48÷2(9+3) = ????

[krystar]

Originally Posted by AirKuhl

But if I were inclined to believe otherwise, I might say that we all know that 0.9 does not equal 1. And 0.999999 does not equal 1. So how many 9's specifically do you need before somehow magically it turns into a 1?

it's infinite repeating decimal.....no finite number of 9's will equal 1. only infinite 9's will equal 1.


otherwise written as:
sigma(9/10+9/10^2+9/10^3+...+9/10^n) approaches 1 as n approaches infinity

[DARISC]

I can't figure out why the hare can't catch the tortoise.

In my backyard I've given my turtle healthy head-starts and my rabbit consistently cleans it's clock in the 1/4 yard.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by AirKuhl

...So how many 9's specifically do you need before somehow magically it turns into a 1?

'1' is just a mental construct devised by liberals who believe in science and math.

In the real world there are no absolute '1's.

Due to nonspecific subatomic dispersion and galactic interstitial accumulation '1' always varies between .999999999 and 1.000000001 but is NEVER '1'.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by AirKuhl

...


Does 0.999999999.... = 1?

I gets closer over time, and may be close enuff right now.

However, since the universe has a non-infinite lifetime, No.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by DARISC

I can't figure out why the hare can't catch the tortoise.

In my backyard I've given my turtle healthy head-starts and my rabbit consistently cleans it's clock in the 1/4 yard.

The problem is that your tortoise is named Zeno.

The hare, being saltorial, is able to leap over such intermediary paradoxes.

How the hare would do against a metadox or even an orthodox is not known.

[krystar]

Originally Posted by DARISC

'1' is just a mental construct devised by liberals who believe in science and math.

In the real world there are no absolute '1's.

Due to nonspecific subatomic dispersion and galactic interstitial accumulation '1' always varies between .999999999 and 1.000000001 but is NEVER '1'.

well...not true. it does occasionally equal 1 but only for an ever brief billioth of a nanosecond

[sammyg2]

One is the loneliest number .......

[svandamme]

how does 0.9999999 or 1.0000000000010 kick in the nads differ from 1 kick in the nads?

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by svandamme

...differ from 1 kick in the nads?

When you're dealing with nads, nada.

[svandamme]

that's what i figured.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by svandamme

how does 0.9999999 or 1.0000000000010 kick in the nads differ from 1 kick in the nads?

Simple math, it differs by .0000001 and .0000000000010 respectively

geez, every 5th grader knows that!

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by krystar

... it does occasionally equal 1 but only for an ever brief billioth of a nanosec16/(2 (8-3 (4-2)))+1ond...

So yer gonna play the nanosecond card, eh?

[AirKuhl]

Originally Posted by DARISC

'1' is just a mental construct devised by liberals who believe in science and math.

In the real world there are no absolute '1's.

.

Cool, I'll have to use that next time my wife asks if she's the only "one".




I'll report back if I got 0.99999 or 1.000001 kicks in the nads.

[AirKuhl]

Originally Posted by krystar

it's infinite repeating decimal.....no finite number of 9's will equal 1. only infinite 9's will equal 1.


otherwise written as:
sigma(9/10+9/10^2+9/10^3+...+9/10^n) approaches 1 as n approaches infinity

Well sure, pull a limit function out in a polite conversation....

Ok then, if it's a limit then graphically, what we're talking about is a linear asymptotic function where the line you are approaching is "1", right? But by definition, your curve can never touch the line, thus you just proved that 0.9 repeating can never equal 1.

[krystar]

Originally Posted by AirKuhl

Cool, I'll have to use that next time my wife asks if she's the only "one".




I'll report back if I got 0.99999 or 1.000001 kicks in the nads.

hahahhaha

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by AirKuhl

... your curve can never touch the line,...

it touches at infinity

but some infinities are bigger than others...

[krystar]

Originally Posted by AirKuhl

Well sure, pull a limit function out in a polite conversation....

Ok then, if it's a limit then graphically, what we're talking about is a linear asymptotic function where the line you are approaching is "1", right? But by definition, your curve can never touch the line, thus you just proved that 0.9 repeating can never equal 1.

ooooo quite an argument. if u plot value vs n (y axis is 0.999999manydigits, x axis is number of reps), yes the curve will never touch 1 for any finite x. this should be pretty obvious since 0.9(a gajillion digits) still isn't 1. however 0.9(gajillion digits) isn't 0.9(infinite digits).

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by AirKuhl

Well sure, pull a limit function out in a polite conversation....

Ok then, if it's a limit then graphically, what we're talking about is a linear asymptotic function where the line you are approaching is "1", right? But by definition, your curve can never touch the line, thus you just proved that 0.9 repeating can never equal 1.

Next thing ya know someone's gonna gonna pull out the gillette razor theorum. Or was the schick?

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by RWebb

but some infinities are bigger than others...

Good place for a sister joke, but I ain't going there .............

[krystar]

heh how about this
if we assumed 0.9(infinite) does equal 1 and 0.9(a gajillion) does NOT equal 1

does 0.9(infinity-1 digits) = 1? questionable
does 0.9(infinity-gajillion digits) != 1? questionable

does 0.9(infinity-infinity digits) != 1? ........what? heheh