1 = ?

[LiAM]

[align=center]=D

 

Inspired by Pie.

 

In mathematics.

Take a whole cirlce, it's counted as being a whole, so it's 1.

 

Now divide it by 3, so you get 3 pieces of the circle, 33.33333...

 

Okay, so now you got your 3 parts, add them back up

 

=D

 

Do you get a whole circle again? NO!? You get 99.9999999...

 

O_o WTF happened to logic.

 

 

It works if you divide the pie into 2 pieces >=[

 

Discuss the stupidity of maths and laws of logic bish w/e.[/align]

[Infinitus]

The problem is, 100 isn't divisable by 3. 1 whole in percentage is the equivalent of 100%. (Derp), but 100 is not divisable by 3, so they have to use the nearest possible number, and round up. Which just so happens to be 99.9 repeating.

 

And what is 1 third of 99.9 repeating? 33.3 repeating.

[cmc1234]

all of math is stupid

[sbdnate]

Sometimes I nearly drive myself insane trying to find a way to remedy that little circumstance...

[Guest JoshIcy]

It makes sense. It's an equal 1/3 but there's an invisble +.0~1 in there.

I'm sure Chaos Pudding or Crabs can define it better. Though Crabs would be the one, since he's studying to be a mathematician.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

It makes sense. It's an equal 1/3 but there's an invisble +.0~1 in there.

 

No no no! There is no .0~1 there.

 

That may have been a bit harsh, but I'm just a little jaded because we have these stupid trolling topics like every single day on another board.

 

On-topic: The number 1 is equal to .999... (assuming the "..." symbolizes the 9s repeat forever)

 

Pro-Tip: There are infinitely many ways to express any integer you can imagine.

[Womi]

3 x 1/3 = 1

 

You don't even need decimals.

[e.x.l.t.]

The problem is' date=' 100 isn't divisable by 3.

[/quote']

[CrabHelmet]

After weeks of wallowing in my pit of depression, I returned to the bowels - no, not bowels - I returned to the appendix of the internet to find that my people-are-wrong-about-simple-math senses were tingling.

 

Basically, the problem here is that 0.999... is not just "really really close to 1"; it is exactly equal to 1, in the same way that .5 is exactly equal to .50 and 1/2.

 

Here is an explanation that should work for those who know basic high school algebra: Observe that 0.999... represents a geometric series, a summation equal to 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + ... and so on forever. This geometric series has first term t = 9/10 and common ratio r = 1/10, which means that, by the standard formula t/(1-r) for the convergent sum of a geometric series - and we want the convergent sum, since we are literally summing every term in this (countably) infinite sequence - produces a value of 1.

 

Unfortunately, YCM is not known for its ability to understand high school math just about anything, so I don't expect my waffling about the convergent sum of a geometric series to be met with anything more than "me brain hurt", so I will need to abandon this path of proof and move not toward the more rigorous (Cauchy sequences) but toward the less rigorous, which, though less mathematically sound, will suffice to explain why this is true. To do this, I will recall a proof from my seventh-grade math textbook.

 

Let's start with 0.999... and call it x.

 

x = 0.999...

 

Now, let's multiply both sides by 10.

 

10x = 10*0.999...

 

Now, we all know how multiplying by 10 works in the decimal system, right?

 

10x = 9.999...

 

Good. Next, let's subtract x (which is 0.999...) from both sides.

 

10x-x = 9.999... - 0.999...

 

The result of the subtraction should be obvious.

 

9x = 9

 

And dividing both sides of the equation by 9, we have:

 

x = 1

 

Thus, 0.999... = 1.

 

The reason this works is that, as Pika said, there most emphatically does not exist a .0~1 difference between 0.999... and 1. To try to call for a 1 after an endless string of zeroes is meaningless - there is no omega-plus-one decimal place because there are only omega decimal places after the decimal point because the set of decimal places after the decimal point has the same Von Neumann order type as the set of positive integers by the very definition of real numbers and here I go talking about set theory when I have previously concluded that my intended audience doesn't even understand high school algebra.

[Womi]

After weeks of wallowing in my pit of depression' date=' I returned to the bowels - no, not bowels - I returned to the [i']appendix[/i] of the internet to find that my people-are-wrong-about-simple-math senses were tingling.

 

Feelings? O_o

 

But, indeed, both of your explanations should 've proven everything.

 

 

But, for sheer simplicity, why not keeping it at 1/3?

[CrabHelmet]

After weeks of wallowing in my pit of depression' date=' I returned to the bowels - no, not bowels - I returned to the [i']appendix[/i] of the internet to find that my people-are-wrong-about-simple-math senses were tingling.

 

Feelings? O_o

 

I have been many things, but one thing I have never been is Emotionless CrabBot What Is This Thing You Call Feelings. In fact, I think I have made it clear that the whole reason I am on this site ever is that I find it fun to laugh at YCMers - a purely emotional motivation.

 

But' date=' for sheer simplicity, why not keeping it at 1/3?

[/quote']

 

Maybe we don't want 1/3. Maybe we want 3/3, or 2/3, or 7/3, or some other number, and 1/3 just isn't efficient enough to cut it in today's competitive market. We need to give the consumers what they want, and they want quality. They don't want mediocrity. And that is why we must not settle for 1/3 - it's because it is what the people want. And this is the land of the people of the land. It's not the land of the commie mutant traitors who want to spread the 1 equally between the 3.

[Smear]

Wait..

Does that mean 3/3 is actually 2.9999999999.../3 ?

 

o_O

[CrabHelmet]

Wait..

Does that mean 3/3 is actually 2.9999999999.../3 ?

 

o_O

 

Yes, of course it does.

[Womi]

After weeks of wallowing in my pit of depression' date=' I returned to the bowels - no, not bowels - I returned to the [i']appendix[/i] of the internet to find that my people-are-wrong-about-simple-math senses were tingling.

 

Feelings? O_o

 

I have been many things, but one thing I have never been is Emotionless CrabBot What Is This Thing You Call Feelings. In fact, I think I have made it clear that the whole reason I am on this site ever is that I find it fun to laugh at YCMers - a purely emotional motivation.

 

But' date=' for sheer simplicity, why not keeping it at 1/3?

[/quote']

 

Maybe we don't want 1/3. Maybe we want 3/3, or 2/3, or 7/3, or some other number, and 1/3 just isn't efficient enough to cut it in today's competitive market. We need to give the consumers what they want, and they want quality. They don't want mediocrity. And that is why we must not settle for 1/3 - it's because it is what the people want. And this is the land of the people of the land. It's not the land of the commie mutant traitors who want to spread the 1 equally between the 3.

 

Alrightey. xP

 

@ above:

(3 x 0.999999...)/3

[Smear]

Wait..

Does that mean 3/3 is actually 2.9999999999.../3 ?

 

o_O

 

Yes' date=' of course it does.

[/quote']

 

Was that in a, 'Yea.. Of course.. lolno' sorta way?

Or in a, 'Yea, actually it is.' sorta way?

._.

[CrabHelmet]

Wait..

Does that mean 3/3 is actually 2.9999999999.../3 ?

 

o_O

 

Yes' date=' of course it does.

[/quote']

 

Was that in a, 'Yea.. Of course.. lolno' sorta way?

Or in a, 'Yea, actually it is.' sorta way?

._.

 

It means "Yes" as in "Yes, 2.999... = 3 in the same way that 0.999... = 1." In real numbers, if all decimal places after a specific place - call it n - are 9 but place n is not 9, then that number is the same if you change all the 9's to 0's and increase the value of the n digit by 1.

[Mr.WHAM]

My comment on this is when you take Calculus 2+2 will never equal 4 again. Hell 1 won't even be 1 like he's just so blatantly shown us.

[Womi]

Wait..

Does that mean 3/3 is actually 2.9999999999.../3 ?

 

o_O

 

Yes' date=' of course it does.

[/quote']

 

Was that in a, 'Yea.. Of course.. lolno' sorta way?

Or in a, 'Yea, actually it is.' sorta way?

._.

You dun trust our ol' reliable Lobster Hat? xP

 

If 0.9999...=1, then of course (3 x 0.9999...)/3=3/3

[CrabHelmet]

My comment on this is when you take Calculus 2+2 will never equal 4 again. Hell 1 won't even be 1 like he's just so blatantly shown us.

 

Forget Calculus. 0.999... = 1 doesn't require anything of the sort; all it takes is algebra, or even pre-algebra if all you require is that less-rigorous-but-intuitively-understandable proof I presented.

 

Calculus really doesn't mess up 2+2=4 at all; pretty much all it does in terms of weirdness is let you divide by zero. Now, when you start studying number theory or set theory, things start to get very strange...

[Womi]

Crab, have you once been to a point in studying maths where you didn't understand something? Honest answer, please.

[CrabHelmet]

Crab' date=' have you once been to a point in studying maths where you didn't understand something? Honest answer, please.

[/quote']

 

Of course I have. In fact, I'm reading Proofs From The Book right now and tend to get horribly lost about halfway through each chapter. Also, I suck at ugly calculations, so I was never much good at integration. At least with differentiation I can always just bash it out with the chain rule and such, but integration requires tricky maneuvering with u-substitution.

[Smear]

Wait..

Does that mean 3/3 is actually 2.9999999999.../3 ?

 

o_O

 

Yes' date=' of course it does.

[/quote']

 

Was that in a, 'Yea.. Of course.. lolno' sorta way?

Or in a, 'Yea, actually it is.' sorta way?

._.

 

It means "Yes" as in "Yes, 2.999... = 3 in the same way that 0.999... = 1." In real numbers, if all decimal places after a specific place - call it n - are 9 but place n is not 9, then that number is the same if you change all the 9's to 0's and increase the value of the n digit by 1.

 

But that means, if you keep adding 0.999999999... It will eventually turn into .5 less or even 1 less.

[CrabHelmet]

Wait..

Does that mean 3/3 is actually 2.9999999999.../3 ?

 

o_O

 

Yes' date=' of course it does.

[/quote']

 

Was that in a, 'Yea.. Of course.. lolno' sorta way?

Or in a, 'Yea, actually it is.' sorta way?

._.

 

It means "Yes" as in "Yes, 2.999... = 3 in the same way that 0.999... = 1." In real numbers, if all decimal places after a specific place - call it n - are 9 but place n is not 9, then that number is the same if you change all the 9's to 0's and increase the value of the n digit by 1.

 

But that means, if you keep adding 0.999999999... It will eventually turn into .5 less or even 1 less.

 

I can't quite tell what you're saying here - we can keep adding a positive number (1) to make something become less? - but I'm guessing it's based on the fallacy that 1 - 0.999... produces an infinite string of zeroes but that that string of zeroes still has a 1 on the end infinitely far out. It doesn't. It's just zero, and no matter how many of those zeroes you add together, the sum is still zero because all the addends are zero and zero plus zero is zero by the definition of zero.

[Smear]

Like, 0.999999999 + 0.9999999999 = 1.99999999999999998

 

Keep goin' and that 8'll go down, right?

 

Or am I just confusing myself now?

[CrabHelmet]

Like' date=' 0.999999999 + 0.9999999999 = 1.99999999999999998

 

Keep goin' and that 8'll go down, right?

 

Or am I just confusing myself now?

[/quote']

 

The problem is that that only works when the string of 9's is finite. Here, the string of 9's is infinite.

 

When you add together 0.9 + 0.9, you get 1.8. When you add 0.99 + 0.99, you get 1.98. When you add 0.99999 + 0.99999, you get 1.99998. The reason this works is that these finite strings of 9 are not equal to 1, and the last 9 becomes 8. With 0.999..., however, we have an infinite string of 9's that is exactly equal to 1; there is no difference, and the last 9 cannot become 8 because there is no last 9. As I suspected, you seem to be using the 0.0~1 fallacy again here.