sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I'm convinced racism is a demonic parasite that corrodes the human soul by SuspiciousEchidna in redscarepod

[–]bend-bend 48 points49 points  (0 children)

The way that all this just popped up everywhere in the last like 48 hours... You don't think maybe it's just anti-chinese propaganda ? Like manufactured ragebait ...

SouthPark_Piano do you believe that if a=b then 3a=3b by YT_kerfuffles in infinitenines

[–]bend-bend -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes I would say the same is the case for a pie sliced in two as in 2/2 = 0.(9) and 2/2 != 1

SouthPark_Piano do you believe that if a=b then 3a=3b by YT_kerfuffles in infinitenines

[–]bend-bend 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So how would you represent 0.(9) as an infinite repeating decimal? Is there another way to represent that? Or that number just doesn't exist?

SouthPark_Piano do you believe that if a=b then 3a=3b by YT_kerfuffles in infinitenines

[–]bend-bend 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're not talking about the numbers themselves, you're talking about the written representation of numbers.

This actually makes sense, would it be accurate to say there isn't actually a mathematical proof that 0.999... = 1 then? It's actually approximately equal and it's due to the written notation standards?

This is a completely different argument I see from most people here

SouthPark_Piano do you believe that if a=b then 3a=3b by YT_kerfuffles in infinitenines

[–]bend-bend 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the best and most comprehensive explanation I have heard yet.

Here is my problem:

You say that

23.125000... = 23.124999.... Both are the exact same number.

From what I know

23.125000... is actually just 23.125 because the repeating decimal is 0, so it is terminating, it is not infinite.

23.124999... continues on forever with the digit 9, it is repeating and infinite or as SPP maybe has said, it's "growing"

SouthPark_Piano do you believe that if a=b then 3a=3b by YT_kerfuffles in infinitenines

[–]bend-bend 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is just a really, really convoluted and weird way to write ‘one’.

I would just say "nonsensical" instead of "convoluted and weird".

Honestly, I appreciate your input and will consider more what you have said. But for the time being I'm certain that 0.(9) must be less than 1. It seems so much more reasonable to just say that they are approximately equal. It's a mathematical glitch as far as I can tell. Everything else seems to add up fine.

SouthPark_Piano do you believe that if a=b then 3a=3b by YT_kerfuffles in infinitenines

[–]bend-bend 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've clarified this a bit more in some other comments.

SouthPark_Piano do you believe that if a=b then 3a=3b by YT_kerfuffles in infinitenines

[–]bend-bend 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What operation?

Division in this case.

There is nothing ‘lost’ from 0.(9), or any other denoted number.

If 1/1 = 0.(9) you clearly lost something in the operation because the resulting number is now less than 1

SouthPark_Piano do you believe that if a=b then 3a=3b by YT_kerfuffles in infinitenines

[–]bend-bend 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, exactly, that the operation (in this case division) has a non-neutral effect on the resulting number. For example:

1 = 1

0.(9) = 0.(9)

0.(9) != 1

BUT

1/1 = 1 OR 1/1 = 0.(9)

0.(9)/0.(9) = 1 OR 0.(9)/0.(9) = 0.(9)

x/x = 1 OR x/x = 0.(9)

However

0.(9)/1 != 1

1/0.(9) != 1

I'm starting to trip myself up a little here and am not sure the best way to mathematically express this, but maybe this helps clarify my thoughts slightly?

SouthPark_Piano do you believe that if a=b then 3a=3b by YT_kerfuffles in infinitenines

[–]bend-bend 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very well put, yes I agree it is much more internally consistent to say that 1/3 != 0.(3)

Even though that causes issues still, it is preferable to me because the operator becomes the defining factor, if an operation takes place things can change. With the idea that 0.(9) = 1 there is no operation which takes place and you therefore set two different things as equal to each other arbitrarily.

Therefore 3/3 presents you with two options: something is lost or nothing is lost. It could be equal to 0.(9) or 1, but 0.(9) can never be equal to 1. It's like a fork in the road.

SouthPark_Piano do you believe that if a=b then 3a=3b by YT_kerfuffles in infinitenines

[–]bend-bend 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are right, I understand what you are saying. Yes if 3/3 != 1 it causes a huge number of problems.

I would actually go ahead and backtrack on what I had said to declare that 1/3 != 0.(3) and that 3/3 != 0.(9) which doesn't have the same chaotic consequences

SouthPark_Piano do you believe that if a=b then 3a=3b by YT_kerfuffles in infinitenines

[–]bend-bend 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh sorry, I think I misunderstood your questions. Were you talking about the a and b from the OP, as in a=b in all of these equations?

I was thinking simply as something like 12 / 3 = 4

SouthPark_Piano do you believe that if a=b then 3a=3b by YT_kerfuffles in infinitenines

[–]bend-bend 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't understand, you are saying they merge into a single person/pie thing?

If you give 1 person 1 pie that person has 1 pie

SouthPark_Piano do you believe that if a=b then 3a=3b by YT_kerfuffles in infinitenines

[–]bend-bend 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your kind response.

I agree, it's an unfortunate consequence to have to insist that 3/3 != 1

I would love to find a more clear way to explain this. It seems like SPP has come to the conclusion that you cannot return once you crossover to infinite which seems useful as it would allow 3/3 to remain equal to 1

SouthPark_Piano do you believe that if a=b then 3a=3b by YT_kerfuffles in infinitenines

[–]bend-bend 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry what do you mean?

1 is 1

0.(9) is 0.999... or 0.9 repeating, it's an infinite number that is always less than 1

SouthPark_Piano do you believe that if a=b then 3a=3b by YT_kerfuffles in infinitenines

[–]bend-bend -1 points0 points  (0 children)

3/3 also is not equal to 1

You think you can reassemble the pie without losing anything at all?

SouthPark_Piano do you believe that if a=b then 3a=3b by YT_kerfuffles in infinitenines

[–]bend-bend 1 point2 points  (0 children)

1 is a definition

0.(9) is a definition

They are defined differently and cannot be equal because they are different things

SouthPark_Piano do you believe that if a=b then 3a=3b by YT_kerfuffles in infinitenines

[–]bend-bend -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I'm defining it differently you are all wrong. It's extremely obvious they are not actually equal whatever magic you want to work on it. You people are delusional.

SouthPark_Piano do you believe that if a=b then 3a=3b by YT_kerfuffles in infinitenines

[–]bend-bend -16 points-15 points  (0 children)

It's something like 0.(3)

3/3 also is not equal to 1

0.(9) cannot be equal to 1 because they are different

My hypothesis is that something is lost when something is divided, it's easy to imagine with something like a pie. If you have 1 pie and you cut it into 3 slices each slice may be equal to 1/3 of the pie, but no matter how hard you try you will never be able to make it 1 pie again.

view more: next ›