2

...st

-1

0

0.9(9)

How much time do I need for it to become 1?

You seem to assume that I'm not good at math.... Or that I am on the philosophical side of science. I've had several years of math on a university level (computer science is pretty math heavy).

You are right that I don't know all of the historical backgrounds in math as I don't care about it.

I also don't care about terms... As I find that people who do not understand math come up with terms to hide their incompetence (I'm not talking about you but in general).
That 1 = 0.99999..... by definition is just some chap not understanding it so he defined what is not neccessary to define.

It's the concepts that matter.... The only problem there is in math is that you need notation to explain the ideas you have to others.

The concept of how I solve this 1 = 0.9999 is SO easy to understand.
But you need to understand what an infinite series is and, as I pointed out in my origional post, hardly anyone understands that. ("Trust me when I say that the only reason that X / 0 = undefined is because people can't imagine infinity and computers can't (yet) deal with it.").
I even have problems understanding how it can be that it doesn't lead to any problems.... but it works because the series of 0's is infinite.

You say that even if 1/infinity is infinitely small then it's still larger than 0.... I propose (or well I tell you) that it is 0. Now the current notations of the math system don't allow for me to say so. And I know that.
But if you want an alternate notation then I'd have to define a new math system (which is fine by me... would take me a bit of time though).

So tell me is it the concept of the idea which is flawed or is it the limiting view on math (limited by notation rather than imagination)?

he said

0.9(9)

How much time do I need for it to become 1?

And you reply with....


??????????????????????????????

Its weirds reply from another thread a while ago

ah, ok

4) profit

you don't have to define the new math system, you can just use infinitesimal math, which already is clearly defined.

(I'm not entirely sure what Obi's exact words were sorry :(, but it was something similar to this right? )

Anyways I wanted to write it down differently such that it would become more applicable... But we've been over that as well.
It's fun to see that people still use my notation though :D

(the edits are to seperate the posts... the origional post of mine was kind of unclear.)

If by your notation you mean 0.9(9), it's a standard way to write repeating decimals

I made clear what the notation meant in the original thread.
I said that it means that the "infinith decimal" = 9. Which is a slightly different concept.

So for instance you could say 1 - 5/inf = 0.999(5).
or 1 -16/inf - 0.999(84) etc.
where the regularly written decimals go on infinitely.

So basically you'd say that 1/inf can be written as 0.0(1).

Which would (imho) make the notation much clearer. As in a way it'll be similar to a complex number but rather than having a real and an imaginairy part it has a real and an infinite part (where the infinite part can be x*inf as well as x/inf depending on which side of the seperator it is.
But hey I know that you only like "standard math" and you have blocked any kind of slight alteration on it even though it's very logical.

but he wrote 0.9(9), meaning the repeated decimal 0.99...

so it's not your notation he's using, but the standard one.

there is no such thing as "standard math", you can define anything you want so long as it meets the required standard of rigour (hint: this is where you fall short).

rofl required standard of rigor.... Do I need to refer back to Newton and Leibniz?
Just that I write it slightly different (because I came up with this stuff myself well before being educated adequately) doesn't change the conceptual construction leading to the perfectly fine argumentation I have given in the previous thread.
If you get stuck at how to write math down rather than think about the concepts which are at the foundation... you'll never ever be able to have any kind of mathematical idea. (which I said last time as well... which is probably why you're pissed at me)

wasn't using "your" notation, was he?

would depend on what he meant huh?
Official notation is 0.(9) and not 0.9(9) for 0.999...

You stole a reply of mine assuming that he was though. So I'm here to burn you back to the ground where I left you last time.
I'll keep on doing so as long as you give me reason to.

jamweirdio

"Weirderio" sounds better, IMO.

d:-)

Hi I know this random, but, recently I was researching Grigori Perelman and the poincare conjecture, fascinating story at least to me.

I downloaded his three posted proofs of the conjecture, and I must say I'm wondering how many university classes would I have to take to be able to fully understand what he's talking about. Any idea Weird?

the idea of objects being able to morph from other objects and a donut being the same as a coffee cup is fascinating to ,me I just can't grasp it all without knowing mannnny things, university level and beyond I assume.

watching the Bobby Fischer documentary the other night reminded me of him and the problem. I get so interested in people that can figure out things no one else can,which is one of the reasons I like your play style.

his quote "I know how to control the Universe. Why would I run to get a million, tell me?" ...amazing, Fisher was one of the other types of geniuses that chose to turn down money and fame and only care about what he cared about.

Wonder what czm thinks as well. You both talk over my head in general :) love to read/hear your thoughts on that subject, although if it's a waste of your time I understand lol.

In general math is not complex.
You just need to know what all the terms are and then see if you can understand the problem.

Once you can understand the problem... reading proofs regarding the problem becomes much easier. As you can attribute some sort of meaning to the symbols.

As to understanding Perelman's proofs...
By far most people have insane problems understanding the problem from Poincare.
I didn't really ever look into it myself...

But I believe that it's about making sure that higher dimensional shapes in non-euclidean space don't have holes in them. (Where the "hole" might be less intuitive than you might think)

For instance, you might say that a donut has a hole in it's center.... But if you were to take a walk over the surface of the donut, you can still get everywhere from anywhere.
This gets even stranger (even in 2d->3d with a mobius strip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVsIAa2XNKc )

The Perelman proof "seems to be" (to me, again not really having looked at it) about drawing a line on an object in a certain way. If you can create that line, then you know a certain property of the object.
Which is the case for all dimensions and even in non-euclidean space (which I am having trouble to explain... Basically you can let go of several proofs which you would use for regular space. So the theory "even holds" when you remove certain constraints from regular math.)

Awesome :)))

OK so I looked up eclidean and non-eclidean, interesting how more than 180° can be shown on the angles of triangle on a sphere, such as the globe... The video you posted makes the idea is of a line being able to cross and get to any space on a 2-3 dimensional object...My eyes opened wide on the very last experiment he did :) 1 ring turning into three

See this is why I love your explaintions, I was scouring the net, only becoming more confused trying to understand the idea, and, you simplified it quickly!

.

I don't really try to simplify stuff here though... I just wanted to show how insanely non-intuitive this stuff can be.
This stuff still makes me go "wtf!?!!?!" as well :D

Wtf indeed. :)

Have you ever run into people so into their passion that you think they might actually solve a problem like that, and, not care about collecting the prize or recognition from it.

I find it so fascinating that he would solve a 100 year old problem, then practically run from it like Fischer did with chess.

Pacman support cheater scum of the earth asdađasdssdasdddasfgk#$!!

Stone him!

I just wanted to know how math works, dang!

You dont have to wait because 0.999... = 1

proof

If

x = 0.999...

then

10x = 9.999....

It follows that

10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999... = 9x = 9

so if

9x = 9

Then

x = 1 = 0.999...

are you some kind of math genius

Zhulicious. +1

Yes, go back to the clinic with the kind people dressed in white, please. Remember, they want to help you! Don't resist them. They will take the pain away.

Or not.




At least they couldn't so far.

Well, he keeps running away only to shitpost on ESR, so wot u expect m8?

Love you, Zhu. +1

1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4sl_yVWXtQ

It's not over

rofl, zhu is the true fucking magician of ESR troll threads, 15 comments in and there's a cripple fight already

wp

: D

1

Sure why not

1

1

#FreeZhu

he's annoying but it works : )

cheater one day, cheater everydays

I cant wait for dizzle to make a cumback

zhu threads cover relevant data-space, 112.230.100.5

firewall.gif

// generated by Jamerio do not modify
unbindall

seta g_allowVote "1"
bind 1 "vote no"

"1"

But you modified it,

Yes. Also I want Jamerio to play u with live commentary by the both of u!