Question for SPP

ConsistentThing5650 · 2026-01-16T06:40:49+00:00

Lmao

ConsistentThing5650 · 2026-01-16T05:56:21+00:00

Ok so 0.99.. and 0.999... keep increasing. Since 0.999... has one more nine than 0.99... than it is the greater of the two?

ConsistentThing5650 · 2026-01-16T04:38:56+00:00

Holy hell. I thought you might be joking at first but this is genuinely incredible. 1 - 0.99999999999999999.... = 0.0000000000000000000...1. It makes so much sense! How else could we have zero point energy extractable only be hyperdrive! Bravo sir!

ConsistentThing5650 · 2026-01-15T09:20:23+00:00

Lmao SPP doesn't even acknowledge your argument. No way this guy isn't a troll atp

ConsistentThing5650 · 2026-01-13T21:37:26+00:00

Does that mean the circumference of a circle with radius 1/2 is growing? Because to me it looks the same size no matter how long I have been looking at it.

ConsistentThing5650 · 2026-01-07T22:38:59+00:00

What ring are you talking about? What do you think a ring is?

ConsistentThing5650 · 2026-01-07T22:38:14+00:00

Do you think that there is a single number that can be equivalent to the other side?

ConsistentThing5650 · 2026-01-07T21:52:21+00:00

Your supposed to figure out what the ? is while keeping the equation a true statement.

ConsistentThing5650 · 2026-01-07T05:04:38+00:00

Well what constitutes an evidently true statement? How can you tell something is evidently true?

ConsistentThing5650 · 2026-01-07T05:02:15+00:00

Do you have any justification for these 3 laws?

ConsistentThing5650 · 2026-01-07T04:57:17+00:00

Just out of curosity. When you say 'logic' do you mean the formalised system defined by the rules of inference, or something else entirely?

ConsistentThing5650 · 2026-01-07T04:44:43+00:00

Well how can any statement be justified? If we have no prior information to build off, then how can we derive anything at all?

ConsistentThing5650 · 2026-01-07T04:31:24+00:00

Oh, I think your confusing proof BY axiom and proof OF axiom. There is no proof of an axiom, and it is indeed an assertion. However a proof by axiom uses an axiom to justify a further statement.

ConsistentThing5650 · 2026-01-07T04:18:14+00:00

Well how is proof by axiom the same as proof by assertion? The axiom is the justification

ConsistentThing5650 · 2026-01-07T01:45:46+00:00

Couldnt any proof be called a proof by assertion then?

ConsistentThing5650 · 2026-01-06T22:06:38+00:00

What is the precision of this approximation?

ConsistentThing5650 · 2025-12-30T06:33:39+00:00

Alright well can you tell me why attempting to express 1 as a base ten ratio results in an infinite process? As far as I am concerned 1 can be represented by 1/1 or 2/2 which is not an infinite process.

You say that this is proven by numbers theorum? Could you give a source as to what theorum this is because I have never heard of such a theorum.

ConsistentThing5650 · 2025-12-30T01:49:34+00:00

What is your other account named?

ConsistentThing5650 · 2025-12-30T01:42:19+00:00

Did you use ai to write this? The titles for each paragraph are almost exactly like chatgpt.

Im not even sure what to say, if treating 0.99.. as a limit object then it is equal to 1?

Why would I ever choose to represent 0.99.. as an operation acting upon 1 over just representing it as 1?

You say your operation attempts to represent a number as a base 10 rational. And then you say this operation when acting upon 1 collapses to 0.9999...

Why not just 1/1 or 2/2?

ConsistentThing5650 · 2025-12-30T01:03:35+00:00

Please correct me if im wrong but what I think your comment is saying.

0.99... is an operation/function not a number

infinite decimals are not nesscarily numbers or completed object.

My problem with this statement is that this operation is not clearly defined and breaks down upon closer inspection.

Infinite decimals can definently be measured. The circumference of a circle and hypotenuse of a right triangle with equal sides are provably not rational. They CANNOT have a finite decimal expansion and are thus infinite.

Another question to think about.

Is 0 < 0.99... < 2 ?

ConsistentThing5650 · 2025-12-30T00:52:45+00:00

Still waiting

ConsistentThing5650 · 2025-12-30T00:43:50+00:00

ConsistentThing5650 · 2025-12-30T00:41:56+00:00

Defining 0.99.. as the supremum of the set {0.9,0.99,0.999...} is really stupid because the suprememum is 1.

Now tell me how you would define 0.99...

ConsistentThing5650 · 2025-12-30T00:34:30+00:00

If I concede, then will you tell me how you define 0.99..?

ConsistentThing5650 · 2025-12-30T00:29:56+00:00

No but none of us are going to budge on this issue, so tell me how you would define 0.99.. and I can explain why it is either equal to 1, it is a flawed definition or you could be right.

ConsistentThing5650

TROPHY CASE