Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
2 + 2 = 5
- Thread starter Captain Chaos
- Start date
No it doesnt. Just because the 9 goes on forever doesn't mean it ever makes it to 1.
Its valid in its context, but you're using it to prove that 2+2=5, and in such context, its wrong.
you don't understand infinity. yes it does. look up zeno's paradox if you need further explanation
what you should do then is write in to some math journals & let all the mathematicians know how they've been wrong all this time, eh?
see? shows what i know...
the main focus of my post was the whipped cream, chocolate and graham cracker crust left over on the knife...am i making myself clear?Speaking of pi, there must be a "fraction" for pi. Or? Since the circumfrence is exactly 3.14 blah blah blah times the diameter? There is no infinity involved here. A circumfrence yay long and a diameter yay long. What is the "fraction" notation of pi? It must be there somewhere
the thing that gets me with that 0.999999999999 forever being equal to 1 is the zero over to the left of the decimal...but, again, i'm totally ignorant
No, actually, it's for low values of 2. 2.3+2.3=4.6 (to the nearest .0) is 2+2=5
For large value of 2 say 2.6 its 2.6+2.6=5.2 (to the nearest .0) is 3+3=5
Speaking of pi, there must be a "fraction" for pi. Or? Since the circumfrence is exactly 3.14 blah blah blah times the diameter? There is no infinity involved here. A circumfrence yay long and a diameter yay long. What is the "fraction" notation of pi? It must be there somewhere
no, there is not a fractional notation for pi. Pi is calculated (there are a few methods to calculate it...take your pick)
Speaking of pi, there must be a "fraction" for pi. Or? Since the circumfrence is exactly 3.14 blah blah blah times the diameter? There is no infinity involved here. A circumfrence yay long and a diameter yay long. What is the "fraction" notation of pi? It must be there somewhere
there isn't, dude...not a satisfactory, anyone
any fraction you come up with will be as shady as .99999999 (infinity, of course) = 1
.... and just to back up what i stated, look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
0.9 (repeated) = *exactly* 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
0.9 (repeated) = *exactly* 1
Students of mathematics often reject the equality of 0.999… and 1, for reasons ranging from their disparate appearance to deep misgivings over the limit concept and disagreements over the nature of infinitesimals. There are many common contributing factors to the confusion:
* Students are often "mentally committed to the notion that a number can be represented in one and only one way by a decimal." Seeing two manifestly different decimals representing the same number appears to be a paradox, which is amplified by the appearance of the seemingly well-understood number 1.[12]
* Some students interpret "0.999…" (or similar notation) as a large but finite string of 9s, possibly with a variable, unspecified length. If they accept an infinite string of nines, they may still expect a last 9 "at infinity".[13]
* Intuition and ambiguous teaching lead students to think of the limit of a sequence as a kind of infinite process rather than a fixed value, since a sequence need not reach its limit. Where students accept the difference between a sequence of numbers and its limit, they might read "0.999…" as meaning the sequence rather than its limit.[14]
* Some students regard 0.999… as having a fixed value which is less than 1 but by an infinitely small amount.
* Some students believe that the value of a convergent series is an approximation, not the actual value.
These ideas are mistaken in the context of the standard real numbers, although many of them are partially borne out in more sophisticated structures, either invented for their general mathematical utility or as instructive counterexamples to better understand 0.999….
* Students are often "mentally committed to the notion that a number can be represented in one and only one way by a decimal." Seeing two manifestly different decimals representing the same number appears to be a paradox, which is amplified by the appearance of the seemingly well-understood number 1.[12]
* Some students interpret "0.999…" (or similar notation) as a large but finite string of 9s, possibly with a variable, unspecified length. If they accept an infinite string of nines, they may still expect a last 9 "at infinity".[13]
* Intuition and ambiguous teaching lead students to think of the limit of a sequence as a kind of infinite process rather than a fixed value, since a sequence need not reach its limit. Where students accept the difference between a sequence of numbers and its limit, they might read "0.999…" as meaning the sequence rather than its limit.[14]
* Some students regard 0.999… as having a fixed value which is less than 1 but by an infinitely small amount.
* Some students believe that the value of a convergent series is an approximation, not the actual value.
These ideas are mistaken in the context of the standard real numbers, although many of them are partially borne out in more sophisticated structures, either invented for their general mathematical utility or as instructive counterexamples to better understand 0.999….
the funniest quote from wikipedia:
"With the rise of the Internet, debates about 0.999… have escaped the classroom and are commonplace on newsgroups and message boards, including many that nominally have little to do with mathematics"
"With the rise of the Internet, debates about 0.999… have escaped the classroom and are commonplace on newsgroups and message boards, including many that nominally have little to do with mathematics"
i'm not in disagreement...i just thought this was a funny thread...i blow things up for a living... 2+2=5 seems perfectly logical to me...22/7 has always been close enough for government work
i'm not in disagreement...i just thought this was a funny thread...i blow things up for a living... 2+2=5 seems perfectly logical to me...22/7 has always been close enough for government work
hahah. too funny.
what do you blow up ?
If the value of "1" was as large as a trillion suns then "0.9--- would be an astronomical different number. 0.9---- tries to get closer but 1 stays the same distance away from 0.9----. Poor 0.9--- will never reach his dream of being 1.
i don't see anything funny at all in that quote, but i would agree that talkbass has been a festering hive of way too many thing not relating to bass...math, included...
it's one of the reasons i've considered leaving on several occasions, but i sometimes see something shinyI know another good 'proof':
Proposition:
In any finite set of women, if one of them has blue eyes, they all do.
Proof:
We will prove this by induction.
IE, we prove that the proposition holds for 1, and we prove that if the proposition holds for a number n, it will also hold for n+1.
In this fashion, you know it works for 1, and therefore for 2 and for 3 etc etc.
-proof for 1 woman:
fairly trivial: in a set of one woman, if she has blue eyes, every woman in the set does
-proof for n+1
assume the proposition holds for n and consider a group of n+1 woman with at least one woman with blue eyes
line them up with a woman with blue eyes on the left:
B,x,x,x,x,x,.....,x
now the first n women will form a set of n women and one of them has blue eyes. Therefore, by our assumption all of them have blue eyes:
B,B,B,B,......,B,x
now look at the last n women. These women also form a set of women with at least one blue-eyes (in fact, the first n-1 women all have blue eyes) therefore, by our assumption, the last woman also has blue eyes and the entire set does
QED
(note: please don't try arguing against the method of proving by induction itself. It is a perfectly valid form of proof. Any flaws in this proof are in the specifics of this particular application of induction)
Proposition:
In any finite set of women, if one of them has blue eyes, they all do.
Proof:
We will prove this by induction.
IE, we prove that the proposition holds for 1, and we prove that if the proposition holds for a number n, it will also hold for n+1.
In this fashion, you know it works for 1, and therefore for 2 and for 3 etc etc.
-proof for 1 woman:
fairly trivial: in a set of one woman, if she has blue eyes, every woman in the set does
-proof for n+1
assume the proposition holds for n and consider a group of n+1 woman with at least one woman with blue eyes
line them up with a woman with blue eyes on the left:
B,x,x,x,x,x,.....,x
now the first n women will form a set of n women and one of them has blue eyes. Therefore, by our assumption all of them have blue eyes:
B,B,B,B,......,B,x
now look at the last n women. These women also form a set of women with at least one blue-eyes (in fact, the first n-1 women all have blue eyes) therefore, by our assumption, the last woman also has blue eyes and the entire set does
QED
(note: please don't try arguing against the method of proving by induction itself. It is a perfectly valid form of proof. Any flaws in this proof are in the specifics of this particular application of induction)
You can never put enough nines on 0.333333333333333333 to make it equal 1/3. That's why it if you multiply it by 3, it never equals 1.
I suppose it is possible that there actually is a fraction that expresses pi perfectly - we just haven't found it yet.
Anybody got any news on this highest prime number thingy?
I suppose it is possible that there actually is a fraction that expresses pi perfectly - we just haven't found it yet.
Anybody got any news on this highest prime number thingy?
