Thread 16727090

Claim: [math] 0.999_{\dots} \neq 1[/math]

Proof: We use induction. The base case is trivial: [math] 0.9 \neq 1[/math]. Next we introduce the notation that [math]0.9_n = \underbrace{0.9999999}_{n-\text{many nines}}[/math] is the decimal with n-many 9s.

Now the inductive step: we assume [math]0.9_n \neq 1[/math]. Then trivially [math]0.9_{n+1} \neq 1 [/math]. It might help to notice that [math] 1 - 0.9_{n+1} \neq 0[/math].

This implies that [math]0.9_n \neq 1 \qquad \forall n\in \mathbb{N}[/math]

Finally, we define [math] 0.999_{\dots} := \lim_{n\to\infty} 0.9_n[/math].

[math]\therefore 0.999_{\dots} \neq 1 \qquad \square [/math]

>>16727090 (OP)
What's 1/3 in decimal form?

>>16727090 (OP)
Assuming this isn't literal retard tier bait, I'll tell you why this is wrong
Induction is a mathematical principle that allows you to prove that a statement P(n) is true for any natural number n. This is exactly what you've done and everything you've said is correct regarding 0.9_n not being 1.
The error here is assuming that since each term in your sequence is not equal to one, then it's limit is not one.
It's pretty easy to prove that the limit of 1/n as n tends to infinity is equal to zero, but each term in the sequence is non zero. The exact same behavior happens with the sequence 0.9_n.

In fact, you've essentially proven that 1 = 0.999... It's easy to show that the limit of 0.9_n is equal to 1, since you defined 0.999... to be this limit then you've exactly shown that 1 = 0.999...

but you're probably racist anyway so i shouldn't expect you to be capable of complex thought.

>>16727090 (OP)
At least you're more creative than most shitposters here. I assume you actually know, but the limit of a sequence a_n being a does not mean that a_n has to ever equal a. It just means that a_n gets arbitrarily close to a, which 0.999... does.
I can say that 1/n does not equal zero for any natural number n by induction, but the limit will still be zero as n goes to infinity.

>>16727090 (OP)
>>16727108
OP BTFO

>>16727108
0.2999....

>>16727129
Oh Anon, you tried so hard.

>>16727090 (OP)
>implying real numbers aren't real

>>16727090 (OP)
cool it with the anti semitism

>>16727108
no solution moshe

>>16727090 (OP)
>>16727111
>Even the image is bait
This is God tier baiting. I kneel.

>>16727129
nigga that's 3/10

This would work if infinity was a natural number.

>>16727108
you cannot express that exactly in decimal form

>>16727090 (OP)
>Finally, we define [math] 0.999\dots:=\lim_{n\to\infty}0.9_n [/math]
Ah, that's [math] 1, [/math] chief.

If 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 …. = 1

then

1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2… = 0

Which is clearly retarded and shows that an expression with infinite operations is impossible and completely irrelevant to actual math. It’s literally the same thing kids do when they pretend to have an imaginary shield with infinite power or whatever. It goes against the spirit of the game.

>>16728268
You've gotta be joking.
Yes an infinite sum or infinite product is not well defined in general. However, over the real numbers we can make sense of them by defining them to be the limit of their successive partial sums or partial products. Under this definition both of the statements you've given are correct.

>>16727090 (OP)
What are the characteristics of at least one real number that lies between 1 and over .999..

>>16728291
-over

>>16727090 (OP)
I'm telling people there is a difference on exactly one point on real axis, which seems bullshit, because any distance on real axis has same number of points like whole real axis, but this is example of two points right next to each other.

>>16727129
>1/3=0.3
your Fields medal is in the mail

>>16728291
Here's one. It's small.

0.999... = 1.111...
There are infinitely many 9s
0.999.. = 0.(999)(999)(999)... = 1.11...
For each (999) infinite sequence there is a 1. In the limit of infinitely many subsequences of repeating 9s we get the proposed claim.
Since 0.9999...... = 1.1111...., obviously 0.999... ≠ 1

>>16728356
>0.999... = 1.111...
topkek

>>16727108
OP refuted in 1 post lol

>>16728268
>is impossible
You can make up any rules in math you want and see what that gives you
>completely irrelevant to actual math
engineer babble is not real math

>>16727111
>but you're probably racist anyway so i shouldn't expect you to be capable of complex thought.
and it was going so well...

>>16727108
>what's -1 in natural numbers

>>16727108
1/3 has a decimal form in base 3 :

[math]1/3_{base10}=0.1_{base3}[/math]

But it's not really "decimal" (deci = 10th of something), more likely "tricemal".

>>16727090 (OP)
Rare to see a page from sketchbook.
Great anime for art and cat lovers.

>>16728356
Now this is good bait

>>16727090 (OP)
>pic
Go on, take an infinity 90 degree turns. I'm waiting.

>>16727090 (OP)
What real number exists between 0.999_ and 1?

>>16728268
Yes, the limits of each of those sequences are as stated in your post. An expression with infinite operations is possible and relevant. There isn't any such thing a spirit of a game.

>>16731539
0.999....1
0.999....2
0.999....3
and so on. in fact, infinitely many numbers exist between 0.999... and 1. ever hear of the density of the reals? infinitely many numbers between any two irrational numbers, and infinitely many numbers between any two rational numbers. since 0.999... can be written as a sum of fractions, it's a rational number and since 1 = 1/1 is also a rational number, there are infinitely many numbers between 0.999... and 1.

>>16731542
What digit position does the "1" exist in?

>>16731544
how many digits are in Graham's number? oh, you can't say? guess it's not a real number. see how this works?

>>16731545
You still don't get it? I'll spell it out for you.
The number 0.999R (let's call it Nr for short) doesn't terminate.
The decimal expansions you indicate terminate.
Therefore, they aren't equal to Nr, and are in fact strictly less than it.
Any other pretend-clever theories you want to embarrass yourself with?

lol fucking owned

>>16727090 (OP)
Why do all these people come up with fake "proofs" like this? Where are all of you being trained to use actual math terms but apply them so badly?

1/9 = 0.111...
+
8/9 = 0.888...
=
9/9 = 0.999...

>>16727090 (OP)
First, prove that .999... exists. Protip: you can't.

>>16727090 (OP)
this retardation was posted countless times. a[n] < w does not imply lim a[n] < w.

>>16731590
>trained to use actual math terms
this is what pisses me off the most about this particular OP. he clearly learned math at a formal level and still peddles this bullshit.

>>16727111
>posting on a racist website

>>16727090 (OP)
even though [math]0.999...=9\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}10^{-n}=\frac{9}{1-\frac{1}{10}}-9=1[/math] by the geometric series

>>16733597
even a trained dog can have a fixation for chewing your shoes

>>16727090 (OP)
why do people obsess so much over notation in math
decimal notation is clearly unsuitable for this problem, so why use it.

>>16734070
Nah, >>16731697 works just fine

>>16734087
infinitely repeating digits clearly is bad and unintuitive notation, as demonstrated by OP's misunderstanding and anger at the concept.
As pointed out, we have notation that works, fraction notation for the rational numbers.

>>16734116
repeating digits works, if OP doesn't get it idgaf

>>16734156
clearly it is insufficient for describing the rational numbers

>>16734172
nah, skill issue

>>16727090 (OP)
the claim that 0.999... is 1 breaks the law of identity (p = p) and promotes continuum fallacy by claiming that just because theres nothing between two things that these two separate things are the same (e.g two atoms are the same atom because theres nothing between them)

>>16734599
its also a huge misunderstanding of math
infinity first of all is not a number, or even real. its merely a theoretical concept that doesnt actually exist in numbers, second 1/3rd is something that simply doesnt work in base 10, trying to make it work by assuming an entirely different fallacy like 0.999... = 1 doesnt make it work any more than it currently does.

>>16734599
>law of identity (p = p)
or rather a = a

>>16727090 (OP)

sigh.. if they are NOT the same number then they must differ by an amount... what is the amount?

it is baffling how hard the archimedean property filters people like >>16734599

>>16734662
refer to >>16734600
just because theres no letter between a and b doesnt mean theyre the same letter

>>16734610
Epsilon > 0

>>16734677

Define Epsilon

>>16734687
1 - 0.999...

>>16727090 (OP)
I am inductively reasoning that we can use both assumptions when it fits our specific needs :)

Anyways, I like to round my real numbers when I encounter this issue.

>>16733020
Certainly. 1/3 = .333... 2/3 = .666... 3/3 =.999...=1.

>>16735637
First explain how you came across the fact that 1/3 = .333... Then tell me how that same reasoning applies to 3/3 =.999... Protip: you can't.

>>16735638
1/3 = 3/10 + 1/30
= 0.3 + 1/30
= 0.33 + 1/300
= 0.333 + 1/3000
:
= 0.333... + 1/inf
= 0.333... + 0
= 0.333...

>>16735803
>:
>...
Much rigorous such wow

>>16735814
skill issue on your part i'd say

>>16735837
.
.
...

>>16735803
>+1/inf
That's not how it's taught in second grade long division. Try again retard, or maybe go back to elementary school.

>>16727108
Simple. It's the same as 3/10 or 30/100...300/1000. Get the picture yet?

>>16736198
>It's the same as 3/10
Justify this.

>>16734688
epsilon > zeta > 0
epsilon > zeta > eta > 0
epsilon > zeta > eta > nu > 0
...et. cetera.

Two can play mind games dipshit, doesn't make your solucion correct.

>>16736199
Do your own homework

>>16736153
1/7 = 142857/1E6 + 1/7E6
= 0.142857 + 1/7E6
= 0.142857 142857 + 1/7E12
= 0.142857 142857 142857 + 1/7E18
:
= 0.142857... + 1/inf
= 0.142857... + 0
= 0.142857...

>>16727090 (OP)
Listen chaps, lets just be rational in our thinking here. Obviously there are three forms of mathematics.
The first one is what we work with today. Its entirely abstract, although it MAY represent the the reality of the Universe it ignores it to all extents and purposes. It can exist entirely independent of the Universe.
The second mathematics aims to represent the Universe as a true description. But it runs into a fundamental problem which nobody has the solution to yet. The question arises, is the Universe discrete or continuous? No one knows for sure, although their are indications that it is discrete, as exemplified through Planck scale. But many would argue against that for various reasons.
So then, for the moment, we have a branching of the second form, resulting in its replacement with two further forms.
A second form of mathematics which assumes a discrete Universe, and a third form which assumes a continuous Universe.
>But the third form is then identical to the first form.
Not necessarily. Maybe or maybe not. Remember the first form ignores the reality of the Universe, its is entirely a construct. The third form depends upon the underlying structure of the Universe ( i.e. reality ), which may pull all sorts of surprises on us as our cognitive ability to understand reality evolves.

At a practical problem solving level none of these forms of mathematics differ much. When applied to physical problems they all work well since all of our present human endevour ultimately uses approximations to some extent. The tolerances may be exceeding high, but they are still approximations. Whether its creating highly intricate machines, designing computer software, or landing probes on other planets. Close enough is good enough. The three forms only begin to diverge when we consider absolutes, pure mathematics, as illustrated in OP's cartoon.

This all seems pretty obvious. I dont know why people get their balls in a twist over the whole issue.

>>16736351
Some interesting features arise when you compare the second form to either the first or third forms.
For example in the second form ( based on a discret Universe ) a number of conjectures simply do not exist. For example a point. A point does not exist in the discrete universe and therefore does not exist in the second form of mathematics. So neither does a line.

But it gets even more interesting and fragmentary when we consider the question of infinity. If the Universe is finite then infinity goes *poof* and joins the realm of unicorns and flying pigs. This also has important consideration for the number line which then ends...somewhere, at the sum total of discrete bits of Universe, whatever that means. Furthermore this sum total may not be fixed, it may be changing. Yeah, it gets really interesting.

>>16736200
Yes there are infinitely many numbers between 0.999... and 1. Why does this surprise you?

>>16736351
>>16736362
Ngl, I skipped to the end and saw this phrase
>But it gets even more interesting and fragmentary when we consider the question of infinity. If the Universe is finite then infinity goes *poof*
And concluded your posts are schizocore. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But my conclusion is it is a waste of time to tell.

>>16736198
If 1/3 = 3/10 then does (3/10)*3 = 9/10 = 1?

>>16736389
Amazing, I had no idea goldfish could post on 4chan.

>>16736442
Yes.

>>16736389
i read those post of his, your intuition is flawless

>>16736351
Why create three versions of mathematics when what we have works perfectly well?

>>16735803
>=0.333... + 1/inf
What happens when you keep adding 1/inf? Oh? Nothing? But I thought it was an infinitesimally small number such that for any n, epsilon is smaller than it and larger than 0? Keep adding 1/inf bud. Keep going! Do it some more the do it again! Do it 3 more times!!!! Oh what, you can't define it because infinity isn't a quantity? Keep going, add another 1/inf. Hell add (inf-1)/inf. Do it eight more times!

Oh what's the matter, that's impossible and 0.333... is not actually equal to 1/3? Cute

>>16736351
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRyo_ee2r0U
This will be of interest to you. You will not get anything worthwhile out of the elementary school children in this thread.

Just define a repeating decimal as a goto loop and shake the box and the equality follows.

>>16736727
>because infinity isn't a quantity
It's in the definition, retard.
Infinity is an unbounded quantity greater than every real number.

>>16737129
But there are infinite numbers between 0 and 1.
CHECKMATE RETARD-KUN!

>>16736351
I get what you are saying but its pure philosophy of mathematics. People were going on about this sort of stuff centuries ago, its way too obscure for /sci/

>>16737268
infinite amount of numbers =/= number being infinite
retard.

i went to hs with a bunch of absolute retards who literally ruined my life for no reason so I'm here reading this retarded bullshit so I'll explain it to you... think about 1 being split into ten bits, then think about one of those bits being split into ten, and one of those bits being split into ten. .9 is 9 of those first 10 bits, .09 is 9 of the next ten bits etc. Now if all of those bits are "counted", what have you done? You have counted to 1.

Put another way, there is no .000...1

>>16737280
But retard-kun, how would you have felt if you hadn't eaten breakfast?

>>16737281
>for no reason
Kek. Anyway your argument doesn't match reality. If I have one piece of paper and fold it in half ad infinitum, it's clear the sum of 1/2 + 1/4 + ... = 1. In reality, we would have never succeeded in folding it to a volume of zero, and due to a variety of reasons this process terminates.

There is no realistic situation in which you can justify this schizophrenia

>>16737355
All the time, all over the universe, Achilles runs past the tortoise.

>>16737361
No, we just imagine he runs past the tortoise. In reality he never does.

>>16737380
In reality Achilles leaps forward, grabs the tortoise and fucks it up the ass. Its the only way he can win. Although some commentators have pointed out its hardly a win when he becomes known as "Achilles the tortoise fucker" for the rest of his life.

>>16737380
We see it happen
We imagine it takes an infinite number of steps
We imagine an infinite number of steps is unpossible
Therefore we imagined it happening

Le Greeks!

>>16736351
If everyone thinks it's the first one, why did we agree to call them "real numbers" and say that limits "exist". Plotinus says one way to enlightenment (dialectics) is to believe in mathematical objects.

>>16737674
Plotinus also says you suck your father's penis right after he fucks your grandfather's ass..

>>16727111
Wrong.
But you're probably a pedophile anyway so i shouldn't expect you to be capable of complex thought.

>>16737361
No evidence suggests this is true based on how the problem is posed. Achilles never passed the tortoise in reality.

>>16737312
hungry, fagboy

>>16737902
nuh uh, he did not

>>16738208
Correct. These Achilles retards will never own to the fact though. They will just start blabbering about limits and set theory and ignore the simple truth, continuing to live in their deluded fantasy

>>16735803
Ah yes, the usual schizo drivel.

>>16738869
so easy to disprove, that you can't do it.
lol

>>16736351
The concept of a granular universe, where space and time are not infinitely divisible but made of discrete units, is a topic explored in quantum gravity theories like loop quantum gravity (LQG). These theories suggest that space and time might be "quantized," similar to how energy is quantized in quantum mechanics, with the smallest unit being the Planck length and Planck time. While our everyday experience suggests a smooth, continuous universe, the granular nature might become apparent at extremely small scales, potentially impacting our understanding of the early universe and the nature of gravity

>>16738981
thanks GPT!, have a nice day.

>>16738981
Fuck off moron. LQGs has been debunked numerous times. There is no such thing as a discrete Universe. Space is smooth and continuous.

>>16739299
Shut up you spastic. Introducing a fundamental discreteness to space-time creates a conflict with special relativity, which is built on the principle of Lorentz invariance, meaning physical laws should look the same for all uniformly moving observers. The conflict between the continuous nature of general relativity and the discrete implications of quantum theory is a major motivation for efforts to unify these two fundamental pillars of physics, aiming for a more complete description of reality.

The real science here is how this topic is regularly posted, year after year, immediately become full of the same posters saying the same things they have posted a hundred times before, before reducing to flinging insults, then dies, and then get posted again.
Its a fascinating study into the behavioral patterns of retards..

This is now a behavioral psychologist thread.
>>16739820
My theory is there is a core group of retards who live here perpetually, posting the same shit over and again. They were likely bullied in school and /sci/ is an outlet for their trauma.
Then newfags come along, make the mistake of responding to halfwits, eventually realize that /sci/, and indeed all of 4chan, is a just a data harvesting and AI-training junk yard permanently inhabited by a core group of morons overseen by incompetent moderators who couldn't give a fuck less, and move on somewhere else. The halfwits get their thrill from having someone pay attention to their babbling for a while and stay put.
Then a new bunch of newfags arrive and the cycle continues.
Meanwhile recently graduated psychologists, sociologists, and even some anthropologists, use the medium to publish papers

tt undergrad psychologist

>>16740315
>AI-training junkyard
I'd love to see Hiroshima's LLM.

>>16740331
Having AI being able to respond like an ignorant drooling ESL fuckwit is going to be vital when interacting with most of the world's population.

>>16740315
Partially correct. In addition there are bots designed to engage both with the retards and the newfags. Most of the bots are deliberately designed to be antagonistic, contrarian and just act plainly retarded. This site exists to create outrage and be a safe space for chucklefucks. But yeah its a great resource for milling out assignments and research papers.

>>16727090 (OP)
0.99999... = 1 is irrefutable
It's also irrelevant. It's just a quirk of how we write numbers.
Take 1/3. Times three it's 3/3, which is 1.
Now if you write 1/3 as a decimal, it's 0.33333... which times three is 0.99999... But we know this is actually the 3/3 from before and so = 1.
0.99999 = 1 is absolutely undeniable and it's absolutely just a bit of trivia. It doesn't reveal any deep mathemathical truth. It's the ultimate retard catcher.

Behavioral Psychologist here.
You seem to unaware of the change of topic in this thread. We are studying retards now.
Now tell us. What was your relationship with your father like? Did he ever read to you? Did you feel loved? What are your thoughts on your school years?

>>16741397
Yeah sorry I didn't read the schizoposting itt, just replied to the retard in the OP because of how retarded he is.

>>16740315
A lot of them are Dunning-Krugers. Particularly those in the 100 to 110 IQ range, They are smart enough to know they are smarter than most people, but too dumb to realize that this doesn't mean a lot. Its like they are the smartest retard in a class full of retards. So they continue spouting shit unaware that the really smart people just ignore them as a waste of time.

>>16741397
My father was usually physically present but checked out relatively early on. There's something terribly wrong with my memories of feelings. There aren't any. I replay events and get new feelings whose intensity depends on my current condition.

It seems like psychology isn't open about their use of language. For example https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33548858/ compares surveys but somehow the gold standard gives rise to a real thing ptsd that isn't just a pattern of behavior. An agnostic paper wouldn't be any harder to understand, so their pantheon is set up for the usual reasons.

>>16742089
Ackshually dunning Kruger effect us simply an autocorrelation

>>16727111
>probably racist
Lefties just be saying shit huh?

So, is the Universe discrete or continuous?

>>16743034
What if its both? Or neither????

>>16727111
>but you're probably racist anyway
faggot

>>16727090 (OP)
>0.9n ≠ 1 for all n in natural numbers
>therefore when n is infinite (not a natural number) this must be true as well!
Lol. Lmao. 3/10 bait, if this is the level of proof we're using, then 0.999... = 1 because the sky is blue.

>>16727090 (OP)
Sketchbook is a wild ride. I hope someone finally finishes the last volume.
https://mangadex.org/title/57c2c292-d09b-4075-af15-63d84f7f61e7/sketchbook

>>16743443
The sky isn't always blue tho so you concede that there are formal frameworks in which 0.999... ≠ 1

>>16743490
The sky is usually black or white, but being disgusted by "what color is the sky?" mmm akschulauy pedantry doesn't help me pick a larp.

>>16743438
>>16742278
>>16738189
>>16729634
>>16733679
I just wanted a little attention hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahhahhahahahaahhahahahahhahahahaahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>>16727108
it doesn't have one. 0.3 repeating is just an approximation of what's impossible to communicate in decimals.

>>16731546
>Nr
What's between the N & r?

>>16727108
1/3 = 0.999.../3 = 0.333...

>>16736351
Probably the only intelligent post in this entire thread otherwise full of high school mentalities.

>>16736351
>wall-of-text schizo ranting
>>>/x/

>>16727108
0.3333333~

(\sqrt{x^2 + y^2} = z\)

>>16736362
Okay well now you have just multiplied the last two forms of mathematics by 2.
So now you have 4 different mathematical forms in addition to the one we already have.
1) Reality based with a discrete and finite Universe
2) Reality based with a discrete and infinite Universe
3) Reality based with a continuous and finite Universe ( not sure that is even possible )
4) Reality based with a continuous and infinite Universe.
Then if you want to get really pedantic you could also throw in time. Which multiples the above by 4.
A universe which is infinite in time in both directions
A Universe which is only infinite in the future.
A Universe that is only infinite in the past.
A Universe which is finite in time.
So congratulations you now have 17 different forms of mathematics when we still dont know if physical reality is discrete or continuous or if the Universe is finite or infinite.

>>16733020
>prove that .999... exists
You can prove it to exactly the same extent you can prove 1 exists. And whatever constraints you use can be used to prove the equality 0.9... = 1

>>16744375
Incorrect. You can't prove 1 exists. You merely assume that it exists from the field axioms. The same is not said of .999...

>>16744501
The field axioms assume that induction is a valid proof. You can prove by induction that 0.9... = 1 for any arbitrarily large or finitely limited number of digits.

>>16744513
Retard alert

>>16744556
Retard alert

>>16744557
Lmao you must be an obsessed schizo. Learn some basic math and then come back and show that .999... exists (protip: you can't)

>>16744559
Sure, show that 1 exists and I'll show that 0.9... exists

>>16744563
I already said that the existence of 1 is assumed.

>>16744565
By the field axioms, yes?

>>16744567
Pic related, yes

>>16744568
So there's an additive identity

>>16744569
Go ahead and prove .999... exists. I'm waiting.

>>16744571
I'm waiting for us to agree on your own terms. That the field axioms assume an additive identity.

>>16744574
Yes, obviously. Stop stalling.

>>16744575
I'm not and thank you for agreeing.
There's no 1 under that system that can't be proven equal to 0.9..

>>16744577
>There's no 1 under that system that can't be proven equal to 0.9..
Like I thought, more schizo babble. You're putting the cart before the horse, idiot.

>>16744578
?

>>16744581
I say show .999... exists. You assume that it exists and then claim it's equal to 1.

>>16744583
No, I assume that you can define 1 and I claim that I can define 0.9.. to equal whatever your definition of 1 is. Even if your definition of 1 is finite. Define 1.

>>16744585
>Assuming the existence of .999... like we assume the existence of 1
Lmao whatever. In addition to the ordered field axioms >>16744568
I will also assume the unique representation axiom: for all numbers x, there is a unique representation of x in decimal.
Thus 1 = 1. ,and 1=/=1.0=/=1.00... and certainly, if .999... exists, it doesn't equal 1. And if you can't find a contradiction in my model, you can't prove that .999 exists.

>>16744596
>unique representation axiom
>for all numbers x, there is a unique representation of x in decimal.
This is nonsense lol at least be serious

>>16744598
Prove that it's nonsense then.

>>16744599
It proves that 1 doesn't equal 1.0

>>16744601
Your point? You're being extremely closed minded for someone who will just assume the existence of a nonsense number like .999... despite it never arising from any calculation you've ever performed.

>>16744603
Not a point, an answer to your question. Which you agreed with.

>>16744603
>assume the existence of a nonsense number like .999...
By the way, I didn't assume it. You assumed it by your own field axioms.

>>16744604
>1=/=1.0 is nonsense
And yet, I don't order 1.0 pizzas from the delivery app. I suppose we're putting the cart before the horse here. 1.0's existence isn't guaranteed. Have you ever seen 1.0 arise in any calculation?

>>16744609
>I assumed the existence of .999... in the field axioms
Nope. I assumed the existence of 1 and 0, neither of which I claim are equal to .999... And there's no way for you to make .999... arise from any calculation. Thus, it doesn't exist.

>>16744612
Yeah, literally everything I've ever bought one of. It's never the one I bought. I know you can't disagree without lying lol

>>16744617
>"How many pizzas would you like?"
>"I'll have 1.00000 please"
I've never said that in my life, and I doubt you have either.

>>16744614
Will subtracting 1 - .9.. under the field axioms will ever give you a digit other than 0

>>16744618
Literally nothing to do with anything lol. And why would you ask for possibly less than what you might get? Total retardation IMO

>>16744619
>Will subtracting 1 - .9..
Again, you are assuming that .9.. exists. Furthermore, you are assuming that if it does exist, you can perform the procedure of long subtraction on it. I disagree with both points.

>>16744621
Nothing to do with anything? You claim that 1=1.00000000. Yet, if you were to say, "I'll have 1.00000000 pizza," you'd sound like a total autist, whereas if you said "I'll have 1 pizza," you'd sound normal. This proves that 1 and 1.00000000 are not the same thing.

>>16744624
I've only assumed that 0.9... exists up to the point that 1 exists. I also have no idea what "long substraction" is lol. Literally what the fuck.

>>16744628
Lol so if you order 1 pizza and they give you a piece of cow shit, what would you say?

>>16744633
>I've only assumed that 0.9... exists up to the point that 1 exists
I have no idea what you mean by that
>You didn't learn long addition, long subtraction, long multiplication, and long division in elementary school
Figures

>>16744635
How is that relevant at all to what we're talking about? Going off on tangents like that is typical of schizos.

>>16744636
Lol I learned those things without "long" attached to it. I'm asking you what you mean by the distinction

>>16744639
You can't define 1 pizza without fellating me, so you won't.

>>16744640
"Long" subtraction, addition, multiplication, and division, as in, the algorithm for mapping any pair of natural numbers to a unique rational, and not just leaving the pair of numbers in unevaluated form.

>>16744644
You don't need rationals. just the definition of 1 and induction to prove in any system that 0.9.. = 1

>>16744643
It seems that you can't address >>16744628
intelligently. I'll take that as 1. point for me.

>>16744645
Prove it by induction then. (Pro tip: you can't)

>>16744647
What? Just state any definition of 1 that abides the field axioms and 0.9.. = 1 follows

>>16744648
Prove what by induction? Define 1 and 0.9.. = 1 follows.

>>16744649
>>16744650
1*1=1
.999...*.999...=?
Show me how you get the right side of the second equation=1 without assuming .999... =1

>>16727090 (OP)
Why would this sequence converge in the first place. People automatically assume ti is the case but it is so wrong.

>>16744653
You don't need the second equation, just use 1 - 0.9..

>>16744656
It doesn't matter whether or not the sequence "converges"

>>16744658
>use 1 - 0.9..
And how exactly do you perform this operation?

>>16744663
What's the next digit of 1 and what's the next digit of 0.9..

>>16744664
Lmao, you'll have to show me.

>>16744666
It's 0 and 9

>>16744667
So?

>>16744669
I don't know, you asked?

>>16744670
You claim that you can perform this calculation. I'm sure that I know where this is going: you're going to perform "infinitely many carriers" so that you can subtract infinitely many 9s from each other. That's not a valid procedure.

>>16744674
You can define your own terms. What's a valid procedure to subtract 0 then some 9 from 1 then some 0.

>>16727090 (OP)
welcome back based 0.999... =/ 1 poster

Incidentally while I dont agree with this mathematically in abstract, in finitism if there is no actual physical infinity this may be true

>>16744678
No, it's false even if you define the absolute limit of the stars being a computer defining the stars.

>>16744676
It's invalid to perform infinitely many operations to arrive at your answer.

>>16744683
Why would you need to do that.

>>16744685
What's the alternative?

>>16744686
Literally just a goto loop. Less than a byte of info

>>16744690
At first I that you were retarded or trolling. Now I'm convinced that you're a schizo.

>>16744694
So define 1 in a way that 0.9.. isn't equal to it.

>>16744695
>>16744596

>>16744698
Which defines 1 ≠ 1.0
So?

>>16744700
>I'll have point 9 repeating pizzas please!
Autistic schizo retard.

>>16744704
1 pizza isn't 1.0 pizzas. Really?

>>16744707
Yes, really.

>>16744708
So we can feed 12 people a pizza each with 10 pizzas. We must be jesus lol. Retard.

>>16727090 (OP)
>right to left fag
auto discard and kys bich ass op

>>16744714
If you really think 1 pizza is the same as 1.0 pizzas, then how do you define .5 pizzas? By weight? Volume? Slice? How do you measure it? What's the error tolerance? Ever heard of significant figures? And don't forget how autistic you sound when you say it.

>>16727090 (OP)
numbers will always exist as abstract approximations for real phenomenon, irl you cannot quantitatively describe the universe without it being arbitrary on some level
this is where we encounter issues like this, things dont exist within a gird of values that they are attached to

>>16744726
How is it not? Lol and what's more autistic than saying 1.0 pizzas isn't 1 pizza. Wtf is wrong with you lol

>>16744735
I'm not the one going to the pizza parlor asking for "point nine repeating" pizzas

>>16744737
You're the one saying it's not the same thing, idiot.

>>16744738
Because they're not. I have shown plenty of irrefutable evidence that they are not the same, and you haven't shown any evidence that they are, except some nonsense about first assuming that .999... exists and then attempting to subtract it from 1.

>>16744740
You defined 1 by "muh field axioms" so 0.9.. = 1 by your own additive identity. Or do you disagree?

>>16744742
I disagree with the obvious fallacy that .9... can even be constructed from the field axioms.

>>16744743
You haven't defined 1 in a way that 0.9.. would mean any different. I mean just literally define 1 and you can immediately prove by your own definition that 0.9... =1 by the additive identity.

>>16744746
Now you're just making shit up

>>16744750
Lol what retard.

If anyone can define 1 in a way that allows the number 1 to be distinct from the number 1.0... by some set of rules or proscriptions on the length of a number, it's just as easy to prove that 1 = 0.9... by the same set of rules and proscriptions.

>>16744754
>trying to talk to a compsci student about something important and they give you back that l-theanine stare
Bro a number doesn't work like that. There aren't floating point numbers in math.

The law of identity is a thing in logic and algebra and logic in general. The number 1 just produces anything else when multiplying.

>>16744767
>Bro a number doesn't work like that. There aren't floating point numbers in math.
You're a fucking idiot. Nothing you said has anything to do with defining the number 1 in a way that precludes 0.9... from adhering to your definition.
>The number 1 just produces anything else when multiplying.
Yes. And?

These people are SO SO fucking stupid. Absolute fucking idiots. Just literally define 1 in a way that 0.9... doesn't work. Should be so easy *rolls eyes out of the fucking head*

>>16744596
>1 = 1. ,and 1=/=1.0=/=1.00... and certainly, if .999... exists, it doesn't equal 1.
This is a strong argument and reflects scientific measurements which is the only way by which math can describe reality

Numbers dont exist.
>>16744809
>>16744783
Fucking retards

Long ago I realized that /sci/ was full of morons, ignorant uneducated hicks, and schizos. Ironically it was the trolls that seemed to possess the highest intelligence.
I learned it was impossible to have any genuine good faith discussions here.
Rather than being discouraged and leaving I decided to stay.
So what I do now is what I call "flabbergasting"
This is more than just talking shit. I take it to extremes. You see sometimes I will just make moronic posts, just to be a cunt, be a troll, everyone does that. But then I will argue with myself incessantly. Or insert some random reference to anal sex. Sometimes I will causally insult a poster with some totally irrelevant comment. Then in the next post I will leap to his defense with an equally brain dead comment. I can keep this up for hours on end while I tab switch. No doubt other do so too but I like to think I dump more quality pure shit than anyone else.
Sometimes I just pretend to be ESL Not just imitating their appalling lack of English skills but also making it clear I completely misunderstood their post. Making it impossible to have a sensible conversation because we will be talking about two completely unrelated things, and then insulting them when they get frustrated. Its fun.
I say "loser, fag, schizo, dumbcunt, retard, and lowit" a lot.
I get my jollies from people replying to my inane posts, to my "pretended retardation", to my argumentative, pointless, and contrarian posts. Especially since I often do this at work and am getting paid no matter what.
You see rather than reject /sci/ and all the fuckwits that post here I decided to join them. But on a scale their limited intellectual abilities can not grasp. No one can compete with my holy levels of shit.
I am the God of Shit. Kneel down before me and look with angst upon my mighty works of shit.

>>16744854
I accept you concession

>>16744889
Jollies: +1

>>16728203
(You) can not; I accept your concession.

>>16744899
The only concession you accept is your grandfather's cock up your ass Jeet.

Hey guys, let settle down, no need for all this rudeness. Lets talk about the Universe instead. After all, if mathematics is supposed to model reality then its should be based on the actual nature of the Universe. otherwise its just all Unicorns and flying pigs.
So lets settle this. Is the Universe discrete or continuous? Is it finite or infinite? Is time finite or infinite?
C'mon now Chaps, lets put on our thinking caps and nut this out, and we can give each other sloppy blow jobs afterwards.

>>16744771
But he is right though. it has been irrefutably demonstrated that not only are you wrong but you are also the recipient of large sperm donations delivered into your mouth and butt..

Bro got so mindbroken at his defeat that he's revealing his core homosexual identity kek

>>16744945
*posts another 9*

>>16744948
Its obviously continuous. No way a discrete Universe could work.
The Universe is beyond our definitions of finite or infinite.
All that means we need to stick with our current mathematical systems and not going off inventing new ones.

>>16744948
Can't we just skip to the blow job part?

>>16745146
You can't rotate a cube in a pixelated universe without the volume fluctuating wildly.

Particle physicists have erred greatly by implying the universe is constituted of particles that experience forces. In actuality the universe is constituted of fields (both in QFT and in GR) which interact on a continuous manifold.

>>16744809
>reflects scientific measurements which is the only way by which math can describe reality
And by that restriction, there's obviously no difference between 1 and 0.9...
>This is a strong argument
Yes, a strong argument against his own post lol.

>>16728350
Small in the sense that 0 is small, yes.

>>16745181
Please, for the love of God take an intro science course. 1 has minimal precision while 0.999... has infinite precision. They couldn't be more different. This is called significant figures and you should have learnt them in high school

>>16744679
not true actually maybe you should look up what finitism is before posting

>>16745298
No point to be found.
>>16745294
How did you measure 1?

>>16745294
"Significant figures" are a property of measured quantities, not of pure numbers.

>>16745146
A continuous Universe would be comprised of infinite points, indicating that our present math is the true representation of reality.

>>16744854
Anal sex?

>>16745312
Also "1" is equal to "0.9..." at any precision. It's the most self-owning point he could have made.

>>16745336
Incorrect. 1.00... =.999... =/=1.

>>16745348
By your apparent definition of 1, it's impossible to subtract 0.5 from 1 because it has no tenths place.

>>16745350
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures

>>16745355
Yes, by your definition 1 has 1 significant figure and is thus equal to 0.9...

>>16745365
Obviously not, retard

>>16745367
Try reading your own link maybe?
wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures

>>16745370
Whatever retard

>>16745380
To one significant figure, 1 is literally equal to 1/2 lmao. You're so dead.

>>16745381
Not true since it was measured to be 1.

>>16745385
So is 1/2.

>>16745386
1/2 is either a constant with infinite significant figures, or an intermediate calculation. If you actually meant .5, you're still wrong.

>>16745391
You couldn't have chosen a better concept to prove yourself wrong lol. 1 = 0.9... to any number of significant figures and 1 = 1/2 to one significant figure. I'm still amazed you even brought it up.

>>16745394
>to any number of significant figures
Now you're qualifying on the =. So all you've done is use a nonsensical definition of equality, proving that you're a troll.

>>16745405
No, I used YOUR definition. Beat you with your own tail, so to speak. How does it feel?

>>16745411
>An exact number such as 1/2
in the formula for the kinetic energy of a mass m with velocity v as 1/2mv2 has no bearing on the significant figures in the calculated kinetic energy since its number of significant figures is infinite (0.500000...).
From the link. Clearly, 1=/=1/2.

>>16745425
It does to one significant figure lol. Which was your whole schtick

>>16745428
Where was "to one significant figure" my schtick?

>>16745432
>>16745348
>1.0... ≠ 1
You defined 1 as having no tenths place.

>>16745433
I'm not that anon. I'm talking about significant figures. He's talking about doing away with all unnecessary decimal places. I'd say that we've both met our burden of showing that .999... repeating doesn't really exist in our respective number systems. While you haven't met your burden of showing it exists in any number system.

>>16745435
All you did was prove yourself wrong. By posting a wikipedia link that explains how your distinction is meaningless. How does 0.9... "not exist" in your number system in a way that doesn't apply to 1?

>>16745437
Because you would never write .999... In a formula, and you could never measure .999..., and .999... Would never arise from any calculations. So exactly how does .999... Exist? How does it enrich the method of significant figures? So why did you come up with it in the first place? Are you a schizo, just coming up with whatever number you want? Fine, I will too. If .999... Exists, then I claim .999...1 edicts by the exact same reasoning as you.

>>16745438
What's 0.999...1?
0.9... is a zero with a goto loop of nines. Exactly how 1 is a one with a goto loop of zeros. Without the zeros, you can't subtract anything from it that isn't an integer.
So what's 0.999...1?

>>16745440
>goto loop
goto >>>/g/

>>16745444
No thanks. I'd rather keep poking you in the face while you fail to make any point lol.

>>16745446
That's what you think you're doing, but it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about, and you're just on the wrong side of the dinning Kruger curve. That figures, considering your only exposure to different number systems are modular arithmetic and whatever IEEE standard you use. Oh wait, .999... Doesn't exist in floating point arithmetic either . Checkmate CS idiot

>>16745455
So what's 0.999...1?
Now spit out some more "dinning Kruger" comedy for me that has nothing to do with the topic.

>>16745457
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number
Also, you've been extremely rude to me so I'll be ending this conversation.

>>16745458
Your first two posts to me were "Obviously not, retard" and "Whatever retard." Lol. Don't let the door break your bony ass on the way out, you fucking retard lmao.

>>16745461
And you replied in kind, but
You didn't check my trips>>16745444
And you used "goto loop" unironically .

>>16745394
mathematicians should really take a step back and listen to scientists with regards to how to measure reality. just know that scientists all look down on you, even the psycholgists

>>16745461
I was unerringly polite until both of your first two posts were vacuous insults. Also fuck your trips and I hope they give you a three day for even mentioning it outside of /b/. You are a small man with a small brain and a small dick.

>>16745458
I think he's indian. Ticks all the boxes
>petulant child
>CS
>terminally online
>lol

>>16745470
>Praying to your janny gods
>>16745474
Nah, I'd say Arab, with the way he consistently misunderstands everything I say, and can't recognize his obvious circular logic

>>16745474
Gfy, no one asked you.

>>16745476
The only point you made was that you could define 0.999...1 and then you couldn't even do that lol.

>>16745479
Yawn. I have a math degree bub. I could define it, but your CS ass wouldn't understand it

>>16745481
Wow, what diploma mill did you pay?

>>16745486
UC Berkeley. But I can tell you don't have anything in math beyond an associates

>>16745489
Mine's better from a better school. Ha. You even lost your own inane internet fantasy.

>>16745477
I accept your concession.

>>16745490
Still think this guy is Arab? This is so indiancoded it hurts.

>>16745490
>From a better school
Practically irrelevant when it comes to math. Yawn. I can tell your CS, probably still in IIT

>>16745494
>>16745494

>>16745497
>>16745498
You losers need to get a room lmao.

>>16745332
Exactly. I couldn't have summed it up better.

>>16744854
You are just fooling yourself. If you are real. I doubt quarter of the posts on this site are from real people. All social media is the same and its spreading to other less frequented forums. Even specialized niche forums that normies and trolls dont visit are becoming infected by AI bots. Hey, are you having trouble with a leaking pressure reducing valve in your house? Want to save money by fixing it yourself? Post about your problem on a DIY plumbing forum. Several AI bot will give you the answers. And they will all be wrong. Or else they will simply derail the thread where it becomes an argument about different brands. You will not even learn whether its cost effective to even try fixing it yourself compared to just buying a new unit. Or just calling a fucking plumber. Which defeats the whole purpose of the forum. Everything is being reduced to garbage.

Rant over. Please continue shit posting..

>be me, /sci/ chad, watching you mouthbreathers bicker over 0.999... and staircase paradoxes like you just discovered math yesterday.

half you plebs: "duh 0.999... = 1, limits go brrr, no infinitesimals in reals, get rekt"

other half: "nah it's [math]1 - \frac{1}{\infty}[/math], wake up sheeple, feel the gap"

Lmao you brainlets are arguing past each other because you're playing in different sandboxes with unspoken axioms. Peak /sci/ bait thread, here we go.

In your normie-tier [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] with Euclidean norm (L2), yeah, 0.999... is 1. It's literally [math]\lim_{n\to\infty} (1 - 10^{-n})[/math]. In that basic system, nonzero infinitesimals don't exist. The gap is zero. Done deal.

But step into the hyperreals ([math]^*\mathbb{R}[/math]), and you get infinite hyperintegers H where a decimal with H nines is exactly 1-10^-H. That 10^-H? A legit positive infinitesimal, your caveman "[math]\frac{1}{\infty}[/math]". In this framework, 0.999... being just shy of 1 is correct. It's 1 minus a tiny epsilon that ain't zero. Both sides are right, you walnuts, just in different universes. Pick one and stop crying.

Same with the staircase vs diagonal autism. In Euclidean L2 norm, the diagonal is [math]\sqrt{a^2 + b^2}[/math], staircase is a+b. Not equal. But flip to Manhattan L1 norm, and bam: the "straight line" from (0,0) to (a,b) is a+b. Staircase and "diagonal" are the same length. It all depends on your metric. Thinking Euclidean is the only truth? Cringe.

So keep smashing rocks in basic [math]\mathbb{R}[/math], yelling "equals 1!", or level up and see why the other side feels right. The fight ain't about math, it's you smoothbrains not knowing your axioms. Absolute kino.

>>16745843
/thread

>>16745843
Right, so is the Universe discrete or continuous? Once we know this we can discard at least one mathematical system.
I mean surely we shouldn't be using any system that doesn't have its basis in reality, right?

>>16745869
Any system of thought is valid if it is internally consistent. N dimensional math has utility even if it fails to model our physical system. And I would be skeptical of something claiming to be a definitive proof on the matter.

>>16745872
Exactly. Even thought experiments such as Unicorns and flying pigs have their value in entertaining children. But it would be of interest to know which branch of mathematics represents reality while at least one branch is the intellectual equivalent of a fairy tale, regardless of its current utility. Geocentrism made use of complex mathematics to explain the motions of the heavens. The math was right, it gave correct results within the tolerances of the time, just the concept was flawed.
Which then leads one to consider the opposite. What if the concept is right but the particular form of math is flawed?
The point here is that science, particularly physics, makes heavy use of mathematics, and most forms of mathematics can be successfully used when experimental data is constrained by the tolerances of measuring devices. But when speaking in absolute terms the divergence between measurement and theory might decisively depend upon the mathematics prescribed. But I guess they think of that.

>>16745843
The latex is cute so A for effort but, no, generalizing decimal notation from a single string of digits to two or more discontinuous strings by defining infinite ordinals and their inverses isn't a valid answer to the question of whether 1 and 0.9... are identical under proper decimal notation. Nice try though lol.

>>16727111
>Assuming this isn't literal retard tier bait
but it is. why the fuck are you answering?

>>16745998
He clearly stated that 0.999... = 1 when constrained to real numbers you hypertard.

>>16746143
>or level up and see why the other side feels right
He brought up a completely different "both sides" solution and tried to pass it off like it was the other side of the original question. While sucking himself off in teenybop prose for eight paragraphs.

>>16746154
You’re simply wrong. In hyperreals, surreals, dual numbers, or SIA, nonzero infinitesimals exist and in those systems 0.999… can be strictly less than 1. Literally both sides are right if you’re charitable enough to recognize that one camp’s intuition is correct in some rigorous frameworks, even if they lack the jargon or formalism to say it the way higher mathematics does. And now your being a salty faggot frustrated that you cant just shit all over them like an asshole high school math teacher. I swear people like you kill math for so many. These higher order maths did not come from no where, it came from the same feelings these not equal folks express.

>>16746198
None of those systems can be expressed without extending decimal notation to something it isn't. This isn't a matter of camps or natural intuition, or using pedagogy to bloom intuitions about other systems, as Katz & Katz 2010, for example, is fairly well known for covering. In this case, it's just a lame bait and switch scam and you're the one killing math by running it. Do better. For the kids.

>>16746198
>>16745843
Not quite how Hyperreals work but ok

>>16727090 (OP)
> implying a^2 + b^2 = (a+b)^2
> implying 2ab = 0

>>16746198
>In hyperreals
But 0.999... is a real number that is equal to 1. Why would saturating to the hyperreals change the reals?
>Surreals
The reals are once again a subfield.
>Dual numbers
This is just the adjunction of a transcendental nilpotent to a ring. How is 0.999... changed by this process?
>SIA
I don't really know anything about this, so go ahead, elaborate. Impress me.

>>16746198
Fuck yeah.
Question. How do irrationals like sqrt 2 and pi resolve in the hyperreals ( or surreals etc )

>>16746435
In the hyperreals, 0.9... isn't a number, it's a "class" of numbers, the greatest of which is equal to 1. Which is why the system can't faithfully answer any questions about 0.9... as a unique number.

>>16746445
You are confused. The hyperreals extend the reals. 0.999... is a real number.

>>16745843
no, 0.999... is still 1 in the hyperreals due to the transfer principle, if we want a real ± an infinitesimal, we explicitly write the infinitesimal

>>16746465
A cubed cat. Straight out of the tin.
What is that supposed to mean? I have no idea. I understand the concept of hyperreals but have no practical knowledge of how things operate in that world.

>>16746435
lol
Hey guys I will just make up, oh I dont know, some sets or some shit and...and...guys! Guys! I will make up some rules about how these sets operate and...and... HOLY HOMO FUCK! I have created an entire new class of numbers! Just by pulling shit out of my CRUSTY ASS!
Well aint I just a fucking genius? Shove a donkey dick up my ass!
For my next trick I will define a barrel of jizz as being equal to the real numbers and calculate how many assfuckings it takes to fill your rectum with an infinite load of cum! Gimme mah noble prize noaw!

>>16746648
No, the real number 0.9... is the largest number in the class of hyperreals beginning 0.9... In Lightstone's notation you could write it 0.9...;...9...

>>16746678
Unironically this applies to ALL number classes. Its all "pulling stuff out of the ass". Its all inventing new fantasies to account for the fact that the old fantasies dont quite work.
Until math is treated as a science we will continue living in the dark ages. At the moment its like we are just coming up with clever ways to explain a flat earth. Very clever, very imaginative, but wrong.

>>16746658
>>16746435

Are you being deliberately obtuse, he stated it in terms of 1-10^-H and then mentions that this equates to the concept being expressed as 1-1/∞ = 0.9999... He explicitly states that 0.9999 = 1 so I have to believe you are being a faggot on purpose.

>>16746205

So your just pissy that they did not know the esoteric notation you demand. It's the same concept regardless. If you were aware and helpful instead of just telling them how wrong they are you would instead explain how that concept did not fit in the set reals but how it is a valid concept in other sets and maybe how to do the notation to express it.

But I'm willing to bet you could not have done so because you lack the foundation to understand the relevant principles.

Instead your just all no, your dumb because 1/3 = 0.3333... and three x that = 1 now stop trying to math you brainlet

Your responses are less than helpful, they are actively harmful.

Math should be based on actual reality. Any thing is else is mental masturbation. We need to know if the Universe is continuous or discrete, whether it is infinite or finite. So I suggest we start running some experiments. We need some highly qualified volunteers who are willing to take heroics amounts of awe inspiring drugs. Hopefully some of them will return to tell us of their discoveries.

>>16746666
Its a Schrödinger's cat, but expressed in the hyper reals. Its alive and dead, infinite and infinitesimal, all at the time.

>>16747589
Zip it, loser. No one needs any more fantasy narrative from you.

>>16747589
Explain the cubed cat, that's all I want to know. Then I can die happy and content.

>>16747832
That anon isn't cubed cat anon. The cat is trying to tuck all his irrational body parts in, to resolve himself neatly into the first infinite string of digits. I actually have no idea how something like pi would be written in semicolon notation.

>>16747841
Well that would certainly make for a good way to stack cats. Now we must find a way to do the same to dogs.

>>16747515
Yeah, this is exactly the situation. Its very smart and kudos to the people who do the mental gymnastics to come up with these ideas. Some of them have practical applications which solve irl problems. But it reminds me of cargo cults. Primitive tribes in places like New Guinea constructing elaborate ( for them ) mock ups of aircraft, runways and control towers. It satisfies their belief systems, its consistent with their particular world view.
At least science acknowledges that any "scientific law" or theory is just the best description we have AT THE MOMENT. In contrast we have the arrogance of many mathematicians and wannabes with their "mah logic" with almost religious dogma, and when "mah logic" doesn't work they simply conjure up some fix that works until it doesn't. Its a house of cards. I wouldn't mind it if they just accepted it with the same humility of science, but they dont. So we get stuck in the same loop.

we need a general for these threads.

>>16748464
Social theory goes on /his/ or if it's really crazy maybe /lit/

>>16746198
I got to say you are the only person I have come across who has been able to clarify this whole matter in a clear and simple manner. I went and looked up all the stuff about hyperreals, surreals, dual numbers and was blown away.
I wish I had a math teacher like you. You should make videos about the subject.
>>16746154
Yeah and you remind me of those asshole high school math teachers I was unfortunate enough to have.

>>16748718
No one cares about your self-serving metanarrative fantasy.

>>16748728
No one cares your grandfather fucked your ass so much it scrambled your brains.

>>16748748
Good one, teacher.

>>16748764
>I got owned now I must seethe and cope incessantly
You poor little bitch.

>>16748780
Don't greentext your own emotions, that's not how it works.