mishra Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Some more funny maths Theorem: All numbers are equal. Proof: Choose arbitrary a and b, and let t = a + b. Then a + b = t (a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b) a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4 (a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2 a - t/2 = b - t/2 a = b So all numbers are the same, and math is pointless.
Jersey #10 Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 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. You know what I am saying makes sense but you are being ignorant. I look at things differently. Rules and laws are there but then they are only there to make life easier not necessarily to represent utmost truth (which probably doesn't even exist). From what I am understanding, 2 =1.999... is an accepted "concept" not a fact. As an engineer, I will never be dealing with such small decimals or infinity for that matter. It really doesn't matter to me. From the mathematics stand point, 2 = 1.999... can be argued. What do you say if I were to tell you that a "circle = polygon with infinitely many sides".
Jersey #10 Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 and I didn't come up with my own interpretation. I used proper limits. plus, what's wrong in a discussion? I understand that there are some trolls backing you up with smilies and all (the norm as you called it). Why so serious?
akshayxyz Posted December 21, 2011 Author Posted December 21, 2011 You know what I am saying makes sense but you are being ignorant. I look at things differently. Sorry my friend, you are being ignorant here. Rules and laws are there but then they are only there to make life easier not necessarily to represent utmost truth (which probably doesn't even exist). From what I am understanding, 2 =1.999... is an accepted "concept" not a fact. WTF is that? As an engineer, I will never be dealing with such small decimals or infinity for that matter. It really doesn't matter to me. From the mathematics stand point, 2 = 1.999... can be argued. What do you say if I were to tell you that a "circle = polygon with infinitely many sides". That is where you are being IGNORANT - there is nothing to argue...your original argument failed from mathematical standpoint, whereas same maths proves w/o a doubt, using multiple methods that "1=0.999..." Also, I agree that most likely you wont come across such stuff in real life - but that was never a point here. (btw you never know what you might come across in your engineering life) So - your philosophical chit-chat doesn't matter a bit here. "1 = 0.999..." is a known fact/concept/truth in the mathematical world known to us so far - unless you can disprove it using cold maths equations and not some ramblings in english.
akshayxyz Posted December 21, 2011 Author Posted December 21, 2011 let me recap - I asked whether 2 >1.999... ( endlessly repeating 9s). You are saying - it depends (by bringing in limits and stuff). I am saying ( in terms of maths) - no it does not depends - there is one and only value of "1.999...", and which is proven, mathematically to be = 2. In fact, limits is a one of the tools to prove this equality, and it ends up proving it. Now you can stay happy with your "different view", but it wont change the fact.
akshayxyz Posted December 21, 2011 Author Posted December 21, 2011 In other words, number 2 (and so can others) can be represented in more than one ways.. all of the following are equal. 2.0 2 2.000 1.(9) 1.(99) 1.(999) ... 4/2 ln (e^2) You will like the last one most (for "different way of looking at it"), as 'e' itself is irrational (not even repeating digits). where - brackets represent the repeating digits. - ln = natural log. also, in maths there is clear distinction between - 0 and epsilon (infinitesimal)
akshayxyz Posted December 21, 2011 Author Posted December 21, 2011 Some more funny maths Theorem: All numbers are equal. Proof: Choose arbitrary a and b, and let t = a + b. Then a + b = t (a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b) a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4 (a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2 a - t/2 = b - t/2 a = b So all numbers are the same, and math is pointless. The problem is at this step. Since a+b = t so, one of them "a-t/2" or "b-t/2" has to be negative, both's squares are same, but you cant take square root just like that square root can be + or - . e.g. 1^2 = (-1)^2 it does not mean 1 = -1.
akshayxyz Posted December 21, 2011 Author Posted December 21, 2011 omg boyz relax! tu delhi meet kee tyaari kar... bahut khatir-daari honey waali hai.. aur BP bhi aayega, meiney suna.
Aaku Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 tu delhi meet kee tyaari kar... bahut khatir-daari honey waali hai.. aur BP bhi aayega' date=' meiney suna.[/quote'] tyaari poori hai meri, fikar na kari :icflove:
Jersey #10 Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Sorry my friend, you are being ignorant here. WTF is that? That is where you are being IGNORANT - there is nothing to argue...your original argument failed from mathematical standpoint, whereas same maths proves w/o a doubt, using multiple methods that "1=0.999..." Also, I agree that most likely you wont come across such stuff in real life - but that was never a point here. (btw you never know what you might come across in your engineering life) So - your philosophical chit-chat doesn't matter a bit here. "1 = 0.999..." is a known fact/concept/truth in the mathematical world known to us so far - unless you can disprove it using cold maths equations and not some ramblings in english. let me recap - I asked whether 2 >1.999... ( endlessly repeating 9s). You are saying - it depends (by bringing in limits and stuff). I am saying ( in terms of maths) - no it does not depends - there is one and only value of "1.999...", and which is proven, mathematically to be = 2. In fact, limits is a one of the tools to prove this equality, and it ends up proving it. Now you can stay happy with your "different view", but it wont change the fact. In other words, number 2 (and so can others) can be represented in more than one ways.. all of the following are equal. 2.0 2 2.000 1.(9) 1.(99) 1.(999) ... 4/2 ln (e^2) You will like the last one most (for "different way of looking at it"), as 'e' itself is irrational (not even repeating digits). where - brackets represent the repeating digits. - ln = natural log. also, in maths there is clear distinction between - 0 and epsilon (infinitesimal) I don't see any proof here, just a bunch of words to define the word "ignorant". memorized the rule book? without actually working it out from scratch? :two_thumbs_up: as ignorant as it gets :desiwoman: I mathematically showed why this "concept" can be argued. True, the microscopic numbers we are talking about do not have a lot of value in real life. I am interested in tiny numbers b/c I 've been working on a micro/nano fabrication project (actually doing it in a clean room) for past year and most numbers I deal with are in the order of negative 6 to 21 on the other hand, you didn't answer my question about circles.
akshayxyz Posted December 21, 2011 Author Posted December 21, 2011 I don't see any proof here, just a bunch of words to define the word "ignorant". memorized the rule book? without actually working it out from scratch? :two_thumbs_up: as ignorant as it gets :desiwoman: I mathematically showed why this "concept" can be argued. can't believe you are still arguing about it. As for showing the proof, go back and check the posts following the question, there are more than one 'mathematical' proofs on the question. And what is the need to go personal? whether I memorized, or learnt one second before - it does not matter. It is not about whose dick is bigger (and since when), which is what you are trying to turn it into. In simple words - your arguments about "2=1.99... only conditionally".. is nonsense in terms of mathematics. True, the microscopic numbers we are talking about do not have a lot of value in real life. I am interested in tiny numbers b/c I 've been working on a micro/nano fabrication project (actually doing it in a clean room) for past year and most numbers I deal with are in the order of negative 6 to 21 on the other hand, you didn't answer my question about circles. nonsense, and irrelevant to the question.
Jersey #10 Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 can't believe you are still arguing about it. As for showing the proof, go back and check the posts following the question, there are more than one 'mathematical' proofs on the question. And what is the need to go personal? whether I memorized, or learnt one second before - it does not matter. It is not about whose dick is bigger (and since when), which is what you are trying to turn it into. In simple words - your arguments about "2=1.99... only conditionally".. is nonsense in terms of mathematics. nonsense, and irrelevant to the question. ooh...look who's been told no! :omg: Are you gonna tell your mommy now? :haha: And the Circle question is very much relevant to the original argument.
punjabi_khota Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 ^Do you know how to find the circumference of a circle ? If you really do, you wouldn't be arguing about the limit of regular polygon -> circle as number of sides go to infinity either. And stop embarrassing yourself man, that 0.999 =1 has been done to death. If you don't believe us, go ask a math prof at your university.
akshayxyz Posted December 21, 2011 Author Posted December 21, 2011 ooh...look who's been told no! :omg: Are you gonna tell your mommy now? :haha: And the Circle question is very much relevant to the original argument. माफ़ करो महा प्रभु, जब भी कभी आप नए भ्रमांड की रचना करें, कृपया हमें अडवांस में ही मोक्ष दे दें.
Recommended Posts