What Number is Bigger?

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
MEXCOM

MEXCOM

Sicc OG
#23
Feb 9, 2003
8,398
58
48
50
#23
LOL at you idiots. He's trying to use mathematical proofs to prove a logical fallacy. But some of you aren't getting it.

And notice how 707Representas dumb ass is all of a sudden absent from this thread? LOL!
 
Mr. Nice Guy

Mr. Nice Guy

Sicc OG
#27
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#27
.99R is not equal to 1 because 1/3 is not equal to .33R, that is just the closest numerical representation we can get to represent the concept of one third.

Its kinda like dude was saying about infinity. Infinity is not a number it is a concept of a indescribably large limitless number.
 
I. Cold

I. Cold

Sicc OG
#30
May 2, 2002
9,580
17
0
42
#30
MEXCOM said:
LOL at you idiots. He's trying to use mathematical proofs to prove a logical fallacy. But some of you aren't getting it.

And notice how 707Representas dumb ass is all of a sudden absent from this thread? LOL!
Click to expand...
I get what he's trying to say. I just don't agree.

maybe enserio, lord o mathematics and over all universal knowledge, can shed some light on this.
 
I. Cold

I. Cold

Sicc OG
#32
May 2, 2002
9,580
17
0
42
#32
Ry said:
You are a fucking idiot.

There is a mathematical background to my original question:

1/3 = 0.33333R
2/3 = 0.66666R

1/3 + 2/3 = 3/3 = 1

BUT

0.33333R + 0.66666R = 0.9999999R

SO

0.9999999R MUST BE = 1
Click to expand...
you bring up an interesting point.. but the only thing I see is that 1/3 + 2/3 doesnt actually equal 1. If 1/3 is .3R and 2/3 is .6R then adding them doesn't equal zero (so it seems). You gotta ask yourself, what's more accurate, decimals or fractions. Many people would say fractions, but when some fractions are broken down, the number they are broken down to cannot be expressed in written form because the number never ends.. So that tells me that in some instances, it would be a better idea to add fractions together rather than decimals.. cuz somewhere in the fraction to decimal conversion process, information is slightly altered.

good thread though.
 
R

rekomstop

Sicc OG
#35
Mar 4, 2007
2,678
5
0
#35
Formaldehyde Rx said:
They are equal but at any one instant in time like...............NOW.............one is greater than .999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999r
Click to expand...
thats the best explanation..

we USE math in our lives and in our reality(buildings, explanations, what-not), but definitely, numbers themselves do not have to abide by the same logic that we use...well most of us use.

this is why i fell in love with math in the first place; as students in school we learn the number line, and we learn there is 1,2,3,4,5,6...and so on, but then we learn that 1<2<3<4<5... and then we learn the there are intermediate numbers, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3....and then we learn that there are an infinite amount of numbers, so therefore, there must be an infinite amount of numbers inbetween each "set" number that we previously learned(the simple number line), so if each number is its own step, but then there is an infinite amount of steps, then what makes these steps?

Now this goes along with 0 or infinity, are they different or the same?

Is the presence of all numbers the same concept as the void of all numbers?

Edit:
aaaaalllsoooo, i wanted to add that this basic concept goes along with my concept of time, is everything ever-present(i dunno if you'd connect that) and is our perception of 'chronological events' just an illusion like the number line is?
 
M

MKB

Sicc OG
#38
Dec 19, 2002
999
0
36
38
#38
rekomstop said:
thats the best explanation..

we USE math in our lives and in our reality(buildings, explanations, what-not), but definitely, numbers themselves do not have to abide by the same logic that we use...well most of us use.

this is why i fell in love with math in the first place; as students in school we learn the number line, and we learn there is 1,2,3,4,5,6...and so on, but then we learn that 1<2<3<4<5... and then we learn the there are intermediate numbers, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3....and then we learn that there are an infinite amount of numbers, so therefore, there must be an infinite amount of numbers inbetween each "set" number that we previously learned(the simple number line), so if each number is its own step, but then there is an infinite amount of steps, then what makes these steps?

Now this goes along with 0 or infinity, are they different or the same?

Is the presence of all numbers the same concept as the void of all numbers?

Edit:
aaaaalllsoooo, i wanted to add that this basic concept goes along with my concept of time, is everything ever-present(i dunno if you'd connect that) and is our perception of 'chronological events' just an illusion like the number line is?
Click to expand...
I have a good one that relates to what you are talking about. If you want to go from one point to another and you cut the distance in half each time you will never reach that point but you will get closer and closer each time.
 
R

rekomstop

Sicc OG
#39
Mar 4, 2007
2,678
5
0
#39
MKB said:
I have a good one that relates to what you are talking about. If you want to go from one point to another and you cut the distance in half each time you will never reach that point but you will get closer and closer each time.
Click to expand...

yeah i think thats the same concept as an exponential limit or a square root limit...
goin infinitely close to a point, but in theory never reaching it..

i like limits, bu tif you calculate the wrong way you can end up with a huge error..
lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom