64=65
I_Gorged_Your_Mom
Join Date: 2003-10-01 Member: 21361Banned, Constellation
Join Date: 2003-10-01 Member: 21361Banned, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Not allowed to disagree</div> Since it took us 10 pages to all agree that <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=73551&st=0' target='_blank'>1=.<u>99</u></a>, here is another one.
<img src='http://nasa.perbang.dk/billeder/bGk5a5RQ_stor.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
PWNT
<img src='http://nasa.perbang.dk/billeder/bGk5a5RQ_stor.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
PWNT
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
No....
*tries not to think about it*
<span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'>If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college</span>
*head explodes*
3*4=12
1*11=11
therefore 11 = 12
its not right
<a href='http://library.thinkquest.org/28049/geometrical_vanishes.htm' target='_blank'>This</a> site sort of explains what's going on, though it appears as if the site were designed by a blind two year old, so good luck reading it.
Granted I don't think this is as interesting as the 1=.<u>99</u> thread, I think its worth bring to everyone attention that everything they have ever believed to be true is false.
What was pretty much posted.
3*4=12
1*11=11
therefore 11 = 12
its not right <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Damn right
And 1=1
1 does not equal 0.99.....
otherwise we would just write 0.99...
but we write 1
meaning we mean 1
its because the angles of the diagonals are similar, but not identical.
I took great pleasure in forgetting all my high school maths, else I would post to prove the angles were different using Tan 2/5 or somthing...
anyone got 5 mins to kill? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You mean "oh i always believed that 64 != 65 but apparently I was wrong and 64 = 65".
First of let me tell you. If that was true, i mean if 64=65, i could prove ANYTHING.. I'd just take the equation 64=65, subtract 64, and hey 0=1. From there i can prove anything.. Seriously, you didnt really think that proved anything? When something so clearly wrong appears to be "proved", you better start looking for the mistake.
In this case, the mistake is that in the second picture the diagonal that sepparate the square in two halves isn't really a diagonal. Are two really close, but sepparat diagonals.. the 65th square is the space between there, which is being accounted as being part of the picture while in truth it isnt.
there's a small difference, but there is one, therefore there's a little space between the triangles.
EDIT: tan(1/40)*180/Pi
= 1.4326929779681126863887750021594185194062046373456033968568123465965853342534901591082876219623353463782228361905616109015654202137569764073787552805918242841514886383966724765506610676625751490714243....
you see you're wrong
And 1=1
1 does not equal 0.99.....
otherwise we would just write 0.99...
but we write 1
meaning we mean 1 <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed 1=1 and 1 != 0.99. However, 1 = 0.(9), meaning zero dot nine nine, infinite nines.
I can even give you two proofs for this.
First is:
Lets take the following theorem: Between any two different numbers A and B there is always a number C. (I use "number" here to simplify because i don't know the english words.. racional numbers? not sure). Anyway, let's take A and B as A=1 and B=0.(9). So what's the number C between then? What's the number between 1 and 0.(9)? There is none. So A and B cannot be different numbers.
The second proof is:
Let's write 0.(9) = sum from k=1 to k=+infinity of 9/10^k. This is a geometric progression. If you search the web for "geometric progression" you'll find websites that tell you how to calculate them. You'll see that equals 1.
Seriously, in an as well studied area of mathematics as this is, its not open to discussion if 64=65 or 1=0.(9). It's a fact by now.
> limit(sum(9/10^k,k=1..x),x=infinity);
1
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
as you can see this is a LIMIT the limit of your series is 1.
now for the C number: C = B + 9/10^(number of 9's + 1)
because you can never reach the infinity.
therefore, 1 != 0.<u>99</u>
> limit(sum(9/10^k,k=1..x),x=infinity);
1
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
as you can see this is a LIMIT the limit of your series is 1.
now for the C number: C = B + 9/10^(number of 9's + 1)
because you can never reach the infinity.
therefore, 1 != 0.<u>99</u> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You would be correct, if x was a big number. It's not, it's the limit of that expression, +infinity.
This shows you people do not now enough about mathematics to even be discussing this. Unlike most people think, you CAN sum an inifinite amount of numbers. But tell me FireStorm, if i'm not right when i say limit(sum(9/10^k,k=1..x),x=infinity) = 1 then how much is it? It is 1.
Also, why does everyone keep writing 1 = 0.99? That's not true... What's true is 1 = 0.(9) (meaning infinite nines).
You all argue "oh 0.(9) is very close to 1 but it's not 1 because if you sum 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 +.. you'll never reach 1." WRONG! YOU *CAN* SUM INFINITE NUMBERS.
Lets take the following theorem: Between any two different numbers A and B there is always a number C. (I use "number" here to simplify because i don't know the english words.. racional numbers? not sure). Anyway, let's take A and B as A=1 and B=0.(9). So what's the number C between then? What's the number between 1 and 0.(9)? There is none. So A and B cannot be different numbers. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is some very dubious reasoning.There is a number C between those two values, 0.(0)1. For every new 9 you add to your dicimal, I could add a zero to mine.
Lets take the following theorem: Between any two different numbers A and B there is always a number C. (I use "number" here to simplify because i don't know the english words.. racional numbers? not sure). Anyway, let's take A and B as A=1 and B=0.(9). So what's the number C between then? What's the number between 1 and 0.(9)? There is none. So A and B cannot be different numbers. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is some very dubious reasoning.There is a number C between those two values, 0.(0)1. For every new 9 you add to your dicimal, I could add a zero to mine. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
errr what?
0.(0)1 is not between 1 and 0.(9)..
For example, 0.0001 is close to zero, while 0.9999 is close to 1.
I don't get your point.
Besides.. "for every new 9 you add to your decimal i could add a zero to mine".. what? I understand what you mean, but noone's adding nines and zeros.. 0.(9) has infinite nines, therefore being = 1 and 0.(0)1 has infinite zeros, therefore being = 0 (you can proof this last statment using the above theorem)
And to those who are going to say, like i've seen before, "this is a filosophical question"please don't bother.
And to those who keep saying "you can never reach infinity", you are wrong. But ask anyone how much is lim 1/x, x->+infinity. Anyone who knows anything about this will tell you it's exactly zero, not almost zero. So the point is, altho you cannot find a number x so that 1/x = 0, lim 1/x, x->+infinity *IS* zero.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.ma.man.ac.uk/~grant/notes03.pdf
these are the lecture notes from the first semester reasoning course of my first year at university, infinite decimals are explained on page 30 (chapter 16) enjoy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You people ought to check it out, you might learn something new.
That's absurd. What's the point in making a thread about it if we're not allowed to discuss your claim or contend it? Especially in the case of a claim as preposterous as this.
As for my thoughts on it...they're just numbers. I wouldn't make a big fuss about it unless I want a major in Maths.
And that is something I <b>definitely</b> don't want in my life. <b>Evar</b>.
For example, 0.0001 is close to zero, while 0.9999 is close to 1. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I took your "between" to mean that A=B+C, sorry for te confusion.
However, there are two conflicting schools of thought here. You seem to be coming at it from mathematics, while I'm coming from a formal logic background. As it's an abstract concept, there's no reason that both cannot be correct.
<img src='http://nasa.perbang.dk/billeder/bGk5a5RQ_stor.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
PWNT <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
48.48
I CAN USE DIAGRAMS TOO
Like someone once said "with logics you can prove anything", meaning that when you give arguments, as opposed to actually doing mathematics, it is easy to slip thru wrong stuff, altho seemingly correct, that will lead you to wrong conclusions. In this case, everyone here is proveing that 1 != 0.(9) using the seemingly correct statments that you cannot a) add an infinite ammount of numbers b) ever "reach" infinity.
And boring.