Page: 1 2 Next > Jump to: Bottom Last Post
Plangkye Female, 1829, Eastern US 259 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, 1829, Western US 17 Posts

Monday, April 02, 2012 9:51:12 AM She must spend thousands on sharpies. 

aznclueless Male, 1829, 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, 1829, 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, 1829, 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 ittybitty fraction missing to complete the 1, even if it is intifitismally lesser 

WindDelay Male, 1829, 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, 1829, Eastern US 980 Posts

Sunday, April 01, 2012 1:03:39 PM This biatch is ridiculously clever. 

tedgp Male, 3039, Europe 3333 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, 5059, Canada 28544 Posts

Sunday, April 01, 2012 7:53:37 AM April Fools Joke? But... which video is the joke? Oh dear me... 

5Cats Male, 5059, Canada 28544 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, 1829, Western US 1201 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, 1317, Southern US 742 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, 5059, Canada 28544 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, 1829, Midwest US 430 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, 1829, Canada 154 Posts

Saturday, March 31, 2012 7:46:02 PM drat math. 

LillianDulci Female, 1829, 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, 5059, Canada 28544 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, 4049, Eastern US 2752 Posts

Saturday, March 31, 2012 5:14:14 PM boredom 

LillianDulci Female, 1829, 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, 1829, Canada 5 Posts

Saturday, March 31, 2012 4:30:06 PM I have the weirdest boner right now... 

tsheriff Male, 1829, Eastern US 257 Posts

Saturday, March 31, 2012 3:03:54 PM drat math physics is way cooler and more realer


TurkeyInButt Male, 1829, 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, 3039, Australia 25198 Posts

Saturday, March 31, 2012 2:50:17 PM meh... 

bigfatdynamo Male, 3039, Eastern US 259 Posts

Saturday, March 31, 2012 2:49:32 PM _ NERD


mahe4 Male, 1829, Europe 57 Posts

Saturday, March 31, 2012 2:07:06 PM @tedgp 0.333 REPEATING learn to read 

Page: 1 2 Next >
