Page: 1 2 Next > Jump to:  Bottom  Last Post
 Plangkye
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
 213 Posts
|
Friday, April 06, 2012 11:10:49 PM
I'm able to identify all the Lords except the first, second, and fifth. Who are they? |
|
 jarjarburns
Male, 18-29, Western US
17 Posts
|
Monday, April 02, 2012 9:51:12 AM
She must spend thousands on sharpies. |
|
 aznclueless
Male, 18-29, Southern US
331 Posts
|
Sunday, April 01, 2012 10:03:35 PM
@MechBFP
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. |
|
 skine
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
724 Posts
|
Sunday, April 01, 2012 2:40:08 PM
She shows a lot of interesting tricks, but really, she only points to the real mathematical proof that 1 = .9...
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... |
|
 Batmanners
Male, 18-29, Canada
4012 Posts
|
Sunday, April 01, 2012 2:14:24 PM
Um, she proved that 1=1 and that .999repeating is .999repeating... She would sneak in a -.999repeating to a subtraction rather than a -1...
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 |
|
 WindDelay
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
7 Posts
|
Sunday, April 01, 2012 1:13:54 PM
tedgp... Were you ever taught how to do long division in school? I mean seriously? We're not using a calculator here and letting it round off. Divide 1 by 3, and you get .3 and a remainder of .1, divide that by 3 and get .03 and a remainder of .01... and you can keep going infinitely and still get that remainder. That's what defines a repeating number. That's what happens when you divide one into 3 parts, and that by definition is what 1/3 is. It's really not that hard to understand. |
|
 incubus_inc
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
805 Posts
|
Sunday, April 01, 2012 1:03:39 PM
This biatch is ridiculously clever. |
|
 tedgp
Male, 30-39, Europe
2923 Posts
|
Sunday, April 01, 2012 8:32:06 AM
@mahe4 you need to learn to read. 0.33333 repeating is STILL not 1/3 no matter what you do to it. It's close but it still isn't 1/3 |
|
 5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
16886 Posts
|
Sunday, April 01, 2012 7:53:37 AM
April Fools Joke?
But... which video is the joke?
Oh dear me... |
|
5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
16886 Posts
|
Sunday, April 01, 2012 6:44:22 AM
Zeno Of Elea (for @tatripp!)
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?) |
|
 tatripp
Male, 18-29, Western US
1180 Posts
|
Saturday, March 31, 2012 11:51:19 PM
how can we move if there are infinite mid points between any given point. my head a splode |
|
 mon360
Male, 13-17, Southern US
741 Posts
|
Saturday, March 31, 2012 9:45:49 PM
.333 doesn't equal 1/3, 1/3 equals .333! oh wait i don't think that works...aw titties i don't know |
|
5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
16886 Posts
|
Saturday, March 31, 2012 8:27:24 PM
But @LillianDulci... Zeno of Elea!!!
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. |
|
 theshark350
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
429 Posts
|
Saturday, March 31, 2012 8:26:54 PM
it works because it works. unless you can point out a specific flaw in each proof, you have no argument to give us. |
|
 tacks
Female, 18-29, Canada
151 Posts
|
Saturday, March 31, 2012 7:46:02 PM
drat math. |
|
 LillianDulci
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
2696 Posts
|
Saturday, March 31, 2012 6:19:49 PM
5Cats, but it uses the infinity mark, which means there's no exact value just like with infinity. You can't subtract infinity - infinity, it just don't make sense, and I think the same goes for .999... The difference with things like pi and 1/3 is that the infinity is implied but we're using exact values anyway (pi is exactly pi and 1/3 is exactly 1/3). If you change 1/3 to .333... then it becomes slightly different than just using 1/3 |
|
5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
16886 Posts
|
Saturday, March 31, 2012 5:44:55 PM
@LillianDulci: .999_ = .999_, otherwise there wouldn't be the "infinity" mark on both of them.
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... |
|
 robosnitz
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
2752 Posts
|
Saturday, March 31, 2012 5:14:14 PM
boredom |
|
LillianDulci
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
2696 Posts
|
Saturday, March 31, 2012 4:59:09 PM
I usually like her videos, but not so much this one. I think it only "works" for the same reason that infinity - infinity isn't 0. When she subtracts .999... from both sides, she doesn't have any way of knowing that she's subtracting the same .999... from both sides so it's not really possible to do so. Just a guess anyway. |
|
Agregaros
Male, 18-29, Canada
5 Posts
|
Saturday, March 31, 2012 4:30:06 PM
I have the weirdest boner right now... |
|
tsheriff
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
248 Posts
|
Saturday, March 31, 2012 3:03:54 PM
drat math physics is way cooler and more realer
|
|
 TurkeyInButt
Male, 18-29, Western US
101 Posts
|
Saturday, March 31, 2012 2:52:52 PM
O blah blah blah... That was a really lame one. Her voice is really annoying. And her stick figure pictures are too. Yeah so any number that is a nano or micro away from a whole number is usually just the whole number in most applications anyways since that much variation doesn't matter unless you are researching electrons or cells... I'm surprised she didn't talk about limits and put the infinite series talk with summation notation. |
|
 Fatninja01
Male, 18-29, Australia
23995 Posts
|
Saturday, March 31, 2012 2:50:17 PM
meh... |
|
 bigfatdynamo
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
255 Posts
|
Saturday, March 31, 2012 2:49:32 PM
_
NERD
|
|
mahe4
Male, 18-29, Europe
57 Posts
|
Saturday, March 31, 2012 2:07:06 PM
@tedgp 0.333 REPEATING
learn to read |
|
Page: 1 2 Next >
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}