Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 03:35:24 UTC No. 16432307

>>16432301
Let x represent a poster on /sci/
Let P(x) be the proposition "poster x is a heterosexual"
Let Q(x) be the proposition "poster x is the OP of this thread"
Therefore,
P(x) && Q(x)
Is the most "retarded" statement one can make using mathematics.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 03:36:25 UTC No. 16432309

>>16432307
Whoops, meant to write "P(you) && Q(you)"

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 04:54:49 UTC No. 16432382

>>16432301

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 06:34:51 UTC No. 16432485

>>16432301
That 0.999999... = 1. I can't believe people fall for that

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:08:06 UTC No. 16432708

>>16432485
Anyone who believes .9999…. = 1 is retarded

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:13:53 UTC No. 16432709

>>16432301
1/0 = undefined

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:25:44 UTC No. 16432783

>>16432301
> 1+1 = 1
> 1 = 1-1
> 1 = 0
Bros...
I'm scared.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:29:12 UTC No. 16432786

>>16432783
WTF IS THIS REAL

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:31:03 UTC No. 16432791

>>16432783
no fucking way...

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:27:47 UTC No. 16433414

>>16432301
1 + 1 = 1 is valid in Boolean algebra

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:34:10 UTC No. 16433423

>>16433414
Its also valid in retard lie group moron theory

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 03:16:51 UTC No. 16433841

>>16432301
Ask Terrence Howard. He's an expert in mathematically retarded statements.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:22:09 UTC No. 16434110

>>16433423
lol

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:37:27 UTC No. 16434126

1+2+3... = -1/12

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:20:31 UTC No. 16434155

>>16432301

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:31:16 UTC No. 16434161

>>16433414
True, because true + true = true.
But that would also imply
> 1 + 0 = 0

elipo at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:17:00 UTC No. 16434198

>>16432485
>>16432708
there is very basic evidence that 0.9999... is indeed equal to 1...

if you can't comprehend any of them, you are retarded

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:20:46 UTC No. 16434201

>>16434198
They're equal only wrt the modern standardized calculus rules. Philosophically speaking, at a more fine grained level, 1 and 0.999... are not equal because their difference represents an infinitesimal quantity (which is unfortunately not accessible to modern standardized calculus)

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:53:25 UTC No. 16435279

>>16434201
what's 0.3333333... minus an infinitesimal?

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 22:47:43 UTC No. 16435386

>>16432783
now sub out the 1s in 1+1=1 for the 0s we now know them to be equal to
0+0=0
the truth has been right in front of us the whole time

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:05:41 UTC No. 16435513

>>16432485
>>16432708

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 04:02:46 UTC No. 16435722

>>16434198
show me the evidence.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 01:57:45 UTC No. 16437319

>>16432301
(x-x) = 0

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 02:08:27 UTC No. 16437344

I don't think it's retarded I think it's actually true but
but infinity is just infinity you can't have a different size of infinity just a different speed or frequency
you can't have infinity without time can you
so the rate your infinity counts is the speed. it's not a question of size

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 02:10:17 UTC No. 16437349

>>16435722
[math]\sum_{n=1}^{∞}9^{-n} = 0.999... \text{(trivially)}\\
\sum_{n=1}^{∞}9^{-n} = 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ... \Rightarrow a = 0.9 \wedge r=0.1\Rightarrow \frac{a}{1 - r} \text{ (geometric series sum)} = \frac{0.9}{1 - 0.1} = \frac{0.9}{0.9} = 1\\
\sum_{n=1}^{∞} = 0.999... = 1[/math]

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 09:41:55 UTC No. 16437635

>>16437349
first line is wrong.

an infinite sum is impossible.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 23:56:26 UTC No. 16438889

>>16437635
>integrals are impossible
is there a term for people who fail at math and then deny its existence?
Oh yeah: filtered.

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 00:02:45 UTC No. 16438898

Proof that .999… < 1

First note that 1^2 = 1
And .999…9 ^ 2 = .999…81
And .999…81 < .999…9
Therefore .999… ^ 2 < .999…
Which contradicts the claim that .999… = 1 since .999… would have to satisfy the same equality as 1 in the first line.
-QED

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 00:08:12 UTC No. 16438904

>>16432301
a relative motion, around a function of which the function can chance bout you cannot chance with out the functuion chance can give you this result

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 01:59:11 UTC No. 16439124

z={(x)⋛i}√|§∆, ∆§|√{i⋛(y)}

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 15:56:44 UTC No. 16439870

>>16434198
Every "proof" I have seen of it has been wrong in subtle ways that goes over most mathematicians heads.

>>16437349
The 2nd line is wrong. That geometric series only gives you the limit that the sum approaches as it goes to infinity. It never actually gets there. So 0.99999... = 1 remains unproven.

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 19:27:33 UTC No. 16440206

>>16439870
>t. doesn't understand sum notation

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 21:56:54 UTC No. 16440377

>>16432301
[math]\mathbb{Q}\in\sqrt{\aleph_0}[/math]

This holds for carefully chosen definitions of the above objects.

Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 10:39:45 UTC No. 16441004

>>16440206
Actually I do. You don't understand the concept of limits / asymptotes.

>Lol the sum of 9^-n until infinity is 1 even though it's actually 0.99999999.... LAMO I PROVED IT BY EQUALING THE SUM TO THE ASYMPTOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kill yourself.

Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 16:43:42 UTC No. 16441365

>>16434161
No, 1 + 0 equals 1 in boolean algebra.

Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 16:45:05 UTC No. 16441366

>>16441004
>integrals are impossible

Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 16:57:13 UTC No. 16441375

>>16432301
1 x 1 = 2

Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 19:48:44 UTC No. 16441591

>>16432708
1/3 = 0.333...
Multiply each side by 3
1 = 0.999...

If you disagree that 1/3 = 0.333... or that 0.333... * 3 = 0.999..., what else should it be? lmao

Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 20:24:01 UTC No. 16441642

>>16441591
See >>16438898

Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 21:29:35 UTC No. 16441721

>>16432301
"Let R be an infinite uncountable set"

Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:20:25 UTC No. 16441855

>>16441591
Not a mathematician but isn't 0.3333 an approximation of 1/3? Not actually the same thing.

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:56:32 UTC No. 16442608

>>16441591
1/3 is NOT 0.333333... Even if you had the 3's repeat until infinity it would not be 1/3 because 1/3 > 0.3333... but also 1/3 < 0.3333...4. It can't accurately be represented as a decimal like that.

You need a high enough IQ to be able to grasp this & most mathematicians somehow don't

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 15:59:44 UTC No. 16442683

>>16432301
The expected value when rolling a fair 6-sided die is 3.5

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 16:44:12 UTC No. 16442735

>>16442608
well., that 4 is actually a zero since due positional notation 0.abcd...=0*10^(0)+a*10^(-1)+b*10^(-2)+c*10^(-3)+d*10^(-4)+... and as such that 4 is actually (whatever type of number you want before the elipsees)...+4*10^(-∞), it is then trivial to see that 10^(-∞)=1/(10^∞)=1/∞=0, and as such that 4*10^(-∞)=4*0=0
tldr=finitists can't into math

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 16:50:31 UTC No. 16442742

>>16442608
You are kinda retarded, it goes like this
1/3 > 0.3333...3
1/3 = 0.3333...
1/3 < 0.3333...4

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:13:00 UTC No. 16443091

>>16432485
>>16432708
same equivalence class, stupid

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:14:01 UTC No. 16443095

>>16434155
isn't this just the extension of the Zeta function?
Writing down Zeta as a sum here is misleading

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 04:20:56 UTC No. 16445294

>>16441375
cool it with the racism

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 12:22:11 UTC No. 16447087

>>16432301

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 12:35:03 UTC No. 16447099

>>16447087
>A shape
No one defines it like that. It's a convex polygon and anyone sane will state it as such.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 13:41:27 UTC No. 16447142

>>16432301
Let f = 1;
Let f(x) = x + x;
f(1) = 1 + 1; divide by f
1 = (1 + 1)/1; calculate
1= 1 + 1

No way!! I broke math!!!!11!!!1!!1!!

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 21:17:45 UTC No. 16447862

>>16434161
would be valid for a set only consisting of {0;1} regarding the operation addition.

how about 0-0 = 0+0/0

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 21:18:51 UTC No. 16447864

>>16447142
nope f(1) = 2

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:55:51 UTC No. 16449039

All horses are the same colour
Proof:
Assume all groups of n horses are the same colour. If we introduce one more horse, it must be the same colour because we can add it to the group and remove one horse, yielding n horses of the same colour. By adding the removed horse back in, we prove all groups of n+1 horses are the same colour.
AND
The base case: Any group of 0 or 1 horses must be the same colour.

QED (Quid Ebrius Deicio)