ST Alpha - "Technically false, but the technicality is so minuscule that it's irrelevant. -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 160

In response to "True or false: .999999999..... = 1 -- (link)" by mara

Technically false, but the technicality is so minuscule that it's irrelevant. -- nm

Posted by TWuG Mar 5 '10, 12:37

(No message)

Responses:

my favourite proof of this is - Reagen Mar 5, 12:39 53
- and this is why Vulcans ultimately took a backseat to humans in the Federation -- nm - crash davis Mar 5, 12:44
- That math seems hinky. Because, on its face, 1 /= .999.... - TWuG Mar 5, 12:44 51
  - I think it's more to the idea that .333... does not actually equal 1/3. - JaxSean Mar 5, 12:51 40
    - except that it does. - Reagen Mar 5, 12:53 26
      - just becorse you can express something does not mean it does not excist - Danedukenuuk Mar 5, 13:03 2
        
        again, .333 != .333... -- nm - Reagen Mar 5, 13:04 1
        
        calculating precisely with infinite numbers is one of the harder mathematical diciplines - Danedukenuuk Mar 5, 13:07
      - I'd just say that there are somethings that can't be perfectly expressed in the decimal system -- nm - crash davis Mar 5, 12:55 22
        
        it's perfectly expressed. .333..... means you take the 3s out to infinity. - Reagen Mar 5, 12:57 21
        
        .333 does not equal 1/3. It does conceptually, but not precisely. - JaxSean Mar 5, 13:00 5
        
        maybe this is the problem: .333 != .333.... - Reagen Mar 5, 13:03 3
        
        I understand. I just neglected the ... - JaxSean Mar 5, 13:05 2
        
        but you can't and mean the same thing. -- nm - Reagen Mar 5, 13:09 1
        
        I think we'll all agree we're talking about "0.333...." in this string. -- nm - JaxSean Mar 5, 13:10
        
        [deleted]
        
        but thats not perfect, because you don't get 1 when you multiply it by 3 -- nm - crash davis Mar 5, 12:59 14
        
        Yes you do, because .999.... = 1 :) -- nm - oblique Mar 5, 13:00 13
        
        You can't argue that .9999... = 1 *because* .9999.... = 1. That's circular logic. - TWuG Mar 5, 13:03 8
        
        we're not arguing "it is because it is". There's a couple proofs been offered. - Reagen Mar 5, 13:05 7
        
        Yes. There. Is. It's just "infinitesimally small." -- nm - JaxSean Mar 5, 13:07 2
        
        but because infinity never stops, there is no difference. -- nm - Reagen Mar 5, 13:08 1
        
        there will always be a difference itss just getting idefinately smaller and smaller -- nm - Danedukenuuk Mar 5, 13:11
        
        part of the problem I have is that you say "when you go out to infinity" like its a place you can stop at -- nm - crash davis Mar 5, 13:06 3
        
        Yeah. Infinity can never be reached. That .9 keeps trying to be 1, but it'll never arrive. It's like Zeno's Paradox. - TWuG Mar 5, 13:10
        
        No, it's an acknowledgement that it *can't* stop. -- nm - mara Mar 5, 13:08 1
        
        and thus it can never be equal, because the difference can't be stopped at either -- nm - crash davis Mar 5, 13:09
        
        no, because there is always an infinitely small distance between them -- nm - crash davis Mar 5, 13:03
        
        that's only true if the universe stops expanding -- nm - Beryllium Mar 5, 13:01
        
        False. -- nm - JaxSean Mar 5, 13:01
        
        *pop* -- nm - brains Mar 5, 13:01
    - But it is the number you get when divide 1 by 3. -- nm - Inigo Mar 5, 12:52 9
      - that is an imprecise number, the accurate answer is 1/3 -- nm - crash davis Mar 5, 12:54 8
        
        It's not though. .infinite3s is what you get when divide 1 by 3. -- nm - Inigo Mar 5, 12:56 5
        
        just admit you cannot use the decimal system perfectly when you divide 1 by 3 -- nm - crash davis Mar 5, 13:01 2
        
        Just admit Edgar's defensive kung fu was weak. -- nm - Inigo Mar 5, 13:03
        
        sure you can. That's what the ... is for. -- nm - Reagen Mar 5, 13:03
        
        .ketchupketchupketchup..... -- nm - Reagen Mar 5, 12:57 1
        
        Heh. He'd like the idea of .ketchup (bar). -- nm - Inigo Mar 5, 13:00
        
        not when you take it out to infinity. -- nm - Reagen Mar 5, 12:55 1
        
        and then I'll just Buzz Lightyear it -- nm - crash davis Mar 5, 12:58
    - No goatee today! -- nm - crash davis Mar 5, 12:52 2
      - Because I'm on your side! -- nm - JaxSean Mar 5, 12:52 1
        
        If it walks like a trap and talks like a trap... -- nm - Spawn Mar 5, 12:54
  - it's not that it's too small to measure, it's that there is no difference. - Reagen Mar 5, 12:49 8
    - Converting a fraction to a decimal introduces error. 1/3 is an exact number, but less precise than .333... - TWuG Mar 5, 12:52 4
      - .33 is an approximation. .33.... is an exact number. -- nm - Reagen Mar 5, 12:53 3
        
        No it isn't. It's a conceptual number, because it's never ending, and we could never write it. -- nm - JaxSean Mar 5, 13:02 2
        
        that's what ... is for, to save us time. -- nm - Reagen Mar 5, 13:06 1
        
        In other words, we round the number to make it easier. - JaxSean Mar 5, 13:09
    - Because: see above. -- nm - JaxSean Mar 5, 12:51
    - This is why we haven't converted to your silly metric system. -- nm - Max Mar 5, 12:51 1
      - No, it's just because you have to be different -- nm - Roger More Mar 5, 12:52
  - I think its a failure of mathematical equations to captured something that can be perfectly expressed in a few short words -- nm - crash davis Mar 5, 12:46

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.