File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
64=65?
>> YOU DIVIDED BY ZERO! MrGigals
OH SHI-
>> Anonymous
64=65 / 0
>> Anonymous
wtf?
>> Anonymous
the diagonal line in the second picture is not entierly straight. it seems like an correct image but the space between the lines equals to an extra square
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
The hyponentuse is not stright in second pic...

WHO IS YOUR GOD NOW?

A: Piefagoris
>> Anonymous
>>271099
stop dividing by zero you tard!
>> Anonymous
>>271124
AH, I see, kinda like an hero.
>> fps_emsley
We all fail for posting and looking at math GIFS.
>> Anonymous
>>271135
not everyone,>>271127was kinda amusing with the angry pedantic scribblings and crap.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
64=65?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>271127
It's Pythagoras.
Retard.
>> Anonymous
>>271174
welcome to 4chan, tom
>> Garath !p9lkZcDlbA
>>271146
That's the lamest screamer I've ever seen.

Also: 1=.99999.........
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
64=65?
>> Anonymous
>>271205

yep because 1 = 3/3

3/3 = 1/3 * 3
1/3 = 0.33333...
0.33333... * 3 = 0.99999 = 1/3 * 3 = 3/3 = 1
>> Anonymous
as a mathematician i can not condone this nonsence
>> Anonymous
>>271232
>>as a mathematician i fail at the english language
fixed
>> Anonymous
>>271238
To be fair, at least he didn't post a 2 page mathmatical proof
>> Anonymous
0=1 can be explained so what the hell
>> Zst Xkn
i can prove that 64 does not equal 65 with a one line proof


64 =/= 65


AMAZING!
>> Anonymous
>>271146
lol this freaked me out.
>> Anonymous
>>271174

Doy!
>> Anonymous
>>0.33333... * 3 = 0.99999...
>>Also: 1=.99999.........
That's cheating.
0.9999... tends to a limit, that limit is 1.
If we could assimilate a limit to a finite number, there wouldn't be a need for the concept of limit to begin with. and, there is a need for that concept. It TENDS to 1, but it is not 1.
>> Anonymous
>>271341

In which case would you say that 0.33333 recurring is not equal to 1/3?
>> Anonymous
>>If we could assimilate a limit to a finite number, there wouldn't be a need for the concept of limit to begin with.

To be honest, the point at which curve which tends to a limit BECOMES that limit is probably te best definitin of infinity I can think of. No number of 9s after 0. can be equal to 1 but infinity isn't a number of 9s after 0, it is infinite 9s.

If you don't understand how 0.999.... == 1 then you don't understand infinity.
>> Anonymous
>>271375

So again I ask are you saying that 0.3333...recurring does not equal 1/3?
>> Anonymous
0.999... is equal to 1.

It does not approach 1, it does not tend to 1, it is mathematically equal.

You are correct that taking the limit of a function as you approach a number does not neccessarily mean that the function takes that value at that number. (For instance 10/n as n approaches 0 has a limit but is undefined at n=0) However, the situations where that would be the case aren't present with this problem.

As another poster has said, you're failing to understand what infinity is. That's not an attack on you, most people don't really understand it. Hell, I was lucky (or unlucky depending on your point of view) enough to grow up with a dad who has a Masters in math and a PhD in an applied math field, and it took me most of the way through a minor in math to really wrap my head around it.

Hopefully you're still in uni so you'll have handy access to a math prof. It sounds like you've got the calc background so that you'd benefit from talking about it with one.
>> Anonymous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_0.999..._equals_1
>> Anonymous
>>271379
You'll excuse my deletion. I entirely forgot about my geometric series in this argument.
0.999... = 0.9 + 0.99 + 0.999 + ...
0.999... = 9/10 + 99/100 + 999/1000 + ...
1 = (9/10) / (1 - 9/10)

There's still something very wrong about all this. We're talking about tangible values and intangible values, where you can say you're holding 1/3 of something but you can't say you're holding 0.33... of something due to the fact you'd not be able to build a device that can achieve such a level of precision. Meanwhile, you can have what qualifies as a number 0.33... but you can't assign it to anything that can be touched.
>> Anonymous
>>271392

So? You don't need to be able to assign it to something that can be touched for it to exist as a useful concept. Complex numbers are another example.

You can't build a device to EXACTLY split an object into 3 equal parts either.
>> Anonymous
lawl i got out of high school, but after rereading what u all wrote i got what u were saying. ya a tricky thing 1/3 is, i was going to say .9~ isnt 1, but still represents 3/3, then i thought about it some more, and realised thats wrong. its cant be .9~ if its 1.
then ya its like he says, u need to understand what infinity is. its not .9 or .99, its .9~
the fact that it goes on forever is what makes it 1. theres no way i can explain how so in my limited english o.O;

but ya. in the case of .9~ it is = to 1. but its also better to say its equal to 3/3.

now the only thing i can say about it is we think .9~ is the same as .9, its not, its like if i say its 3/3, is 3/3 not = to 1? it is, and so is .9~

its just a mnessed up way of showing 1.
if i say uno, does that not equal 1? even if its not in english, or put in a means normal to us? .9~ is just another complex way to put 1.

(thats for those like me who had a hard time getting it.)
>> Anonymous
>>271389

lol
>> Anonymous
>>271389

Still lol.
>> Math friends ftw
http://nov.4chan.org/gif/src/1152120635023.gif
Rustyspoon 81: wha??
Arcanis43: 64=65
Rustyspoon 81: somethings wrong cause they align the two slopes but theyre not the same slope
Rustyspoon 81: the slope in the upper triangles is 8/3
Rustyspoon 81: in the bottom trapezoids , the slope is 2
>> Anonymous
>>271435
pwnt. he's right. i just did some xtreme math on that shit.
>> Cats777 !ZMTjkDFhqY
fgsfds
>> jimbob
ahh 0 and infinity the two non-number numbers

there are and infinate amount of infinities in any given infinaty except in the case of a line where there is only two and a point which doesn't really exist anyway.
>> jimbob
since .9~ has no end there is no way to add a .0~01 to the end since the end does not exit so if you can't make it one by adding a non zero sum to it logically it has to BE one
>> jimbob
thats the way i look at it anyway
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
i win!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
i once divided infinity by zero.

It caused a time paradox and snakes got on the plane
>> Anonymous
>>271223

At some point in the continuing digits, a number would appear that would equal one if all of it was multiplied by three.

Face it, noobs: 0.999...=/= 1
>> Anonymous
>>271582
>>At some point in the continuing digits, a number would appear that would equal one if all of it was multiplied by three.

I love the way that that makes absolutely no sense at all
>> Anonymous
Ive the answer, cahngfe our number system from 10 to something like 12, BAM!
>> Anonymous
>>271582
Number theory says that you are wrong. 0.999... = 1. People way smarter than anyone posting on 4Chan figured it out. I believe them over you.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
64=65?
>> Anonymous
>> since .9~ has no end there is no way to add a .0~01 to the end since the end does not exist so if you can't make it one by adding a non zero sum to it logically it has to BE one

This is the most beautiful, concise, and layman-understandable explanation of the thing I've ever seen. You win 0.9~ internets.
>> Anonymous
INFINITE IS NOT A NUMBER.
likewise
ZERO IS NOT A NUMBER.

0.9 repeating is NOT equal to 1. There is not only simple, logical proof (limits), but there is an actual mathematical proof (which happens to be arduously long). If 0.9..9 was equal to 1, we would know about it, plain and simple. So stop trying to act like you know more about math than a mathematician at MIT. You don't.
>> Anonymous
>>271652
It is also wrong.
>> Anonymous
waht would a man become if he was only .999?
he would lose his soul
>> Styrofoam
>>271677

What's that? Actual mathematical proof you say?

Let x = 0.999~ (where ~ denotes repeating forever)
Multiply both sides by 10
10x = 9.999~
subtract x (which we set equal to 0.999~) from both sides
10x-x = 9.999~ - 0.999~
9x = 9
Divide both sides by 9
x = 1
And we declared x = 0.999~ at the beginning of the proof, therefore...

0.999~ = 1
>> Anonymous
0.9..9 != .9 repeating. 0.9..9 terminates. .999 repeating does not. .999 repating is exactly one. its a well known notational ambiguity, as people use it to represent 2 different ides, the first is simply a number infititly close to 1 (somewhat more properly denoted as lim(x->1)x but that also fails) as well as the decimal equilivant of 3(1/3), where it IS 1.
>> Anonymous
Right on! Bring on the dick girls!
>> programming anon
it could also be programming;

64 = 65
64 equals 65
so if '64' occurs the program will interpret it as '65'.

simple - year 1 programming basics
>> theghost
no , see, they're saying the square is not equal, it's a mind trick.
>> kthxbye !7N.82XNh/c
yo all of you, don't stand out so much on 4chan. We're all supposed to be uneducated ya know? :3 The 4chan saying goes: "I have no job, i have no education, i have no girlfriend..." and something more, i forgot.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
my compliments to those who figured that out....be sure to go outside every once in awhile
>> Anonymous
>>271718

i have no tripcode, OH WAIT
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
64=65?
>> Anonymous
>>271718
Fail, this isn't gaia where you are supposed to be a retard acting like an intellectual, this is 4chan where you are a intellectual acting like a retard.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
64=65?
>> Bendee
0.999.. = 1
1 / 3 = 0.333..
0.999../3 = 0.333.. (also)
>> Anonymous
>>271698

9x =/= 9, dickwad. 9x = 8.999~

The only way you can possibly get 9x = 9 is if you treat x as the real number 1 on one side of the equation and .999~ on the other, which I'm pretty sure is shitty math. It's like that trick where I used to make my friends think I had eleven fingers. It pisses me off every damn time I see that proof.
>> Anonymous
>>271831

Isn't it a basic rule of math that irrational numbers (like 0.333..) can only approximate, but never equal, rational numbers (like 1/3)?
>> Anonymous
lol are we still arguing this?

Awaiting infinity GET
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
64=65?
>> 64 + 1 = 65 Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
there is a parallelogram with the area of 1
so 64 + that parallelogram of 1 = 65
64 + 1 = 65