Page 1 of 5
#1
it's been a few years since we've done this. let's do it again.

1/3 = 0.3333....
2/3 = 1/3 + 1/3 = 0.3333... + 0.3333... = 0.6666...
3/3 = 2/3 + 1/3 = 0.3333... + 0.6666... = 0.9999...
1 = 3/3 = 0.9999...
1 = 0.9999...

all dissidents please present your counterarguments.

all hip present your own proofs.
i don't know why i feel so dry
#3
dirtbag ballet by the bins down the alley
as i walk through the chalet of the shadow of death
everything that you've come to expect


#4
Quote by blake1221
Yes, we know.


Didn't this thread get merged into a giant bro thread last time?


last time it happened it was maybe 20 pages of vicious shit posting. i'm trying to get that again

worst case scenario some people might want to know more. in which case i will tell them more. i mean the op is not at all convincing for some people.
i don't know why i feel so dry
#6
Quote by Eastwinn
last time it happened it was maybe 20 pages of vicious shit posting. i'm trying to get that again


i got u bud i sure do love shitposting
banned
#7
Quote by Eastwinn
last time it happened it was maybe 20 pages of vicious shit posting. i'm trying to get that again

worst case scenario some people might want to know more. in which case i will tell them more. i mean the op is not at all convincing for some people.


I think people just have a hard time letting go of basic arithmetic.
#8
Quote by blake1221
I think people just have a hard time letting go of basic arithmetic.


i will assist

the only thing i really want to do with my life so far is teach people things that i think are cool but they think is too complex for them. and when they understand and think it's cool, the satisfaction is insane i tell ya
i don't know why i feel so dry
#10
Quote by deadsmileyface
i got u bud i sure do love shitposting


i've noticed
dirtbag ballet by the bins down the alley
as i walk through the chalet of the shadow of death
everything that you've come to expect


#11
Quote by Trowzaa
i've noticed

Your thesis should basically include the idea of two states of being where.. well.. that's just like uh, your opinion is no longer relevant because those nations lived more than some blog where some guy was carrying a skinning knife just in case it doesnt hurt to take an exorbitant amount of money doesn't always lead for the least amount of belts they've ever had is completing portal 2 on max settings perfectly though) and I'm kind of weird, stupid things like money, and John Kerry who is giving away personal income without asking to search me, but I've lived through.
banned
#12
You are wrong.

Quote by lolmnt
I love to have my vag pounded by guys who make lame threads on the internet!


Quote by snipelfritz
This thread topic is gold. I've been on this website for 8 years and I've never come up with anything like this. So yeah. Great job TS[457undead].
#13
Quote by Eastwinn
last time it happened it was maybe 20 pages of vicious shit posting. i'm trying to get that again

worst case scenario some people might want to know more. in which case i will tell them more. i mean the op is not at all convincing for some people.

Someone posted a proof the last time, in pure mathematical terms, and I asked to know what that proof meant. Would be cool if someone posted the proof in layman terms.
#14
Quote by blake1221
explain to me the möbius strip


the möbius strip is a counter example to the erroneous theorem that all surfaces are orientable. to be orientable you must be able to identify a side that is "up" and a side that is "down". the choice may be arbitrary, but it must be consistent. for example, if you imagine a rug as a surface, you can choose the side you walk on as the top and the side that touches the floor as the bottom. you can always identify any point on that rug as on the top or on the bottom. the möbius strip has only one side, however, so you may not choose a top and a bottom -- you have to have two sides to do that.

many theorems in higher dimensional calculus rely on surfaces being orientable. for a while mathematicians just assumed all surfaces were. the möbius strip is was the first of a whole class of surfaces that do not conform to this calculus.

because the möbius strip has only one boundary, funny things happen when you cut it in half along the strip. make one with a strip of paper and some scotch tape then cut along the boundary, right down the middle. you should end up with two new möbius strips intertwined within another. if you continue this process on each new strip you can make a möbius mess #pun

möbius himself has contributed greatly to mathematics but unfortunately most of his work is too out there for most people to appreciate.

Quote by metal4eva_22
Someone posted a proof the last time, in pure mathematical terms, and I asked to know what that proof meant. Would be cool if someone posted the proof in layman terms.


there are numerous proofs. the existence of the continuum of real number relies on this fact so there are tons of different ways of looking at it. was it maybe this one?

this notation for convenience: 0.9999... = 0.(9)

x = 0.(9)
10x = 9.(9)
9x = 10x - x = 9.(9) - 0.(9)
9x = 9
x = 1
1 = 0.(9)

this one is pretty common
i don't know why i feel so dry
Last edited by Eastwinn at Jun 10, 2014,
#15
This conundrum seems to confuse people as they believe it means there are two seperate numbers representing the same value, which doesn't occur anywhere else in arithmetic. To me this isn't true because I see a repeating value as an unsolved process like the second last step in an equation. 0.99999 is 1 the same way 4+3 is 7

The whole thing only occurs because we don't have an accurate way to represent repeating digits with decimals points only fractions. 1/3 = 0.33333.. 2/3 = 0.6666.. and 3/3 or 1 = 0.999999 but the only reason that amazes us is we don't have a typical digit that represents 1/3 or 2/3, but the fractions do so easily. Repeating digits are infinite and somewhat incomprehensible. The minute we believe there is an end it comes up short of its value and 0.99.. becomes short of 1 because of it.

To sum it up 0.99999.. only = 1 because 0.33333.. and 0.6666.. are flawed representations of 1/3 and 2/3 and when combined create a separate way to represent 1 based on the circumstances. To me its not a phenomena that 1 has an extra way to represent its value but that 1/3, 2/3 and other repeaters lack one.
Quote by Night
wtf is a selfie? is that like, touching yourself or something?
Last edited by Wiegenlied at Jun 10, 2014,
#16
Quote by Wiegenlied

The whole thing only occurs because we don't have an accurate way to represent repeating digits

yes there is.

Quote by lolmnt
I love to have my vag pounded by guys who make lame threads on the internet!


Quote by snipelfritz
This thread topic is gold. I've been on this website for 8 years and I've never come up with anything like this. So yeah. Great job TS[457undead].
#17
Quote by Wiegenlied
To sum it up 0.99999.. only = 1 because 0.33333.. and 0.6666.. are flawed representations of 1/3 and 2/3 and create a seperate way to represent 1 based on the circumstances


this is a misconception. 0.(9) represent a geometric series that sums to 1. in hex, 0.(F) sums to 1 in the same fashion. although the decimal forms of 1/3 and 2/3 are convincing for most, they are not necessary to demonstrate the equivalence.
i don't know why i feel so dry
#18
Quote by Eastwinn
it's been a few years since we've done this. let's do it again.

Duuude.. not again.
Quote by Pleasure2kill
The truth is, Muslims never apologized for their faith having something to do with the attacks on 9/11.
#19
Quote by 457undead
yes there is.


yeah we all know that. but the fact that the concept of infinity is hard to comprehend is what prevents the average joe from being able to understanding the equation in OP
Quote by Night
wtf is a selfie? is that like, touching yourself or something?
#20
Quote by damian_91
Duuude.. not again.


you don't have to participate
i don't know why i feel so dry
#22
Quote by Eastwinn

there are numerous proofs. the existence of the continuum of real number relies on this fact so there are tons of different ways of looking at it. was it maybe this one?

this notation for convenience: 0.9999... = 0.(9)

x = 0.(9)
10x = 9.(9)
9x = 10x - x = 9.(9) - 0.(9)
9x = 9
x = 1
1 = 0.(9)

this one is pretty common

No, dude, that's easy to comprehend. Damien posted a proof that I don't understand but it looked right in terms of my first year advanced calc class, yet I still didn't understand because I'm a biochem student and it didn't matter if I got that wrong.
#23
Quote by Eastwinn
it's been a few years since we've done this. let's do it again.

1/3 = 0.3333....
2/3 = 1/3 + 1/3 = 0.3333... + 0.3333... = 0.6666...
3/3 = 2/3 + 1/3 = 0.3333... + 0.6666... = 0.9999...
1 = 3/3 = 0.9999...
1 = 0.9999...


haven't seen the last time thread, but here is approximation and have a nice one.
#24
Quote by metal4eva_22
No, dude, that's easy to comprehend. Damien posted a proof that I don't understand but it looked right in terms of my first year advanced calc class, yet I still didn't understand because I'm a biochem student and it didn't matter if I got that wrong.


mmm... probably to do with geometric series. there is a simple, not totally rigorous proof that a convergent geometric series will converge on such and such, and using this theorem it's evident that 0.(9) = 1, but proving the theorem more rigorously would mean typing out half of a 300-level math course on here. so although it's a proof, it's not very nice for those who aren't seasoned in series.
i don't know why i feel so dry
#25
Quote by Eastwinn
mmm... probably to do with geometric series. there is a simple, not totally rigorous proof that a convergent geometric series will converge on such and such, and using this theorem it's evident that 0.(9) = 1, but proving the theorem more rigorously would mean typing out half of a 300-level math course on here. so although it's a proof, it's not very nice for those who aren't seasoned in series.

No, dude, I get that too. It was something with symbols that I completely didn't get because the calc teacher didn't explain it, he just said this is the proof you'll learn in engineering 2001. And I was like "****, I paid you to explain it to me, asshole!

University is a waste of money, kids.

EDIT: Damien is a math student, I know because I answered biochem student questions in the math/science thread for a while. He's pretty much the only one who can explain this proof shit to me.
Last edited by metal4eva_22 at Jun 10, 2014,
#26
Quote by metal4eva_22
No, dude, I get that too. It was something with symbols that I completely didn't get because the calc teacher didn't explain it, he just said this is the proof you'll learn in engineering 2001. And I was like "****, I paid you to explain it to me, asshole!

University is a waste of money, kids.


you'd have to give me more hints. i've only seen a few proofs of this cause really who needs more than 3?
i don't know why i feel so dry
#27
Quote by Eastwinn
you'd have to give me more hints. i've only seen a few proofs of this cause really who needs more than 3?

I know, it's just this one that's really been bugging me because I couldn't understand the symbols.
#28
Quote by Eastwinn
it's been a few years since we've done this. let's do it again.

1/3 = 0.3333....
2/3 = 1/3 + 1/3 = 0.3333... + 0.3333... = 0.6666...
3/3 = 2/3 + 1/3 = 0.3333... + 0.6666... = 0.9999...
1 = 3/3 = 0.9999...
1 = 0.9999...

all dissidents please present your counterarguments.

all hip present your own proofs.


⅓ = 33⅓%
⅔= 66⅔%
1=100%

Decimals are gay and so is this topic
It's over simplified, So what!

Quote by eGraham
I'm going to be on top of what is called a knob
Quote by theguitarist
Big ones can be fun in some ways but generally, they are a pain in the ass.
Quote by Wolfinator-x
I don't know what is going on in this thread or why I have an erection.
Last edited by Obsceneairwaves at Jun 10, 2014,
#29
Now that you've explained mobüis strips, explain Klein bottles pls
will someone carry me across ten thousand miles under the silence
#30
Quote by Baby Joel
Now that you've explained mobüis strips, explain Klein bottles pls


a klein bottle is a non-orientable surface topological equivalent to two opposite möbius strips made to share a boundary. the manifold itself, in its proper four dimensional form, has no boundary curves (edges) and no clear inside or outside. it may be immersed in three dimensions for visualization but this forces a self-intersection that creates a boundary curve so the three dimension version is not proper.

what i'm trying to say is that this area of topology is really complicated and i'm not equipped to explore it in simple terms. pictures are good though.
i don't know why i feel so dry
#31
Press . On a keyboard in a word document. Now hold down the 9 key and nothing else. Come back when you get anything other than a 9.
#32
Quote by Wormholes
Press . On a keyboard in a word document. Now hold down the 9 key and nothing else. Come back when you get anything other than a 9.


I like the way you look at things.
BEWARE THE BANANA ARMY.

I SAY, I SAY, BEWARE THE BANANA ARMY.

They say when they finally attack, all the impostors will peel themselves. In order to tell if you have been assimilated, check for a zipper somewhere near your pelvis.


#33
Quote by Eastwinn
a klein bottle is a non-orientable surface topological equivalent to two opposite möbius strips made to share a boundary. the manifold itself, in its proper four dimensional form, has no boundary curves (edges) and no clear inside or outside. it may be immersed in three dimensions for visualization but this forces a self-intersection that creates a boundary curve so the three dimension version is not proper.

Sounds interesting. Any other multidimensional stuff like that I can look up? :3
#35
Quote by Eastwinn
this notation for convenience: 0.9999... = 0.(9)

x = 0.(9)
10x = 9.(9)
9x = 10x - x = 9.(9) - 0.(9)
9x = 9
x = 1
1 = 0.(9)

this one is pretty common

No, there is one flaw here:
x = 0.(9)
10x = 9.(9)0
x = 9.(9)0 / 10 = 0.(9)
hence,
0.(9) =/= 1

Also, the "proof" in the OP is just an error due to the fact that you can't represent 1/3 properly in decimal form.

And yes, I am very fun at parties.

Quote by Wiegenlied
To sum it up 0.99999.. only = 1 because 0.33333.. and 0.6666.. are flawed representations of 1/3 and 2/3 and when combined create a separate way to represent 1 based on the circumstances. To me its not a phenomena that 1 has an extra way to represent its value but that 1/3, 2/3 and other repeaters lack one.

If however, there is a finite number of decimals, the value of 2/3 has to be rounded up:
1/3 = 0.333...333
2/3 = 0.666...667
Which allows 1/3 + 2/3 = 1.
ERROR 0x45: Signature not found
Last edited by sfaune92 at Jun 10, 2014,
#37
I feel that this video is needed in the thread for extra hipster points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbNymweHW4E


Also, Idea Channel is amazing.
Gear:


Fender American Hand Stained stratocaster
Fender 72' Telecaster Deluxe FSR

Squier Vista Venus

Boss TU-3
Boss OD-3
Pro co Rat 2
EHX Big Muff Nano
EHX Small clone
Boss DD7
Hardwire Supernatural


Vox AC30cc1
Blackheart Little Giant stack
#38
So humans made a system that is not an absolute perfect fitting with reality and they be like "how is our decimal system not perfect!"

How narcissistic of humans. On the other hand, it's good to see people of pure logic still fall to the simple mechanic of 'hope' to find an answer on this. SO christian like ermaegawd.

Eastwinn u seem to like Math. What do you think about Pi?

Does it ever end?

Do you think it's sequential and that the current known string will repeat after a certain point?

I ask because I feel Pi could be just the same kind of decimal bs.

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
Last edited by xxdarrenxx at Jun 10, 2014,
#39
Oh look it's this again.

I remember some years ago I made the mistake of actually getting in the argument. I probably wasn't aware of what the pit was back then.
Page 1 of 5