Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 07:04:59 UTC No. 16442219
A clear definition goes a long way. There's no reason to wait for real analysis. Pull out a meterstick and explain this is where numbers with names starting with 0.9 are, this is where numbers with names starting with 0.99 are, and so on. It follows from the definition that some numbers have two names.
In practice I wish more kids were skeptical of 0.9 repeating. Usually they just accept what the teacher tells them. I almost never see 0.999... arguments outside the Internet, and even there over half the people are trolling.
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 07:13:04 UTC No. 16442226
>>16442202
0.XXX... Just means go to the next rational number. Problem solved.
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 09:49:47 UTC No. 16442341
Both are true. Just a reminder that the definition of decimal expansions [math]0.x_1x_2x_3\dots[/math] is [math]\sum_{k=1}^\infty {x_k\over 10^{-k}}[/math].
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 10:15:45 UTC No. 16442360
>>16442202
decimals are for brainlets
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 11:30:05 UTC No. 16442401
>>16442202
Doing math in base-12 instead of base-10 solves this problem.
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 11:36:00 UTC No. 16442404
>>16442202
Try 1/10 in Binary,
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 12:50:50 UTC No. 16442468
>>16442404
0.5
141 iq at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:56:03 UTC No. 16442607
doesnt exist in nature anyway
doesnt matter
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:56:42 UTC No. 16442609
the real nigger hours yeah
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 15:42:09 UTC No. 16442659
what is 7/7 written in decimal form
or pi/pi
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 15:55:33 UTC No. 16442681
>>16442607
60 IQ brownoid mutt spotted
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 16:08:40 UTC No. 16442686
>>16442202
Some intuitive imaginary made up things doesn't doing intuitive things. It's normal. If you need it to be intuitive just made up for it.
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 16:24:21 UTC No. 16442703
>>16442202
1/3 = 3/10 + 1/30
= 0.3 + 1/30
= 0.33 + 1/300
= 0.333 + 1/3000
:
= 0.333... + 1/inf
= 0.333... + 0
= 0.333...
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 16:28:54 UTC No. 16442709
>>16442703
this isnt highschool buddy
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 16:30:02 UTC No. 16442712
>>16442709
not an argument buddy
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 16:33:07 UTC No. 16442718
>>16442714
this isn't kindergarten buddy
EBOK at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 16:34:03 UTC No. 16442721
>>16442718
this is fag.com, made specifically for folk like you to enjoy
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 16:36:02 UTC No. 16442726
>>16442721
1/7 = 142857/1E6 + 1/7E6
= 0.142857 + 1/7E6
= 0.142857 142857 + 1/7E12
= 0.142857 142857 142857 + 1/7E18
:
= 0.142857... + 1/inf
= 0.142857... + 0
= 0.142857...
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:22:34 UTC No. 16443114
>>16442726
1/idc = didn't ask/cry about it + 1/stay mad + get good
= go outside.ratio + 1/get real
= L.142857 mald + 1/seethe
= who asked.the audacity get a life hoes mad + touch grass
:
= cope.irrelevant ... + 1/ez clap + you're random
= go ahead whine about it... + 0 PR earnings
= cringe...
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:25:21 UTC No. 16443123
>>16442202
.9 repeating is 3.3 over 3.3 repeating.
.3 repeating is 1.1 repeating over 3.3 repeating.
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:51:39 UTC No. 16443165
>>16442401
Explain how 0.BBBBBBB... =1.0 in base 12 then
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 03:53:00 UTC No. 16443538
>>16442202
neither is true.
>>16442703
1/inf != 0
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 03:54:27 UTC No. 16443539
>>16442219
Take a pizza pie, cut it into 3 even slices.
Slice A = 5
Slice B = 5
Slice C = 5
The pizza pie = 15.
5 is 1/3 of 15.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 04:01:54 UTC No. 16443551
>>16443539
The real situation is as such:
Pizza pie = 1
Divide it into 3 equal parts.
.33333, .33333, .33333 = .9
The remaining .1, is unable to be returned to the .9, because in order to cut the pie, you make 3 cuts, and you cannot help but irreversibly removing slivers of the pie when you press down to make a cut, you know how sometimes the cheese all stringy stretches, something like that must be happening
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 04:12:37 UTC No. 16443571
>>16442226
Yeah this seems to be it, and when they say .9999 = 1 they mean it quite literally.
Even though visually symbolically they are unequal, though that's never stopped anyone before, as in, 2/2=1 and 5+2 = 7
They are quite literally apparently right in saying, the conceptual symbol .9999 = the conceptual symbol 1.
All notions of the concept 1 are actually notions of the concept .99999... and vice versa.
Ala the number line is a continuum,
Though the zenos paradox permittance of the number line is an odd idea, though yes now I recall all it means is the fact that theoretically essentially an operation can be carried out infinite amount of times so any .string-of-digits, is a valid possible result require a certain amount and order of operations to reach,
Though it's all also reflected in the fractal nature of the number line.
1234
.1234
4321
.4321
.0000004321
.432100000
.43210000432100004321
.4321000012340000432100001234
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 06:12:17 UTC No. 16443692
>>16443571
Like are there infinite number of equations to result in each number?
There's an infinite number of ways to result in: .0000000200000000000000000000000000
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 06:14:28 UTC No. 16443696
>>16443571
Like are there infinite number of equations to result in each number?
There's an infinite number of ways to result in: .0000000200000000000000000000000000
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 06:21:45 UTC No. 16443705
>>16443571
>Ala
more like alah akbar
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 13:07:36 UTC No. 16444071
>>16443539
>>16443551
based food analogy
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 16:29:05 UTC No. 16444300
>>16442219
PDF related
https://media.opencurriculum.org/re
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 16:32:09 UTC No. 16444306
>>16444300
also here's a good picture
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 17:27:17 UTC No. 16444376
.9999999999 is shit, its for losers, you're never going to make money that way cause .9999 is smaller than 1
13/13 adds up to 1.0000000000001
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 18:18:17 UTC No. 16444462
>>16443551
>>16443571
Really what the heck is the reason of this.
Is it simply that odds do not go into evens?
1 is an odd number.
Oh wait a sec wait a sec...
0 1 2 3.....8 9 10 11
After 9 is the even 10
10 is related to 0
As 11 is related to 1
I think there might be something to this
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 18:23:16 UTC No. 16444469
>>16444462
After 9 is the even 10
After 0 is the odd 1
To make the jump from 0 to 1
'1' itself is not the unit 1
The duration of 0 to 1 is the unit 1
The duration from 1 to 2 is the unit 2
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 18:26:16 UTC No. 16444474
>>16444462
>>16444469
If 0 is not really considered
1 is the first real value of number
0 to 1 is not like 1 to 10
0 to 1 is like 0 to 11?
But 0 is not considered the first number
Or a quantity at all
So what the heck is 10, why is the non number 0 repeated itself at all down the number line
It should be.. 7 8 9 11
Thus, 9 touches 1
Thus .99999 touches 1
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 18:32:33 UTC No. 16444480
>>16444469
>>16444474
Though if or if not that, it seems to maybe have to do with the nature of 1d, the thickness of a razors edge, to call one side of the razor left, to call the other side right, to call the blade tip center,
.99999.. is left
1.00000000000......1 is right
1 is center
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:06:09 UTC No. 16444530
>>16444480
Fixed for you
1 > 0.999...9
1 = 0.999...
1 = 1.000...
1 < 1.000...1
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:13:07 UTC No. 16444546
>>16444530
I will consider that but respond to this please
>>16444474
Do you not think there is any relevance to this?
That 0 is not really considered a substantial quantitative essence
Yet after 9 comes a representation of 0
As 0
And 11 is then the starting of the number line again from 1?
The difference between
0 to 10
1 to 10
0 to 11
1 to 11
The symbols of number system post dates the objectness of quantity
So I am trying to now conceptualize in terms of lets say blocks, forgetting this idea of 0 and 10 and 11
10 blocks can be stacked evenly, all blocks have a partner.
0 blocks I geuss are stacked evenly, as 1 block is not, as 2 are.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:15:51 UTC No. 16444549
>>16444530
What's an example that would produce .999999999..9 with one 9 shy of being endless
What would result in .99999...9
.infinite 9's - 1
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:55:39 UTC No. 16444606
>>16444549
>What would result in .99999...9
>.infinite 9's - 1
So how's that different than what I siad
1 < 0.999...9
yes i think we agree
1 > 1.000...1
yes i think we agree
1 = 0.999...
1 = 1.000...
i think we don't agree? but why
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:56:41 UTC No. 16444609
>>16444549
>>16444606
sorry reverse the sign but you know what I mean
1 > 0.999...9
yes i think we agree
1 < 1.000...1
yes i think we agree
1 = 0.999...
1 = 1.000...
i think we don't agree? but why
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:59:04 UTC No. 16444614
>>16444546
>I will consider that but respond to this please
I don't understand what this means
>>
Do you not think there is any relevance to this?
That 0 is not really considered a substantial quantitative essence
Yet after 9 comes a representation of 0
As 0
And 11 is then the starting of the number line again from 1?
The difference between
0 to 10
1 to 10
0 to 11
1 to 11
The symbols of number system post dates the objectness of quantity
So I am trying to now conceptualize in terms of lets say blocks, forgetting this idea of 0 and 10 and 11
10 blocks can be stacked evenly, all blocks have a partner.
0 blocks I geuss are stacked evenly, as 1 block is not, as 2 are.
>>
can you explain more simply
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 20:48:28 UTC No. 16444697
>>16444614
>>16444606
Okay I have not read your reply but some further elucidation might have came to me on the same line I was trying
We think of 1 as relating to 10 (as I tried to mention it doesnt appear to allign that way)
.5 + .5
5 + 5
2 odds make an even (.5 +.5 is two odds making an odd)
9 blocks are odd, every block does not have an even partner (though 3 even groups of 3, 2 partners per 1)
You can divide 9 evenly by 3.
You cannot divide 10 or 1 evenly by 3.
If you have 10 blocks and try to make 3 even/equal groups, you have 1 left over.
If you try to divide 1 into 3 even groups you have .1 left over
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 20:55:02 UTC No. 16444708
>>16444697
>I have not read
Read
1 > 0.999...9
1 = 0.999...
1 = 1.000...
1 < 1.000...1
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:07:13 UTC No. 16444806
>>16444708
(I have seen what you have written many times before, wrapped my head around it, and because it is not entirely satisfying attempting to further prod into the fundamental matters, so I got you, congrats congrats you're probably right, but address my arguments as they are, keep in mind I've already read and digested and grasped what you have written many times)
1 is odd
10 is even
5 is odd
2 odds make an even
5 + 5 is 10
.5 + 5 is 1
10 divided into 3 equal groups, gives you 3 groups of 3, with 1 remaining
1 divided into 3 groups gives you 3 groups of .3 with .1 remaining
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:24:01 UTC No. 16444832
>>16444806
>I have seen what you have written many times before
No, you haven't
>address my arguments as they are
What arguments?
1 is odd. True. 10 is even. True. 5 is odd. True. 2 odds make an even. True. 5 + 5 is 10. True. .5 + 5 [sic. .5 + .5] is 1. True. 10 divided into 3 equal groups, gives you 3 groups of 3, with 1 remaining. True. 1 divided into 3 groups gives you 3 groups of .3 with .1 remaining. True.
It's literally all true. Are you retarded?
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 01:00:56 UTC No. 16445087
>>16444832
>1 divided into 3 groups gives you 3 groups of .3 with .1 remaining.
In OP image it says 1/3 is .33333....
That: three 1/3rds equal 1.
Doing away with the .1 left over.
10 divided by 3 = 3.3333333...
10 divided by 3 = 3.3
3.3 three times is 9.9
9.9 is 10
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 01:08:30 UTC No. 16445094
>>16444832
Why is .5 not odd?
How is .5 not the very intimate blood cousin of 5?
.5 + .5 is 1
5 + 5 is 10
How is 1 not the intimate blood cousin of 10?
.3333333
3.333333
.99999
9.9999
I just don't get the .9999....
What type of equation could provide the result .99999999...(infinitely repeating -1 (for it stops))9
Infinity can never be reached or achieved, so there can be no minus 1 of it for that would imply that next to infinite series of 9s is 1 away from the end of infinity
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 02:24:28 UTC No. 16445181
>>16442202
when infinity gets involved you can't really use normal operators, the best you have is a limit
when you use that on both equations you do see that they are true
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 03:26:29 UTC No. 16445238
>>16445094
It seems I might have to conclude despite all appearance of relation, 1 is not so in common as seems.
To have ten 1's: 10 bricks
Plain to see, divide the 10 bricks into 3 equal piles:
[3] [3] [3] [1]
[1 brick]
Divide it into 3 equal piles
[Equal piece of brick]
[Equal piece of brick]
[Equal piece of brick]
The difference between adding various numerousnessess Of the "fundamental" unit quanta
Vs. The fuzzy magic of splitting the 'fundamental unit quanta' into anything you want.
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 03:37:03 UTC No. 16445245
>>16442202
3/3 = 0.9999... = 1
Let x = 0.3333...
10x = 3.3333...
9x= 3
What the fuck happened?
3.3333... - 0.3333... = 3
Because 0.9999... = 1
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 03:43:46 UTC No. 16445252
>>16445245
>0.9999...
Infinity by definition cannot exist.
Where are you getting this .9999... symbol from, where does this .9999.... symbol arise from, it is a chicken show me the symbolic logical causal chain that is it's necessary egg
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 03:44:47 UTC No. 16445253
>>16445245
>>16445252
But again I already finally now understand this whole situation via this example
>>16445238
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 03:51:58 UTC No. 16445262
>>16445245
>>16445238
You see, thankfully now I see:
Divide 1 fundamental unit quanta brick into 4 equal parts
[Equal piece of brick]
[Equal piece of brick]
[Equal piece of brick]
[Equal piece of brick]
Divide 1 fundamental unit quanta brick into 5 equal parts
[Equal piece of brick]
[Equal piece of brick]
[Equal piece of brick]
[Equal piece of brick]
[Equal piece of brick]
Ad Infinitum
Alas I understand
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 03:53:31 UTC No. 16445264
>>16445262
I geuss this is what that guy talking about Monad was on about maybe
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 03:59:23 UTC No. 16445273
>>16445252
> Infinity by definition cannot exist
Invalid statment. In a theoretical space infinity does in fact exist. Take pi, e, or psi as proof, their existence disproofs your stance.
> Where are you getting this .9999... symbol from
The .9999... arises from the limit notation as x approaches 1.
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 05:00:14 UTC No. 16445335
>>16445273
Okay what do you think about this, do you get what I'm getting at?
>>16445262
And I'm still (want? one?) to say infinity by deffition cannot exist;
Infinity does not refer to object but process:
Process can exist
But an infinite number of processes cannot exist, or else there would be a bounded scope as an existent, and would not be infinite.
If you think infinite exists, then you are failing to encapsulate an infinite amount of it in your limitation by your claim.
If infinite exists, it's not infinite
If it exists, it's not infinite
OK Oops semantics, the processes of infinite is ever going,
x process is ever going, x process is infinite, x process exists
But it is not encapsulated, it is not finalized, it is not fully known, because it can never be fully finished
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 05:36:01 UTC No. 16445353
>>16445335
You fail to see my basic point in saying "in a theoretical space". In practice, there is no such thing as infinite, but you seem to not understand the difference between theoretical and practical.
In a theoretical space, infinite processes can exist.
Take a googolplex as an example; it is so large we can't do anything with it; it just exists in the theoretical space. How was it made? Someone thought it would be funny to have a number that is this large! The person who made it even described it as "one, followed by writing zeroes until you get tired.".
Will the googolplex ever exist in practice?
No. No, it won't. But the fact we can create something without knowing it, say we continue to add even more zeros until the end of time and name those numbers new things, proves the fact that there can be an infinite process.
In practice we use n or m as quotes in quote infinities, as we are in practice and in practice infinity will never exist. We simply use infinity in a theoretical space because we will never know if it even stops. Say pi, will Pi ever stop? No, it won't, as it can get "infinitely precise," which is an incorrect term to describe anything in practice, as at some point we get to atoms, etc., but in theory we can!
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 06:26:29 UTC No. 16445365
>>16445353
Well and then we get into different infinities as:
2933883384848839024893929494.......
Is different then:
12121212121212121212121212121212...
And .9999999999.....999999.....999999..
In these latter two examples, the enacting of an infinite process, seems to result in a very confident pattern, the pattern is so simple, orderly, regular, self similar, that we may as well say, I bet you quintillion digits from now the pattern will be the same: therefor we might as well stop the processing activity now, because the result we are at here, is as good as and the same as the pattern and numerals of result we will get if we continued the process 70 years.
A 99999 following .9999
Is as good here, as it is 9999999999^9999999999 digits later.
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 06:34:01 UTC No. 16445372
>>16445353
Well I do believe, well this is hard to say because it's one of the most troubling things to consider, the nature of the infinite length of universal space. Let's say for arguments sake there is 1 universe of energy matter right very now and it's all that exists, and it's total extent as a 4d object is bound and limited,
If you pressed pause on the universe, and given, lol, infinite time, you could count every speck of quanta and have infinite time to spare, the total quanta of quanta is finite, let's say.
This says nothing about the matterless, energyless space which surrounds in all directions.
Is there any reason to believe if you could stand at the edge of the universe, and could walk away from the universe, you would not be able to take an infinite number of steps? In this sense in reality time and space might be infinite, and energy not being able to be created or destroyed, the duration of its existence, again time, infinite, possibly even the number of possible unique combinations
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 07:37:41 UTC No. 16445433
>>16445365
Sure, that's what I meant, the fact we 'could', obviously we don't cause it's a waste of time. The thing is not the 0.333 itself, but the remainder as well. With 3/3 we have the remainder 0.1 + (as you said 0.3333... is just 0.3 so) 0.3 + 0.3 + 0.3 = 1, right?
>>16445372
Huh, well, sure as long as the space is finite you can theoretically "walk off" of the universe with matter and energy into the void, assuming that time and space exist in the first place in said void? If not then you are paused as well, until the universe gets unpaused I'd say.. But a bound and limited universe wouldn't be able to hold infinite time and space. As a matter of fact, I doubt you can use infinty in any real context towards reality such as physics. About the combinations, obviously in an finite universe there can only be finite combinations, that's what I meant with n and m being used in practice instead of infinity were as infinite gets used in theoretical mathematics.
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:42:39 UTC No. 16445679
NOBODY CARES
LEARN SOME ACTUALLY INTERESRING MATH
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 14:36:58 UTC No. 16445740
>>16445679
>NOBODY CARES
>LEARN SOME ACTUALLY INTERESRING MATH
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:10:59 UTC No. 16445787
>>16442202
the hurdle is that you have to accept that mathematicians work with completed infinities. this wouldn't work with an ongoing infinity because there would always be some infinitely small difference .01 -> .001 etc. if you assume that .999... is complete then it being equal to 1 makes sense because no difference can exist
EBOK at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:13:51 UTC No. 16445794
>>16445787
You are effecting a lower set with a higher set of numbers, forcing change to occur. Imagine 9585837 and then 104673563 states of 0.9999r
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 17:06:33 UTC No. 16445988
>>16445433
>0.3 + 0.3 + 0.3 = 1, right?
No you don't have the remainder of .1, then entirety of the convo hinges on that point and my block example is the expression of it.
The fundamental quanta '1' is not matter or energy so to use as a tool (and because most macro objects like bricks for intents and purposes contain nearly infinite atoms, take a knife and cut a brick into atom thin slices, how many slices will you have) it can be sliced infinitely.
There is a concept of halving.
There is a concept of the idea of infinite process.
Thus there is the concept of carrying out the processes of halving infinitely.
When you say '1' you are precisely defining a perfect quanta.
And ignoring its never ending infinitesimal composition, you are defining a bound singularity.
When I say '1 brick' I am ignoring all the atoms that compose the singular extent of an objects boundary.
Okay here it is that brick example adding multiple equal quantas vs dividing that single quanta.
Ignoring atoms, an object of finite extent, that is to say 1 object, can be proportionally split. That's what it's about proportionality scale.
A table, cut it in half. Cut those halves in half. Cut those halves in half. Cut those halves in half. Cut those halves in half.
A table, cut it into 3. Cut those into 3. Cut those into 3. Cut those into 3.
A whole, possess perfect proportions, in accordance with itself.
Only by adding separate but equal wholes together, does the concept of inproportionality arise. Where by trying to make equal parts, 1 can be left out.
When cutting 1 into equal parts nothing can ever be left out. There is no internal disproportion.
Equality equals itself equally.
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 17:07:35 UTC No. 16445991
>>16445433
>>16445988
cntd.
But now let's bring it to atoms aha! (Though they are not even singular fundamental units, but let's pretend they are, or let's count by protons or quarks if we must.
1 table is 9999999...9999999999 quarks long
Another table is 100000000....00000000 quarks long
Both tables equal 1 table, the exact table they are.
The abstract/real notion of 1 is defined exactly as it is.
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 17:21:19 UTC No. 16446026
>>16445991
>1 table is 9999999...9999999999 quarks long
>Another table is 100000000....00000000 quarks long
But by now my brain is ruined so I will need your help with this.
Can the 99999999.....9999999 quarks long table be split into 2 equal parts without any quark left out?
Can it be split into 3 equal parts without any quark being left out?
Can the 100000....0000000 quarks long table be split into 2 equal parts without any quark being left out?
Can it be split into 3 equal parts without any quark being left out?
The concept of the number 1, is the concept of 1 object, being infinite quarks long. Going back to that aspect of, any way you slice it, absolutely perfect proportionality.
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 17:23:01 UTC No. 16446032
>>16445433
>>16445991
>>16446026
cntd.
>1 table is 9999999...9999999999 quarks long
>Another table is 100000000....00000000 quarks long
But by now my brain is ruined so I will need your help with this.
Can the 99999999.....9999999 quarks long table be split into 2 equal parts without any quark left out?
Can it be split into 3 equal parts without any quark being left out?
Can the 100000....0000000 quarks long table be split into 2 equal parts without any quark being left out?
Can it be split into 3 equal parts without any quark being left out?
The concept of the number 1, is the concept of 1 object, being infinite quarks long. Going back to that aspect of, any way you slice it, absolutely perfect proportionality.
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 18:01:53 UTC No. 16446095
>>16444549
Isn't infinity -1 still infinity?
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 03:48:37 UTC No. 16446759
>>16445433
Hey, make sense of this please
>>16446032
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 05:36:40 UTC No. 16446829
>>16444306
made a picture for the 0.999... case
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 07:32:39 UTC No. 16446884
>>16446829
Looks pretty dank
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 20:20:28 UTC No. 16447802
>>16446829
Thank you. So we see:
From 0 to 1 is the full extent of the number 1, from 0 to win is the brick of 1.
From 1 to 2 is not some new object, but just the idea of 1, another equal 1, placed next to it.
It is placed so flushly, as bricks can be placed so flushly against one another, that there is 0 space between them, their ends are touching so purely and smoothly, that the ends are united as the location and source of a shared boundary.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 21:23:37 UTC No. 16447870
>>16442202
what is /sci/´s problem with 0.¯9 = 1?
try to type the difference and we talk.
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 05:58:15 UTC No. 16448456
>>16447870
difference is 0.0000... 1
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 21:52:26 UTC No. 16449554
>>16448456
you know you just did not and thats exactly the point.
its the equivalent of this graphical representation here
>>16446829
its like looking at the result of limes for x to infinity of (1/x).
there is nothing left.
like dx in a DE. it does not have a size.
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 22:10:55 UTC No. 16449590
>>16442202
assuming completeness of real numbers is the biggest mistake in math history
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 22:12:38 UTC No. 16449594
>>16449590
Well anon? Are the numbers complete or not?
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 20:27:38 UTC No. 16451165
>>16442202
Correct
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 21:25:36 UTC No. 16452802
>>16446829
fixed the 2