Proof #8 made my brainz explode!

Log in with a social network:

Proof #8 made my brainz explode!

The Trending 10

- WEEK
- MONTH
- YEAR

12

11

257,869

483

If humans made programs that could treat infinite numbers like they should be treated then we`d be gods. The only thing your examples prove are that programs can`t calculate infinitely.

Basically, in the proof, you start by assuming that they are not equal. So, if we assume that x = 0.9..., then 1 - x = a, for some real number a > 0. Then, equivalently, 1 - a = x.

Then, you pick a number b that is easy to work with that is less than a. Since b < a, 1 - b > x.

But then, based on the choice of b, it is trivial to show that 1 - b < x.

Since this is an obvious contradiction, it means that our assumption that 1 != x is false, and so 1 = x = 0.9...

1/3 is as close as we can get to 33.333333333_%, but it`s not dead on.

I don`t like her explanation, her mathematics only work in her weird way here, not in my mind.

If you have .9999repeating, you are lacking one itty-bitty fraction missing to complete the 1, even if it is intifitismally lesser

But... which video is the joke?

Oh dear me...

Don`t forget: the `number` .3333_ isn`t a "real thing" it`s just a representation OF a real thing.

Take 9 marbles, (Z) and divide them into 3 equal groups (Y).

Each Y = 1/3 of Z. If you fiddle around with it enough, like the video shows, you end up with 3 times .3333_ = 1 Why? Because in this case .3333_ is not "imaginary, it is ONE marble! But the math is the same no matter what you do.

It doesn`t work for computer language because izt kbloc wangum! (see what I did there?)

Really, you make good points, and I`m NOT smart enough to refute them. I`ll just let Vi`s video do the talking. And Zeno, him too.

Just like Pi = Pi! We DO KNOW that an infinitely repeating number equals itself.

There`s rules for rational numbers, irrational numbers, imaginary numbers & etc.

I thought she was putting out an early April Fools joke on us all! If she did, I got fooled...

NERD

learn to read

If .333 repeating and 1/3 are the same, then 1 and .999 repeating can also be considered the same.

Read what you wrote. They arent the same. 0.33333 is NOT 1/3.

I submit lots of variety @LazyMe, idk why many AWESOME non-political offerings are refused, but some so-so political ones get accepted...

... sometimes it`s because multiple people suggest the same thing, eh?

Hence why I say `can be considered` (ie, assuming this is 100% correct, I don`t claim to be a mathematician by a long shot) :| it`s an interesting theory regardless.

Depending on the application, like software that does repeated number calculations, making an assumption like this could screw up your program over time.

If you are on a 64 bit OS and need resolution beyond a 64 bit floating point, than sure you could use 1 because it would technically be more accurate in the long run (rounding up). It would still be inaccurate though. However if for example the number is 0.9999 up to 63 bits and then stops, then you would not want to use just 1 because that would cause you to be less accurate than you could have been by using the exact number.

No 8 was what got me too

1/3 =.333 repeating

1/3 x 3 = 1

.333repeating x 3= .999 repeating

If .333 repeating and 1/3 are the same, then 1 and .999 repeating can also be considered the same.

(On a side note, it`s good how she shoes multiple proofs and explanations too, thats a good teaching strategy, we use similar with primary kids, showing multiple proofs and such since we all learn in different ways)

LONG POST OUT.

(TL;DR enjoyment)

Since a lot of other stuff we learnt would build off these basic theories we had explored and proven in non mathematical ways we really got it an the theory behind it.

He was the best teacher. I had him for year 7 and 8, but in year 9 we had some guy with a thick accent and terrible teaching skills, and I understood nothing.--

Dave

One of my yr 7 teachers game me an explanation about maths that sticks with me still. It was something like maths is a theory "Hey guys I have something to explain all this and it seems to fit, lets try it out" and future theories and discoveries may prove that wrong or right. Most maths has been proven `right` that many times over since we first started this concept of numbers that it`s basically concrete. He also liked to show us non mathematical proofs, which I liked a lot (I loved the theory behind it, but I could never really grasp it so seeing it in action without all the equations/ie a non maths proof really made it click in my head). I remember him showing us a non mathematical proof or Pythagorean theory using triangle tiles, essentially proving Pythagorean theory without numbers. It was awesome.

Also: I`m sure he says `whore` and `bored` randomly in place of `four`...

1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1

Get it? Substitute .333_ with 1/3 (because they`re equal) and presto! .999_ = 1

Proof! Math-wise.

[quote] and you should be able to find another number til infinity that`s closer...[/quote]

You need to understand Zeno of Elea better... he`s my favorite philosopher!

People said the same things about imaginary numbers at first, but now they`re essential to many of our daily routines.

You "make up" numbers when "normal" numbers just won`t cut it.

Bear with me for a second and let me try and reason something here. The basic concept I`m getting here is that using infinity, a number she herself says is imaginary and doesn`t exist, proves that .9999~ mathematically equals 1 because nothing comes closer to 1 than .9999~ and you should be able to find another number til infinity that`s closer... I`ll let you pick that one apart from there.

By the way, they`re 95% sure the Higgs Boson particle doesn`t exist. Meaning we`d have to pretty much reinvent physics as we know it and these "split octonians" wouldn`t explain jack anymore. Guess they`ll have to "invent" more numbers...

epic facepalm time

`cause it rounds up.

DUH !

- Proof #8 made my brainz explode!