|
Post by swimming95 on Jan 29, 2009 19:44:33 GMT -6
XD even though we all know the divide by zero flaw. For those who didn't follow... A-B=0
|
|
|
Post by abizarro on Jan 29, 2009 20:57:13 GMT -6
by your logic 1=567=894=93475=34536782. The point is(which swimming aluded to) that any number multiplied by zero is equal to zero. What you're arguing ooman is that 2 of a certain number is equal to one of a certain number, altough this is true, its not a mathematic impossibility. That was just incase you happened to google 2=1 and didn't understand my point.
|
|
|
Post by longtimepokemonfan on Jan 30, 2009 21:56:54 GMT -6
What you fail to understand, is in naturalistic terms, .9recurring does not exist. We are creating an argument over fictitious numbers fulfilling a fictitious purpose. The concepts of infinity, or the simple axiom mentioned earlier are all created by humans as an attempt to describe nature. With the expansion of said descriptions irrational and nonexistent problems such as these occur, and should be disregarded. Mathematically speaking, .999 IS equal to one, and fractions (aforementioned in a previous post by me) describe infinite "real" numbers representing parts of a whole. (ie. .333recurring = 1/3 which is finite) In the real world, .9999recurring does NOT exist, and therefore is not equal to one.
|
|
|
Post by abizarro on Jan 30, 2009 22:41:04 GMT -6
yeah we already agreed on that... oh and say theoretical instead of ficticious it sounds more mathematical. we moved on to proving gooman wrong.
Welcome to the forum Longtimepokemonfan (thats a bit of a mouthful so LTPF or long time is what i am likely to abbreviate that to).
|
|
|
Post by swimming95 on Jan 31, 2009 4:33:23 GMT -6
Technically it does exist but is always simplified down to 1. i.e. 3/3 is .999999 but is written as 1.
|
|
|
Post by abizarro on Jan 31, 2009 4:42:14 GMT -6
no it doesn't exist swimming. .9(recurring) doesn't end there for it doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by swimming95 on Jan 31, 2009 4:45:06 GMT -6
If i am reading that correctly... it doesn't exist because it doesn't end?
|
|
|
Post by abizarro on Jan 31, 2009 4:53:09 GMT -6
o.9 (recurring) isn't classed as a "real" number because it doesn't end.
|
|
|
Post by swimming95 on Jan 31, 2009 5:11:05 GMT -6
now you are confusing me. going by numbers that don't "end". 1/3 is not "real" (.3333). and 1/9 is not "real" and so on. They are never ending decimals. They are also able to manifest (for lack of a better word) as simpler fractions. But they all exist.
|
|
|
Post by abizarro on Jan 31, 2009 5:17:11 GMT -6
it is classed as a theoretical number as it can't be written down. it can be expreesed as a fraction but a fraction is just an equation (1/3 equal one divided by three) and not a number.
This is the best i can explain it, if you don't understand then it would be best to just wait for someone else to come online and tell you.
|
|
|
Post by swimming95 on Jan 31, 2009 5:20:49 GMT -6
Now I understand where you are going with that but... theoretical numbers? seriously? I do have to say that this topic is probably close to outliving its usefulness... yeah... any other math to argue?
|
|
|
Post by Gooman on Jan 31, 2009 16:34:08 GMT -6
What you're arguing ooman is that 2 of a certain number is equal to one of a certain number. no, i'm arguing that the number 1 equals the number 2. look over what i posted before.
|
|
|
Post by swimming95 on Feb 1, 2009 4:33:08 GMT -6
Listen... we all know the fault in it.
|
|
|
Post by Gooman on Feb 1, 2009 8:45:10 GMT -6
...what fault?
|
|
|
Post by swimming95 on Feb 1, 2009 8:47:30 GMT -6
A=B.......Multiply by A Asq.=AB......Subtract Bsq. Asq.-Bsq.=AB-Bsq......Factor (A+B)(A-B)=B(A-B)...... Divide by (A-B)<------fault. A-B is 0 and you can not divide by zero A+B=B......Substitute B for A B+B=B......Simplify 2B=B.....Divide by B 2=1
|
|