Someone has written a proof that three-thirds does not equal one.
The proof is here: https://yngthlet.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-math-proof-why-three-thirds-isnt-equals-1/
>>7916540
Well duh, (1,1)≠(3,3)
>>7916540
ah but 3/3= 1 not .(9).
so the proof is wrong
qed
>>7916575#
You are wrong you still assume basic mathmatics regarding multiplaction of 10 in decimals doesn't apply to the fractionalization of three thirds, whis the proof is about. Granted the person who wrote this can't write
>>7916540
>Using repeating decimals
>Using standard arithmetic on repeating decimals
>Explicitly stating a repeating decimal terminates
Fucking dropped.
I have to agree with post >>7916602 you all assume that repeating decimal don't have an end. Our main methods of writing down decimals that just repeat ad naseum are flawed but they are the only way to write them down. It doesn't take much of a leap that they can further decimals that don't follow them.
What an intresting paradox
The proof presents some frightening revelations
>>7916540
1 = 1
-(-1) = 1
(-(-1))^2 = 1^2
1 = 1
You fucking retard.
>>7916704
Click on the link not the pic
>>7916540
wow what a terrible terrible "proof" lol so much wrong not even worth correcting
>>7916540
>you can append a 0 to .(9)
>I don't understand what notation means
That trick is just to teach kindergarteners how to multiply, not an axiom of multiplication and has more to do with how represent real numbers in base 10
.999... doesn't have an end 9 you can append with anything
I think now why you oppose the proof, you are yaving a divide by zero moment and can not think beyond your academia
the fact that something almost surely happening is not the same as something surely happening proves that 0.99... =/= 1
geeze how about you take a real analysis class once in your life, kids
>>7916728
True, but the trick still apply to it.
You still append a 0 to 0.(9) after you multiply it with 10. Basic math does't stop at high school you know.
>>7916731
Symbolic notation is just a useful metaphor, you still need to understand the underlying thing the symbols refer to. Which the blogger does not, or they and you would realize why this "trick" doesn't apply to a sequence. The numerical representation of .999... is 1. If you want to write .999... you are symbolically representing the integer 1 as a sequence and not in its numerical form (which you need it to be to apply this trick)
>>7916731
>Infinite repeating decimal
>"hurr durr I'll just append a 0 to the end"
You're legitimately retarded. A better explanation of multiplying by ten is a shift to the left, so in this case you'll have 10*0.(9) = 9.(9). Even then, I'm pretty certain applying "regular" arithmetic to infinite strings of numbers to mathematically suspect at best.
There are already an infinite number of zeros beyond the last digit of any decimal, weak bait
>>7916734
Pi is a symbolic metaphor of an calculation we haven't properly understood yet.
>>7916748
>[math] \pi = \frac { C } { D } [/math]
Hahahahahahaha, so fucking complex.
>>7916752
Last I checked pi haven't been fully calculated yet.
>>7916761
Of course it hasn't, you literally can't calculate it fully. But you can calculate it to an arbitrary precision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi#Rapidly_convergent_series), what's more for most practical applications just holding the first few digits is enough, when doing something more theoretical, then you can just use [math] \pi [/math] in the same way you can use [math] \frac { 1 } { 3 } [/math] to represent a third.
>>7916770
The same thing applies to 0.(9) we only creates such system because we can't calculate how many times it is repeated.
>>7916777
>we can't calculate how many times it is repeated.
0.(9) will be repeated infinitely.
>>7916786
True, but we can't calculate infinity because it isn't a number.
>>7916790
Right....and? Like I said we can calculate it an arbitrary large number of places.
>>7916790
Let me introduce you to the wonderful world of infinite series. Take a seat.
Oh, what? You think there's an inherent problem with the definition of infinite sums? That's normal. Fortunately, infinite decimals are defined with infinite sums- if you have a problem with summing an infinite number of numbers, just stop using infinite decimal expression. They don't exist if we don't define them.
We can continue doing math. You can continue being contrarian.
>>7916795
You are infering large numbers using the arrow notation. They cant help you when you are trying to calculate infinty nor gelp you calculate such small numbers.
When I wtote the proof I was using the assumption it decimals would end at some point, which by the way the old proof also aasume in order to work.
>>7916804
The difference between you and me, is that I assume infinity is a number snd you don't.
>>7916815
Why do you assume thw posters are thecsame?
>>7916813
The difference between you and me, is that I use rigorous definitions for mathematical concepts (i.e. Infinity, number) and you use your intuition. Mathematics is all about definitions and rigor. If you are not consistent with the accepted mathematical definitions, define the concept yourself.
What is 'infinity'?
>>7916808
What the hell are you talking about?
>When I wtote the proof I was using the assumption it decimals would end at some point
But that's incorrect, not all decimal expansions terminate, there is literally an infinity of examples of this.
>>7916819
Something you can't define.
Which I am still doing, despite using it as if it was.
>>7916822
Do you ever heard of a paradox?
>>7916819
infinity:
For every real number r,
infinity > r, but infinity does not belong to R, the set of real numbers..
>>7916540
the problem lies within the fact of trying to attach that 0 through the *10 multiplication, you are trying to attach that 0 to the end of an infinite number of 9s. Impossibro, cause you can't attach it to somthing that has no end. so to make the proof work, it would have to get past this paradox.
>>7916832
The paradox is that I use non-terminating decimals as if they were
>>7916833
Both statements are correct Infinity isn't a number but it does behaves like it ä, just like a variable
>>7916846
That's not a paradox, you're just wrong. But if you want you can resolve your "paradox" by not treating non-terminating decimals as if they terminate, you literal actual retard.
>>7916854
And you applying the logic of P=NP
>>7916866
Do you even know what that means ?
protip: it's not mayo or a movie
>>7916885
Yes. Its piece of mathmatical logic where P is sometimes considered equal to NP at the same time that NP is not equal to P.
>>7916540
>Where numbers in quotations marks are fictive numbers created during subtraction when you subtract a large number from a smaller one
What the fuck is this retarded shit
>>7916891
Holy fuck I really can't stand people like this.
Please kill yourself off of /sci/ you pseudo-intellectual teen.
>>7916897
It was a placeholder created due technical limits I had at the time. And if you can't be civil then you should stop using the internet.
>>7916827
Are you fucking stupid? Why would you say some stupid shit you have no idea about when you're aware of your ignorance? You can easily define infinity, they do it in the first chapter of any real analysis book.
>>7916540
That's not an axiom
>>7916907
Infinity is an complete unknown and you can't define something which you don't know.
>>7916891
Oh come on dude you had a good troll going and now its just obvious
>>7916918
Difference between me and a troll is that I am trying to have a discussion not agitate people.
I can correct your mistake with two brackets, just wait.
Problem solved, don't forget the brackets.
>>7916540
10*0.999999 is not 9.90. It makes no fucking sense and he's able to hide it because of his stupid fucking notation.
>>7917073
The notation I used is legitmate alternative for a dot or above-line for such decimals. It is however not videly used.
Guys is this yngfaggot for real? Is that really him posting in this thread (and I'm assuming is also the OP and various other samefagging anons)? If so this is pretty great. I love his fucking broken English in that blog post, idk why it just gets me when someone is that fucking terrible at a language yet keeps trying to use it in an authoritative manner. Reeks of disgusting yuro or spic, can't tell which though. Bonus points if English is his only language (and he's some low-functioning American autist, as his content certainly is implying).
Top zozzle, pal.
>>7917113
He writes like most quacks. Very condescending, lots of made up words and phrases, and a large number of weird grammatical errors.
>>7917113
First, English isn't my first language.
Second, I never really learned how to write.
And third, if you are going to insult someone try noty using such a low blow, it only makes you someone that have no idea what hir is talking about.
>>7917124
>Second, I never really learned how to write.
I want to laugh at this, but if I'm honest it's just really sad.
>>7917124
>it only makes you someone that have no idea what hir is talking about
Oh irony, sweet sweet irony. You're actually completely clueless, aren't you?
>>7917122
Granted my language is condescending, I'll give you that. But they are no madeup words (except greybeard, maybe), but my phrasing and grammar errors are due to lacked of writing practice and not using my first language.
>>7917135
>Where numbers in quotations marks are fictive numbers created during subtraction when you subtract a large number from a smaller one
Complete gibberish. Granted, I think this is the only real instance -- I thought I saw some others before.
>>7916540
why not just say that 0.333333.... multiplied by 3 is 0.99999999.... which, in your view, is not equaled to 1
Just saying seems like it brings your argumentation to the point.
then read this:
https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/10012.5.shtml
>>7917246
Which is the argument the proof counters.
>>7916815
>proof is garbage and relies on an inaccurate representation of numbers
>gets called out
>"muh samefag!"
kill yourself
>>7917258
Really civilized
>9.(9)0 – 0.(9) becomes
>8.(“18″)”10” – 0.(9)
can you expain this? how did 9.(9)0 become 8("18")"10"? and what is the meaning of numbers in qutation marks?
>>7917281
The quotation marks are only used to desribe loaned tens when you subrtact
>>7917287
okay I now see two problems with your proof.
1)
>What happens when you multiply with ten and keep the decimals. You add a zero. Good Dog.
multiplying by 10 does not add a 0 to the end of the number and pushes everything else 1 decimal place forward. It simply pushes everything a decimal place up, no 0's involved, unless it is a non-repeating decimal, which must end in a zero.
so, if you 0.99.... x10 you push up the infinite amount of 9's up a decimal place (and beyond the decimal treshold) to create 9.99... you do not attach a '0' at the end of the repeating decimal, thereby terminating it.
2)
>9.(9)0 – 0.(9) becomes 8.(“18″)”10” – 0.(9)
Just think this through logically. What you have on the one hand is the 'whole number 9' (WN9), the 'repeating decimal 9' (RD9) and a '0 which is -due to the aforementioned mistake- beyond the repeating decimal 9' (BRD0). Now WN9+RD9+BRD0 makes up 9.(9)0 On the other hand you have RD9, which makes up 0.(9)
so 9.(9)0 - 0.(9) = WN9 + RD9 + BRD0 - RD9
= WN9 + BRD0
= 9 + 0.0...0
= 9
Might be written a bit convolated, but what I am saying is the repeating decimal of 9 on both sides would simply cancal each other out. leaving behind the whole number 9 and the 0 which was placed beyond the series of the repeating decimal 9's on the left hand side.
---------
Also, I know I am probably talking to a troll, but I have time and was bored, If you are serious with your proof, please clear up point 1) first, since this is the main hinderance placed on it.
>>7916761
π=circumference/diameter
>>7917390
On your first,you actually add a zero at the end when multiplying something with 10 usually you just drop the last zero out of convinince.
And on you second, I still have to subtract nine out of a zero which no longer can be subtracted from ergo which forces you to take a ten from the higher order for number up and including WN9. I haven't forgotten that the latter RD9 have lost one nine at the end unlike the former RD9, once again the limits of notation rears its ugly head when you can't distinguish the two RD9s.
>>7917437
Look at it this way:
take the example 2x1.234. To multiply it out we can simply do the following = 2x1 + 2x0.2 + 2x0.03 + 2x0.04 + 2x0.000 (the droped last 0, I put it in for reference) = 2.468
now:
0.999...x10 = 10x0.9 + 10x0.09 + 10x0.009 and so on, you actually never stop multiplying and never reach a zero, to attach onto the end of the infinite series. What we end up with is 9.999....
>>7916540
>Why can't atheists define atheism?
>Please
>>7917487
Which equals 9 + 0.9 + 0.09 until you end up with + 0.(0)90. I keep telling you all I stil haven't ignored that it keeps repeating in an infinite series after + 10 x 0.(0)9 or 10 x 0.000...9 if you prefer.
>>7917500
The same applies to Nirvanain in Buddhism
>>7917508
not remotely
>>7916540
This is the stupidest thing I have read in a while.
1/3 +1/3 +1/3 =1 is almost by definition of rational numbers, their addition and division.
The writer of this "proof" has converted the problem into an infinite series situation (repeating decimals) and then completely ignores the rules of infinite series.
- adding a zero to the end of an infinite series means nothing.
- The quotation notation is completely incorrect. His fictive numbers concept should only be applied to the next lower decimal place. He is applying this to every decimal place not the first.
Bottom line, Applying advanced concepts to simple concepts by inventing notation and applying rules that are inconsistent with the original system yields inconsistent results.
Here you go
you are trying to say that an infinite list of 9s has an end 9, but there is no end. You can only prove things like these by breaking the rules. Use more rigorous definitions and regard for the rules next time you prove something
>>7916540
>>7916704
Good, I'm glad SOMEONE wrote that down. I was getting realy annoyed that no one was addressing how incorrect that pic was. With its pretentious question mark like
>Oh what? how could that be possible?
>I didn't do any trickery I'm just so confused
Pic was pissin me off I tell you hwat.
>>7916540
I hate this post.
Don't patronize me with false proofs that have petty logic errors.
>>7917853
[eqn]\frac{1}{3} = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \left(\frac{1}{4} \right)n[/eqn]
Sorry, the parenthesis bothered me.
>>7916540
Oh my fucking GOD
>>7918440
...holy shit. I retract any troll accusations I have thrown before.
This guy is disturbing.
>>7916901
m8, you are being baited hard
>>7918737
Since when did thus thread become a discussion about my feelings of nihilism?
>>7918793
your depression isn't an excuse for misusing mathematical rules to prove nonsense
>>7916540
>all those humorless fucks in the comments not encouraging him
this board needs a janitor in charge of deleting threads like this one.
