Staredit Network > Forums > Lite Discussion > Topic: A question (or 2!)
A question (or 2!)
Nov 5 2011, 7:06 am
By: Sacrieur
Pages: < 1 « 3 4 5
 

Nov 20 2011, 4:59 pm ClansAreForGays Post #81



Quote from TiKels
Quote from name:Cardinal
0.9 reoccurring is not equal to 0.98, or 0.999999999999998, or any other iteration thereof.
Is 1.000...0001 equal to one, cardinal?
It is.

That number is the difference between 0.999...999 and 0.999..998, which is not an "actual" difference.

I mean it is a "difference" but it's infinitely small.
Nope. 0.999... exists, and can be expressed like

This impossible 0.000...1 number that you just made up in your head does not. There is no difference, because it's impossible to make this imaginary 0.000...1. It's about as real a number as 0.000...

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Nov 22 2011, 1:37 pm by ClansAreForGays.




Nov 21 2011, 12:57 am TiKels Post #82



If I follow your logic (which I don't necessarily agree with), then I could just do 1-9*(1/9) and get 0.000...001

I can't tell if you're trolling or not :l



"If a topic that clearly interest noone needs to be closed to underline the "we don't want this here" message, is up to debate."

-NudeRaider

Nov 21 2011, 3:06 am ubermctastic Post #83



Quote from TiKels
If I follow your logic (which I don't necessarily agree with), then I could just do 1-9*(1/9) and get 0.000...001

I can't tell if you're trolling or not :l
You're right, however scientifically speaking neither of those numbers exist.
.999... never reaches 1 so scientifically speaking it actually stops wherever the measurement you used isn't accurate enough for smaller incriments.
Also, .000...1 is going to be the same thing as zero scientifically, because there's no measurement that is ever going to detect it. .000...1 would then be 0.



None.

Nov 21 2011, 4:33 am FatalException Post #84



You're talking about significant figures. There aren't really significant figures in mathematics. >.>



None.

Options
Pages: < 1 « 3 4 5
  Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[06:02 pm]
Zoan -- of course it isn't full understanding. You could ask "is the mechanism by which this counterexample blows up the ONLY mechanism possible for an initial configuration to blow up?"
[05:48 pm]
Zoan -- ppl do it all the time in PDEs
[05:47 pm]
Zoan -- Heinermann
Heinermann shouted: it also didn't solve that problem but hey as long as the investors are pleased
Constructing a counterexample is answering the question: "Is Navier Stokes well posed?" in the negative
[05:44 pm]
NudeRaider -- I only heard about it, didn't any news article, so what did it do then?
[05:43 pm]
Heinermann -- it also didn't solve that problem but hey as long as the investors are pleased
[05:39 pm]
NudeRaider -- I have no idea tbh. All I know no human was ever able to solve it, but there's at least a few that beat portal ;)
[05:32 pm]
Zoan -- Navier Stokes is not that esoteric I thought
[04:32 pm]
NudeRaider -- Zoan
Zoan shouted: I find it kind of sad that on the same day it was announced AI solved Navier Stokes, it was also announced AI beat Portal, and there's a good deal of people who don't know which is more impressive
you find it sad not everyone is a math nerd?
[03:25 pm]
NudeRaider -- (and yes, I capitalized that correctly :ego:)
[03:24 pm]
NudeRaider -- Symmetry
Symmetry shouted: Hi not I'm dad
Hi dad, I'm nude
Please log in to shout.


Members Online: Vrael, Nuralldin, Moose