By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
 

Which one?

Maths 19 26.76%
 
Math 20 28.17%
 
Mathematics 32 45.07%
 
Total:71
JRPGfan on 02 April 2016
fatslob-:O said:
JRPGfan said:

I accept them. For practial reasons (no such thing as infinity in the real world), mainly because it doesnt ever make a differnce (afaik).

This intire thead is a non issue imo.

 

I still think its bad math.

If it's bad math then maybe we should stop teaching our engineers or physical scientists this stuff ...  

Do you think it ever makes a differnce?

if you used 1.00000000... instead of 0.9999999.... infinity ?

It doesnt hold any real world use.

Because nothing in the real world is infinite.

It wouldnt make a differnce if we stopped teaching our engineers or physical scientists this stuff.



Around the Network
palou on 02 April 2016

People, this isn't even remotely contested by anyone with some trace of knowledge in the subject. It isn't complicated, either. You just need to understand infinity a bit. Look up Hilbert's hotel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faQBrAQ87l4 quick resume.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

Faelco on 02 April 2016
JRPGfan said:
Faelco said:

I was surprised to see a thread about that, and even more to see several pages of debates about a known proven fact.

It really is a non issue because the OP is a statement, not an opinion.

Even if it wasnt accepted math, which it is.

Theres never a time where it will make a differnce.

Its a total non issue for that reason alone.

 

A huge part of mathematics are just theories and won't ever make a difference in the world.

 

If you really want to see something more "meaningful", read about physics, you will see more applied stuff ;) (but a lot of this applied stuff comes from theoretical maths...)



Peh on 02 April 2016
Teeqoz said:
Peh said:

Well then, what definition has 0.9999... ? What kind of number is that and what rules does it have?

Because 0.999...=1, 0.999.... has the same properties and rules as 1.

2*0.999...=2, just like 2*1=2.

I guess this one here is the easiest explanation:

Done. That's all.

ffs it's 1 am... Now I am really going to bed. Fucking stupid mathematics.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

pokoko on 02 April 2016
Faelco said:

I edited my previous post. That quote and that paragraph are about alternative number systems, here "mathematically coherent ordered algebraic strutures, including various alternatives to the real numbers". Other examples are "mathematical structures with an addition operation but not a substraction operation".

It's not about the "classic" 1-9 and real "usual" numbers. Like it was said in the previous quote, these proves are done with other "artificial" alternative systems not working like the basic one, with other rules and operations.

And I'm not sure this discussion is about non-Archimedean number systems, but more about the "familiar rules of arithmetic".

Dude.  They're all artificial.  In fact, some of the alternate systems were designed to make up for perceived short-comings in the classic system.

I think pointing that out is completely valid.

Regarding the counter-intuitive reaction a lot of people have, that's also valid and understandable.  Rather, I think those who mock that reaction in a professional setting are being too narrow minded.  The reason it's counter-intuitive is that one number is real while the other is not; claiming that those two numbers are the same does not feel reasonable.  It's only after people realize that the "1" they're dealing with inside a system of math is not a real "1" but instead of a representation of "1", thus it can be manipulated by arbitrary rule sets.  It's simply a shift of perspective that should be developed rather than expected.



Around the Network
Teeqoz on 02 April 2016
Peh said:
Teeqoz said:

Because 0.999...=1, 0.999.... has the same properties and rules as 1.

2*0.999...=2, just like 2*1=2.

I guess this one here is the easiest explanation:

Done. That's all.

I included that explanation in the OP from the start.



Player2 on 02 April 2016
Faelco said:
JRPGfan said:

I accept them. For practial reasons (no such thing as infinity in the real world), mainly because it doesnt ever make a differnce (afaik).

This intire thead is a non issue imo.

I was surprised to see a thread about that, and even more to see several pages of debates about a known proven fact.

It really is a non issue because the OP is a statement, not an opinion.

What's more surprising is that the same people won't have problems with synonyms. Lack of bijectivity between meaning and representation becomes a problem for them only when it involves numbers.



Peh on 02 April 2016
pokoko said:
Faelco said:

I edited my previous post. That quote and that paragraph are about alternative number systems, here "mathematically coherent ordered algebraic strutures, including various alternatives to the real numbers". Other examples are "mathematical structures with an addition operation but not a substraction operation".

It's not about the "classic" 1-9 and real "usual" numbers. Like it was said in the previous quote, these proves are done with other "artificial" alternative systems not working like the basic one, with other rules and operations.

And I'm not sure this discussion is about non-Archimedean number systems, but more about the "familiar rules of arithmetic".

Dude.  They're all artificial.  In fact, some of the alternate systems were designed to make up for perceived short-comings in the classic system.

I think pointing that out is completely valid.

Regarding the counter-intuitive reaction a lot of people have, that's also valid and understandable.  Rather, I think those who mock that reaction in a professional setting are being too narrow minded.  The reason it's counter-intuitive is that one number is real while the other is not; claiming that those two numbers are the same does not feel reasonable.  It's only after people realize that the "1" they're dealing with inside a system of math is not a real "1" but instead of a representation of "1", thus it can be manipulated by arbitrary rule sets.  It's simply a shift of perspective that should be developed rather than expected.

Quoted for truth.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

fatslob-:O on 02 April 2016
JRPGfan said:

Do you think it ever makes a differnce?

if you used 1.00000000... instead of 0.9999999.... infinity ?

It doesnt hold any real world use.

Because nothing in the real world is infinite.

It wouldnt make a differnce if we stopped teaching our engineers or physical scientists this stuff.

Pure mathematics doesn't care about the real world! 

Why do you keep arguing with a guy in this thread that has demonstrated college level mathematics ? 



palou on 02 April 2016
JRPGfan said:
fatslob-:O said:

I don't care about pokoko's post in this instance, what I care about is mathematics ...

It's your loss for not accepting the facts or the proofs ...

I accept them. For practial reasons (no such thing as infinity in the real world), mainly because it doesnt ever make a differnce (afaik).

This intire thead is a non issue imo.

 

I still think its bad math.

It's not bad math. It's simple math. 1 - 0,(9 periodic) = 0 periodic +1/infinity = 0.

 

The proof shown in the first thread is a fully legitmate way of treating infinite quantities. (look at previous posts I made.)

The nice thing about math is, no one gives a shit about your (or my) opinion on the matter. There is no matter more clear-cut.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.