Jump to content

Math fail or out of the box answer.

akshayxyz

By akshayxyz
in Chit Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Jersey #10 Newbie

Jersey #10

Posted
Posted
geek or not, you don't have to start splitting atoms for simple equations. anyway here is the answer..
2 = 6/3 = 4/3 + 2/3 = 1.333... + 0.666...= 1.999...
4/3 + 2/3 does not actually equal to 1.333... + 0.666.. it's approximately equal to that. 2>1.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 ps - I'm assuming that your explaination would have explained 2 = 1.99 there is only one case where a mathematically higher number is smaller than a mathematically lower number.
akshayxyz Newbie

akshayxyz

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4/3 + 2/3 does not actually equal to 1.333... + 0.666.. it's approximately equal to that. 0.666 can be rounded to 0.67, in that case 1.33 + 0.67 = 2.0 2>1.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
Lol @ bolded part. 4/3 = 1.333... by definition. and so is 2/3 = 0.666... and the proof you have given - by rounding off - is simply wrong. Another proof is 1/9 = 0.111... Multiply both sides by 9, 1 = 0.999... which is equivalent to 2 = 1.999... w/o a doubt 2 > 1.9999999999999999999 (i.e. if there are countably finite number of 9s after the decimal)... but if its infinitely repeating, that is '9' repeats forever, then "2 = 1.999...", by convention "..." represent infinitely repeating digits, or you can put a bar over the repeating decimal, that I could not figure out how to do in this editor.
yoda Newbie

yoda

Posted
Posted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
In the last few decades, researchers of mathematics education have studied the reception of this equality among students, many of whom initially question or reject it.
Didn't know this is a researched subject. The one I listed was a simple set of equations we were either taught or came across during school days.
Jersey #10 Newbie

Jersey #10

Posted
Posted

I know it's down in the text books and an accepted concept. the 9x=8.1 was a pun which most didn't get but that's fine. If you go back to that post, you may get it. so let's say 2 = 1.999...(and considering infinity doesn't end or repeats) 2 = 1.999... is eventually incorrect but approximately true. There is always that small amount that's missing in the 1.999... to equal to 2. If you were to look at a graph, it would infinitely approach 2 but would never actually reach it. In correct terms, 1.999... = (2 - 1/n), n -> infinity n will continuously approach the limit (0), in different words (2 - 1/n) approaches 2 for arbitrarily large n. In mathematical terms, (2 - 1/n -> 2 as n -> infinity). The definition of a limit: For any |1/n - 0| arbitrarily close to 0, there exists such an n, arbitrarily close ~= as close as you like

akshayxyz Newbie

akshayxyz

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I know it's down in the text books and an accepted concept. the 9x=8.1 was a pun which most didn't get but that's fine. If you go back to that post, you may get it. so let's say 2 = 1.999...(and considering infinity doesn't end or repeats) 2 = 1.999... is eventually incorrect but approximately true. There is always that small amount that's missing in the 1.999... to equal to 2. If you were to look at a graph, it would infinitely approach 2 but would never actually reach it. In correct terms, 1.999... = (2 - 1/n), n -> infinity n will continuously approach the limit (0), in different words (2 - 1/n) approaches 2 for arbitrarily large n. In mathematical terms, (2 - 1/n -> 2 as n -> infinity). The definition of a limit: For any |1/n - 0| arbitrarily close to 0, there exists such an n, arbitrarily close ~= as close as you like
And yet you want to contend it with your own interpretation? I do not have anything further to say. (Say thanks, that I did not resort to smilies and other type of language, that has become norm here).. This concept is as clearly defined as 2+2 = 4. So if you still want to argue on this, you can imagine how it will be perceived like.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...