterly insignifgant, it's a fucking difference. It just does not compute in my brain how that even fucking works. I'm sure it's something to do with 1/3 being supposed to be .3333333333333333333333..., but even then it makes no sense, because the concept of the .333333... being exactly 1/3 doesn't work for me either, specifically because it *does* add up to that .99999999999... shit.

I dunno. It just *bothers* me in a way that even physics thought experiments don't manage to.

[astuarlen]

So there's this cat in a box...

[Sord]

On 2008-04-20 14:26, Ian-KunX wrote:

On 2008-04-20 07:08, Randomness wrote:
You already put 42 in the poll though. 41.999999... is exactly equal to 42.



I wondered when someone would bring that up.

You know, that bugs the flying fuck out of me. I don't care if the difference is utterly insignifgant, it's a fucking difference. It just does not compute in my brain how that even fucking works. I'm sure it's something to do with 1/3 being supposed to be 32.33 repeating of course, percentage of survival. That's a lot better we usually do, uh- alright times up, lets do this LEEROOOOOOOOOOY JEEEEEEEEENKINS

I dunno. It just *bothers* me in a way that even physics thought experiments don't manage to.

http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sord on 2008-04-20 14:53 ]</font>

[Nai_Calus]

On 2008-04-20 14:35, astuarlen wrote:
So there's this cat in a box...



You know, Schrodinger's Cat makes perfect sense to me, and I can *see* it, and the concept is perfectly clear to me.

But that .99999... == 1 thing just does not make sense.

[Dhylec]

On 2008-04-20 15:15, Ian-KunX wrote:

But that .99999... == 1 thing just does not make sense.


my teach proved it before, but i can't remember that fer da wife of mi

[ljkkjlcm9]

On 2008-04-20 15:15, Ian-KunX wrote:

On 2008-04-20 14:35, astuarlen wrote:
So there's this cat in a box...



You know, Schrodinger's Cat makes perfect sense to me, and I can *see* it, and the concept is perfectly clear to me.

But that .99999... == 1 thing just does not make sense.



well
are you okay with 1/3 equaling .3333333333333333..... to infinity? If you are then it should make sense
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 3/3 = 1
.3333333333... + .33333333... + .33333333... = 1

THE JACKEL

[TalHex]

i agree! .99999999999999999999999999999999999999... =/=

[Nitro Vordex]

41.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

so close, and yet so far. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

[Randomness]

On 2008-04-20 15:22, Dhylec wrote:

On 2008-04-20 15:15, Ian-KunX wrote:

But that .99999... == 1 thing just does not make sense.


my teach proved it before, but i can't remember that fer da wife of mi



Take .9999999...=x Multiply by 10 to get 9.999999=10x Subract .999999 to get 9=9x. Solve to x=1. Substitute back into the original equation.

[Nai_Calus]

On 2008-04-20 15:22, ljkkjlcm9 wrote:

On 2008-04-20 15:15, Ian-KunX wrote:

On 2008-04-20 14:35, astuarlen wrote:
So there's this cat in a box...



You know, Schrodinger's Cat makes perfect sense to me, and I can *see* it, and the concept is perfectly clear to me.

But that .99999... == 1 thing just does not make sense.



well
are you okay with 1/3 equaling .3333333333333333..... to infinity? If you are then it should make sense
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 3/3 = 1
.3333333333... + .33333333... + .33333333... = 1

THE JACKEL



No, I'm not, because it adds up to the .9999... thing.

It must be operating on some variant of infinity I was not previously aware of. Yes, the 9s go on forever. It never does reach 1 though, because you can keep on adding 9s forever, but at the same time you can keep saying it's .0000000.......0001 off forever, and you add a 9 to your sequence and shove another 0 in the other one forever.

I mean, yeah, eventually I can see where you wouldn't even fucking care anymore, but... It just doesn't work in my mind. Even the proof makes no sense to me and seems to be more like someone coming up with an odd effect than hard proof. I dunno.

[ljkkjlcm9]

except you can't say .00000.......000001

you can only have a series of numbers repeat. You can't put the line to denote it's infinite if there is something after it.

OK how about this.

Draw a square, then a pentagon, then a hexagon etc etc. Keep adding another side, forever and ever. Eventually, you'll get a circle. But a circle doesn't have any lines. Infinite lines is a circle, even though there are no lines in it. Think of each 9 after the decimal, as another side. If you have enough 9's eventually you have a circle, or in this case, 1.

THE JACKEL

[SpikeOtacon]

Hey Ian, did you ever see that movie Pi which was about this mathematician discovering a hidden part of Pi that apparently was the answer to the stock market, global warning, and other such outrageous claims?

I bet you'd hate it.

[Nai_Calus]

On 2008-04-21 00:09, ljkkjlcm9 wrote:
except you can't say .00000.......000001

you can only have a series of numbers repeat. You can't put the line to denote it's infinite if there is something after it.

OK how about this.

Draw a square, then a pentagon, then a hexagon etc etc. Keep adding another side, forever and ever. Eventually, you'll get a circle. But a circle doesn't have any lines. Infinite lines is a circle, even though there are no lines in it. Think of each 9 after the decimal, as another side. If you have enough 9's eventually you have a circle, or in this case, 1.

THE JACKEL



I wasn't using dots in there to indicate infinity, just to indicate that there's a fuckload of them not being written, hence not using the proper three dots.

And it DOESN'T make a circle, wtf. A polygon isn't a circle, even if it's got a hundred billion or infinity sides or whatever. o.O A circle only has one side. O_o; That one makes even less sense than the algebra one. I mean, I see what you're trying to say, but it just completely doesn't work for me.

(This is one of those things I'm probably just going to be eternally lost on and will never be able to believe.)

[VanHalen]

On 2008-04-21 01:50, Ian-KunX wrote:


(This is one of those things I'm probably just going to be eternally lost on and will never be able to believe.)



Ian-KunX wrote:

Believe everything.

[Weeaboolits]

On 2008-04-21 01:50, Ian-KunX wrote:

On 2008-04-21 00:09, ljkkjlcm9 wrote:
except you can't say .00000.......000001

you can only have a series of numbers repeat. You can't put the line to denote it's infinite if there is something after it.

OK how about this.

Draw a square, then a pentagon, then a hexagon etc etc. Keep adding another side, forever and ever. Eventually, you'll get a circle. But a circle doesn't have any lines. Infinite lines is a circle, even though there are no lines in it. Think of each 9 after the decimal, as another side. If you have enough 9's eventually you have a circle, or in this case, 1.

THE JACKEL



I wasn't using dots in there to indicate infinity, just to indicate that there's a fuckload of them not being written, hence not using the proper three dots.

And it DOESN'T make a circle, wtf. A polygon isn't a circle, even if it's got a hundred billion or infinity sides or whatever. o.O A circle only has one side. O_o; That one makes even less sense than the algebra one. I mean, I see what you're trying to say, but it just completely doesn't work for me.

(This is one of those things I'm probably just going to be eternally lost on and will never be able to believe.)

Technically, a circle could be a polygon with infinite sides. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

[CelestialBlade]

You simply cannot divide 100 into 3 equal parts, period. 1/3(3) = 1 is still an approximation, even if it equals 3/3. Remember that when we add 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3, we are in fact rounding to the nearest ones place, thus, approximation.

[ljkkjlcm9]

All I have to say is, you people are being absurd and nit picky.

If you really want to nit pick about how we represent 1/3 in decimal form, why don't we just nitpick in general. What is 3? It's just something humans made up to represent something. If you can accept that, there is no reason you can't accept the others.

And it's a mathematical fact that a polygon with infinite sides is a circle. A circle doesn't have any sides... it certainly doesn't have 1 side. It has so many sides, that it doesn't have any.

THE JACKEL

[HUnewearl_Meira]

My apologies, Ian. My computer has eaten another power supply, and I have therefore been unable to visit PSO-World with the usual frequency and ease, as I have previously been able to. Also, for some reason, some polls have refused to allow me to change a value to 42. I am becoming annoyed with ShinMaruku, for this reason.

Next order of business:

The proof offered for 1 = 0.9999999... does not work, because 10x - 0.999999... =/= 9x. Simply enough, 10x - 0.999999... = 10x - 0.9999999.... Even though x has already been identified as being 0.999999... it is, regardless, incongruous to use it as part of its own evidence, in much the same way that a definition for a word cannot contain the word that it defines, for the practical reason that it will effectively uninformative. What we wind up with, is as follows:



0.999... = x
×10
9.999... = 10x
-0.999...
9 = 10x - 0.999...
/9
1 = 1.111...x - 0.111...


This is the reason why we call these things "Irrational Numbers". They make no sense. Crankshaft once had a rant about this sort of thing, offering his confusion on the principle that an irrational number becomes larger with each digit beyond the decimal, and this continues infinitely, yet, the value never approaches infinity, despite its infinite increase in size. What's important though, is that each value discovered is only 1/10 as effective as its brother to the left. The practical upshot of this, is that the difference in value from one point to the next eventually becomes so insignificant in the grand scheme of things, that we fail to care anymore.

0.333... can never equate 1/3, but it is as near to the value as makes no odds. This is the limitation of the Decimal system, and the reason why I believe that the Fractional system is often more effective.


On the matter of a circle being an infinitely sided polygon... This is incorrect. A polygon with a sufficient number of sides can appear to be a circle, but is nevertheless, still a polygon, as it is defined by its line segments, rather than by the dual equation that mathematically defines a circle:



x = a cos t
y = a sin t

[Dhylec]

where goez my math dayz?

[ljkkjlcm9]

no, my argument is a limit

if you take a polygon with n sides... as n approaches infinity, the limit is a circle. That's a math fact
if you disagree with this, then stop using the equation pi*r^2 to solve for the area of a circle, because it was derived using this limit.

THE JACKEL


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljkkjlcm9 on 2008-04-21 14:42 ]</font>

[Sord]

On 2008-04-21 14:14, HUnewearl_Meira wrote:
This is the limitation of the Decimal system, and the reason why I believe that the Fractional system is often more effective.

I use to hate fractions, but once I got in geometry II I wound up loving them. Fuck rounding, I can have perfectly precise answers and completely forgo the calculator half the time with fractions.

[Nitro Vordex]

old link I do believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiliagon

[Randomness]

On 2008-04-21 14:14, HUnewearl_Meira wrote:
My apologies, Ian. My computer has eaten another power supply, and I have therefore been unable to visit PSO-World with the usual frequency and ease, as I have previously been able to. Also, for some reason, some polls have refused to allow me to change a value to 42. I am becoming annoyed with ShinMaruku, for this reason.

Next order of business:

The proof offered for 1 = 0.9999999... does not work, because 10x - 0.999999... =/= 9x. Simply enough, 10x - 0.999999... = 10x - 0.9999999.... Even though x has already been identified as being 0.999999... it is, regardless, incongruous to use it as part of its own evidence, in much the same way that a definition for a word cannot contain the word that it defines, for the practical reason that it will effectively uninformative. What we wind up with, is as follows:



0.999... = x
×10
9.999... = 10x
-0.999...
9 = 10x - 0.999...
/9
1 = 1.111...x - 0.111...


This is the reason why we call these things "Irrational Numbers". They make no sense. Crankshaft once had a rant about this sort of thing, offering his confusion on the principle that an irrational number becomes larger with each digit beyond the decimal, and this continues infinitely, yet, the value never approaches infinity, despite its infinite increase in size. What's important though, is that each value discovered is only 1/10 as effective as its brother to the left. The practical upshot of this, is that the difference in value from one point to the next eventually becomes so insignificant in the grand scheme of things, that we fail to care anymore.

0.333... can never equate 1/3, but it is as near to the value as makes no odds. This is the limitation of the Decimal system, and the reason why I believe that the Fractional system is often more effective.


On the matter of a circle being an infinitely sided polygon... This is incorrect. A polygon with a sufficient number of sides can appear to be a circle, but is nevertheless, still a polygon, as it is defined by its line segments, rather than by the dual equation that mathematically defines a circle:



x = a cos t
y = a sin t






The x is added mostly as illustration to whats going on, and its perfectly legitimate to substitute x for .999999.... at that step. At any step, really, due to the second property of equality... (Can only remember reflexive and transitive... a=a and if a=b and b=c => a=c)

Also, .999999...=1 can also be shown with the geometric series 9/(10^n) from n=1 to infinity. The sum of the series is exactly 1. The formula a/(1-x) gives the sum of any convergent geometric series, where a is the first term and x the constant multiplier. In this case a=.9 and x=.1. .9/.9=1.

EDIT:My first example is easier to understand, the second one gets into calculus instead of algebra.

EDIT2:


On 2008-04-21 14:58, Sord wrote:

On 2008-04-21 14:14, HUnewearl_Meira wrote:
This is the limitation of the Decimal system, and the reason why I believe that the Fractional system is often more effective.

I use to hate fractions, but once I got in geometry II I wound up loving them. Fuck rounding, I can have perfectly precise answers and completely forgo the calculator half the time with fractions.



Every graphing calculator I've used (TI-83/84, I've used a 89, but only to help someone figure out the Taylor polynomial function) has had a simple function that converts your output to a fraction... if the issue is irrationality, its almost always just a multiple of pi, so you can divide that out then convert to a fraction. Barring that... (This is the point where I mention the other "calculator" I've used... Mathematica, and calculator doesn't do the program justice)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Randomness on 2008-04-21 19:57 ]</font>

[Sord]

On 2008-04-21 19:40, Randomness wrote:

Every graphing calculator I've used (TI-83/84, I've used a 89, but only to help someone figure out the Taylor polynomial function) has had a simple function that converts your output to a fraction... if the issue is irrationality, its almost always just a multiple of pi, so you can divide that out then convert to a fraction. Barring that... (This is the point where I mention the other "calculator" I've used... Mathematica, and calculator doesn't do the program justice)

I don't have a freaking graphing calculator. I have a scientific one, that won't even convert answers to fractions (automatically or manually) if the decimal form is to long. I do the majority of my work on paper or in my head.

[Nai_Calus]

Ahh, indeed. Damned power supply-eating computers. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_disapprove.gif Hope it gets working again soon and with relative ease.

Alright, which one of you chuckleheads voted for 43?

[Randomness]

On 2008-04-21 20:38, Sord wrote:

On 2008-04-21 19:40, Randomness wrote:

Every graphing calculator I've used (TI-83/84, I've used a 89, but only to help someone figure out the Taylor polynomial function) has had a simple function that converts your output to a fraction... if the issue is irrationality, its almost always just a multiple of pi, so you can divide that out then convert to a fraction. Barring that... (This is the point where I mention the other "calculator" I've used... Mathematica, and calculator doesn't do the program justice)

I don't have a freaking graphing calculator. I have a scientific one, that won't even convert answers to fractions (automatically or manually) if the decimal form is to long. I do the majority of my work on paper or in my head.



My apologies then, I've been in too many classes I guess where everyone had a TI-83 or 84. (Talk about a monopoly)

[Ketchup345]

Just do what I do: Not take any major/job/whatever that forces you to accept 0.999...=1, learn to say, "yeah, sure, I get the point but I don't agree with even the supporting math."

I view 0.999... as "essentially 1 for basically any and all reasons".

[Randomness]

It is one, the number is basically an infinitely small value less than one, and 1/n as n goes to infinity is equal to zero. Which is another proof.

[Nitro Vordex]

Can I use that turtle thing on you now? http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

[Randomness]

turtle thing?

[Nitro Vordex]

The one that kept disagreeing with the proofs.

in the polygon thread.

[Randomness]

Oh, the link I posted in the school thread? Its not an unbeatable counterargument. You simply use the media to make the person look like a fool, and let embarassment crush their resolve.

[Sord]

.999... is not 1. The difference is just so infinitely small (literally) that it doesn't mean a damn. In all reality, the idea of a true 1, or any whole number, in the physical universe is just as absurd. Something can always be broken down into infinitely smaller sections, at least until you get down to such a level that the dimension something is being measured in doesn't even exist (and for the average person that's a completely pointless thing to know.) Even then, there would still be an infinitely decreasing amount of space between your endpoint and the endpoint that's the end of the dimension which can be measured.

If anything, I fail to see how the concept of 1 can actually truly exist. Having a 1 in the universe seems more irrational to me than an irrational number. But in the grand scheme of things, knowing such precision would be completely useless, because I don't live in such a scale where being that precise will affect me.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sord on 2008-04-22 16:17 ]</font>

[HAYABUSA-FMW-]

On 2008-04-21 14:27, Dhylec wrote:
where goez my math dayz?


I haven't been a math guy either since pre-cal, but I also had trouble with getting enough classes in to try to understand it.

This is all I read:

On 2008-04-21 00:05, Ian-KunX wrote:
9999... bling.

In your face math Asian guy stereotypers. Ya Wankstas Donkey Door

[Randomness]

On 2008-04-22 16:16, Sord wrote:
.999... is not 1. The difference is just so infinitely small (literally) that it doesn't mean a damn. In all reality, the idea of a true 1, or any whole number, in the physical universe is just as absurd. Something can always be broken down into infinitely smaller sections, at least until you get down to such a level that the dimension something is being measured in doesn't even exist (and for the average person that's a completely pointless thing to know.) Even then, there would still be an infinitely decreasing amount of space between your endpoint and the endpoint that's the end of the dimension which can be measured.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sord on 2008-04-22 16:17 ]</font>


You just crossed into the theory of an integral there. Yes, you can break a finite area into infinitely many sections. The area is still finite.

Disagreeing with the concept of "1" is the irrational part. The concept of a single object, entity, etc. is irrevocably seen every second of your life when you're awake.

[Sord]

On 2008-04-22 19:08, Randomness wrote:
The concept of a single object, entity, etc. is irrevocably seen every second of your life when you're awake.


My point was that if anything can always be broken down, it's never singular, because it's always made up of something else, two halves make a whole, and if you keep splitting halves, you'll never really have a true whole, it just keeps getting smaller. If everything could be split down, then I wouldn't count what it made up as a whole. So no, I don't see that every second of my life.