LOCK I DUN LIKE ZERO

[Umbra]

The problem with the .999 thing is that it uses infinity as a number, rather than a concept.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

The problem with the .999 thing is that it uses infinity as a number' date=' rather than a concept.

[/quote']

 

I know you're probably much too lazy to click on the link I left and read it, however .999... is NOT using infinity as a number.

 

Unless you're trying to argue that 2 > Infinity > 0.5, I suggest you get off the internet and learn2math.

[ragnarok1945]

The problem with the .999 thing is that it uses infinity as a number' date=' rather than a concept.

[/quote']

 

Infinity is not a number, and it's not like you can just round it off

[Umbra]

The problem with the .999 thing is that it uses infinity as a number' date=' rather than a concept.

[/quote']

 

I know you're probably much too lazy to click on the link I left and read it, however .999... is NOT using infinity as a number.

 

Unless you're trying to argue that 2 > Infinity > 0.5, I suggest you get off the internet and learn2math.

 

Infinity as in "an infinite number of decimals" as in "the .999s go on forever"

[ragnarok1945]

which as a geometric series you can just say = 1 anyway

[Guest PikaPerson01]

The problem with the .999 thing is that it uses infinity as a number' date=' rather than a concept.

[/quote']

 

I know you're probably much too lazy to click on the link I left and read it, however .999... is NOT using infinity as a number.

 

Unless you're trying to argue that 2 > Infinity > 0.5, I suggest you get off the internet and learn2math.

 

Infinity as in "an infinite number of decimals" as in "the .999s go on forever"

 

As stated in the link I already provided:

 

ALL numbers are infinite decimal expansions.

 

For example' date=' whenever you write "1" you are using this as a convenient shorthand for "1.0000..." in the same way that "1.0000..." is a convenient shorthand for a 1, a decimal point, and infinitely many zeros.

 

Similarly, "13556" is short for "13556.0000...", "1/3" is short for "0.3333...", and "pi" is short for "3.14159265...". Shorter forms are merely useful notation because it's tiresome/impossible to write out infinitely many decimal digits whenever you want to write a number.

 

Believe it or not, this has always been true since the moment you started doing mathematics. This is also part of the fundamental bedrock of mathematics and not something which you can argue with or debate about.[/quote']

[J123]

You can't divide by 0 as your answer will always be 0

I would say 0/0 is 0 or Undefined but not 1

[ragnarok1945]

if you divide by 0 it's always undefined if the numerator is not 0

[The_Prince_of_Death]

I will have the answer for this question at 3:40 America's Central time. I will give the answer for 0 divided by 0 is Undefined, but 0 over 0 is a fraction too so I will post the ansewer to it during the above time (just making people wait).

[ragnarok1945]

if you're going to say 0/0 = 1 I'm not going to be surprised

[Guest]

For the 0/0 thing, it is literally undefined; however, if you know how the zeroes are derived, you can determine what the answer *would* be if it was *not* undefined.

 

Consider the equation (x-2)(x-3)/(x-2). Plug in x = 2, and you will find that the answer is 0/0 - undefined. x = 2 is excluded from the domain. However, as x gets closer and closer to 2, the value of (x-2)(x-3)/(x-2) gets closer and closer to -1. Hence, there is a removable discontinuity at (2, -1) - the point that would result from x = 2 if it were not excluded from the domain.

 

and what if every other input number has up to 8 sig figs? Are we supposed to say they won't matter?

 

Yes. Their precision has been obliterated by multiplication with a number whose value is less precisely known.

 

In sig figs' date=' all values except the final significant digit are [b']known[/b] essentially for certain. The final digit is called "uncertain"; you have a pretty good idea what it is, but you could be a little off. So if you have a number known to three sig figs whose value appears to be 5.82, it might actually be anywhere from 5.80 to 5.84; you can't be sure.

 

Now, suppose your number is 5.821, but it's still only known to three sig figs. Because the digit before it isn't known for sure, the 1 could be absolutely anything in reality; it could really be 5.803, or 5.839, or 5.826, and you wouldn't have the slightest clue which one to go with. The 1 in 5.821 is not uncertain but unknown.

 

Consider this: you have a fossil that you believe is about seven million years old, known to one sig fig. Let's be generous and assume that the margin of error is only plus or minus one million years. Now, suppose you want to multiply this value by 2.0007, known to five sig figs. Your result would be 14004900 plus or minus 2000000. Something should immediately become obvious - with a plus or minus two million in there, the forty-nine hundred is utterly worthless, and is no better than a shot in the dark.

[ragnarok1945]

well obviously to that end, since it is so old.

 

I'm talking about in applications where all the numbers are between 1 and 10, except only one of them has 1 sig fig where others have up to 8

[Guest]

well obviously to that end' date=' since it is so old.

 

I'm talking about in applications where all the numbers are between 1 and 10, except only one of them has 1 sig fig where others have up to 8

[/quote']

 

It's the same case there. Multiplying seven (maybe six, maybe eight) by 2.0007 acts the same as multiplying seven million (maybe six million, maybe eight million) by 2.0007; I simply chose large numbers because it looks more dramatic.

 

In the case I describe here, the result is 14.0049; however, it might actually be anywhere from 12 to 16. But if it might be anywhere from 12 to 16, then that 49 on the end is completely useless.

[ragnarok1945]

yeah, but if you say it's between 12 and 16 you're increasing the percentage of error because of the broader range.

[LiAM]

if you have nothing to begin with, and divide it by nothing, surely that means you still have nothing

 

e.g

 

i have no pie, i divide none of it, i still have no pie left

(0 pie/0pie=0)

[ragnarok1945]

actually you can divide by any number and still get 0 pie, so it shouldn't be 0 as an answer

[The_Prince_of_Death]

The answer is undefined no matter how you have it.(to finish up what I was about to say earlier)

[ragnarok1945]

you know I think one of my friends years back had a defective calc that tried this and it said the answer was 1

[Guest]

I think it's been thoroughly discussed that 0/0 is undefined. This topic is no longer about that, which you would know if you had read the posts since the thread was created.

 

Please don't post about 0/0 anymore.

 

As for sig figs, Crab is right as usual.

[ragnarok1945]

Perhaps, but I still feel there are the times were this ruins accuracy (most of the time I agree with Crab, I'm just saying there must be exceptions)

[Dark]

Well, instead of sifting through 5 pages of posts, someone PROVE to me by mathematical equation why 0/0 =/= 1.

[ragnarok1945]

It's not = 1, my friend had a defective calc that made it say that.

 

Remember, 0* by any number = 0, and 0/any number = 0

[Dark]

X/X = 1

 

X = 0

 

0/0 = 1

 

Explain to me why that does not work in this situation.

[ragnarok1945]

because there is also the rule of anything divided by 0 is undefined

[Dark]

X/X = 1

 

X = 0

 

0/0 = 1

 

...and here is your contradiction...

 

X/0 = Undefined

 

X = 0

 

0/0 = Undefined

 

How can you prove either of them right or wrong?