.9999~ = 1. Prove me wrong

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote name='JSweeney']
Yes, but he didn't tell me to prove TO HIM that I existed. He only told me to prove that I existed, and wasn't a figment of his immagination. Therefore, I think Descartes statement's use is quite proper in this instance. Had he asked for me to prove TO HIM that I existed, it wouldn't be.[/quote]

Prove to ANYONE that you exist, besides yourself, of course. It can't be done. It can be done in your mind - and nothing else. One man's reality may not be another's. But which reality is right?

Are the "crazy" people insane or is it the non"crazy" people who are insane.

Of course, none of this really matters much. What's in my mind is all that matters - to me anyway - and that's all I really know.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']In other words, it is impossible to prove or disprove anything, expect your existence or at least some type of that.

Prove that. I can prove or disprove phenomena through proper application of the scientific method.
I can prove things on the basis of evidence and not belief.[/quote]


I mix up "except" and "expect" up a lot. I'm an idiot.
 
i hated these topics on gamefaqs, but since there is less people here i will put in my two sence

first

9/9=1
8/9=sum 8 /10^n from n=1 to n= infinity. there is no way to express 8/9 in decimal form.
and so on down to 1/9

second

0.9999... is an asymptote to one, which means it will become infinitally close but never approach 1. ie the summation mentionated earlity is bounded by 1 but that summation is contained in a open set from zero to 1, and has no reall number which can make zero to x an closed set for x in real #'s


third

x=.999~
10x=10(.999~)=9.999~
10x-1x=9.999~-(.999~)
9x=9
x=1

this is not correct because x is a summation(not a decimal). the alebra for summations is different. if you think about it, when you multiply by 10, you add a zero to the last turm and move the decimal place over by one. but how can you add a zero to an infinite series of 9's it would imply that there is an end to the 9's which we know there isnt.

i know people will argue with me, but .999... is only considered one for ease of use, actually the limit of the series that makes up .999.. is one.

anyone else going for their phd in math here?
 
Prove to ANYONE that you exist, besides yourself, of course. It can't be done. It can be done in your mind - and nothing else. One man's reality may not be another's. But which reality is right?

Does it really matter? It's a fairly worthless mental exercise, at it provides no useful knowledge for application. Knowledge for it's own sake is fairly worthless.

Are the "crazy" people insane or is it the non"crazy" people who are insane.
That depends on the society, since "normal" and "crazy" are dictated by societal norms.

Of course, none of this really matters much. What's in my mind is all that matters - to me anyway - and that's all I really know.
Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but that suggests a distinct lack of empathy and consideration for others.
 
Hello everyone.

I'm new to the boards in terms of posting. I lurk here and there, but never posted. This topic, however, caught my eye, so I thought I'd try my hand at a few of the problems here.

I will say that I have not read every reply to the fullest, so maybe I'm repeating people.

1. The limit of .99999999~ is, indeed, 1. But the limit does not equal the value. That's one of the first rules in calculus. The limit of a function and the value of a function are not the same thing and can be different. This can be seen in any equation where there is a hole. It's been a while since I've done calc, but you can have a perfectly valid function that "breaks down" somewhere and isn't continuous, thus never reaching a point. Take the equation 1/(x-2). At the point where x=2, the limit of the function is infinite. Coming from the left, it's negative inifinity, and from the right, positive. It has a limit, BUT it doesn't have a value. A rule of math is that you can't divide by zero. Hence the equation has a limit, but not a value. Therefore you can't assert that the limit of a function is it's value as well.

2. Additionally, you can't ever subtract infinity from infinity. That's not mathetically possible. You can't just say x = some infinite number and that x - x = 0. That's not logical at all. Just because we figuratively show them as representing the same thing by labelling them the same doesn't mean they necessarily are. The only way you could ever subtract infinity from infinity would be if both functions start from the exact same place and move at the exact same rate. You can't assume x = two different instances of infinity that are the same.

3. Things like 1/3 = .333 fall into the same realm as this, but the fact is that 1/3 is an irrational number - it repeats endlessly. Just like Pi. Therefore you can't just assume things like .333 * 3 = (1/3) * 3 = 1. We place a limit on them for a reason - because our foolish minds wouldn't be able to handle it. This is why we have a whole set of numbers called irrational numbers - they don't terminate.

4. As for the philosophical discussions, the fact of the matter is that, well, you can't be true of anything. There could always be what is referred to as an "evil demon" that subsequently controls the world and everything in it. Essentially we'd all be in the Matrix and never know it. Thus if everything was a false reality, we would never have true knowledge, and thus could never prove anything. Because we cannot eliminate this possibility, we can never truly be sure of anything. This is why philosophy is a load of bullshit and no one should waste their time with it. :) Argue about it all you want, and study philosophy all you want. All it ends up being is a waste of time because no one can definitively prove one thing and not another, which is why so many philosophers die alone, cold, and insane.

I am rusty on these subjects though. :)

Good day all.
 
4. As for the philosophical discussions, the fact of the matter is that, well, you can't be true of anything. There could always be what is referred to as an "evil demon" that subsequently controls the world and everything in it. Essentially we'd all be in the Matrix and never know it. Thus if everything was a false reality, we would never have true knowledge, and thus could never prove anything. Because we cannot eliminate this possibility, we can never truly be sure of anything. This is why philosophy is a load of bullshit and no one should waste their time with it. Argue about it all you want, and study philosophy all you want. All it ends up being is a waste of time because no one can definitively prove one thing and not another, which is why so many philosophers die alone, cold, and insane.
Click to expand...

Yeah. We all know that the math geeks are the ones who get all the chicks, right?!? Not those silly philosophy nerds!!! \:D/

Actually, I find that one of the most frustrating similarities between math and philosophy is that they both have the nasty habit of presenting more questions than answers. They are also both very important, and they also both make my brain ache.

Ah, here's to friendly debate at CAG!!! :D
 
[quote name='Strell']
1. The limit of .99999999~ is, indeed, 1. But the limit does not equal the value. That's one of the first rules in calculus. The limit of a function and the value of a function are not the same thing and can be different. This can be seen in any equation where there is a hole.
[/quote]

Err, .999... is not a function. It is a number. And it is equal to 1. Your recollection isn't totally off track, though. The number 0.999... is the limit of the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999, ....
That sequence never actually achieves its limit.

3. Things like 1/3 = .333 fall into the same realm as this, but the fact is that 1/3 is an irrational number - it repeats endlessly. Just like Pi. Therefore you can't just assume things like .333 * 3 = (1/3) * 3 = 1. We place a limit on them for a reason - because our foolish minds wouldn't be able to handle it. This is why we have a whole set of numbers called irrational numbers - they don't terminate.
Click to expand...

Actually, irrational numbers are those that cannot be represented as the ratio of two integers. So, for example, 1/3 is actually rational. Pi, as you say, is irrational. Irrational numbers have no repeating pattern to their decimal expansions.

As far as the more philosophical aspects of the discussion, GameDude and the others do have a point. Mathematics cannot prove absolutes. Mathematics needs assumptions (axioms, we call 'em) to build upon. So every mathematical statement is really an implication, like, "If we assume X, it follows that Y must hold." So if I am challenged to prove my existence, I would first need to know, "What am I allowed to assume?"
 
[quote name='GameDude']The world is flat. It's been mathamatically proven!

Well, that was the thought so many years ago. Just because something is mathmatically proven or thought so by the general scientific community, doesn't make it legit.

There are pink elephants with feathers.

Care to prove me wrong?[/quote]

Ever do any work with Aristotlian Logic? In order to prove an argument, you have a number of premises, and those premises lead to a conclusion. When you want to attack someone's argument, you either point out that one of their premises is in fact wrong, or that the conclusion does not logically follow the premises.

From the base rules of mathematics, the conclusion stated in the original post is correct (errors in his steps not withstanding). Based on the laws of mathematics (the premises in this argument), it does logically follow. What you describe above are consequences on the real world, while this argument only discusses the fundamental principles of mathematics effects on it's own number system. What you instead need to do is research the principles of mathematics, and find which one of them you claim is incorrect. But since we're not concluding anything about the real world by saying that 1 = .9999~, it won't mean anything, because finding a flaw in a premise of Mathematics necessarily makes the number system flawed as well.

Sidenote: The notion that our ancestor's believed that the world is flat is likely incorrect, or at least vastly overestimated. It's popularized to make it seem that we have come a very far way in our understanding of the world, but it's doubted how much the educational elite actually believed it.

Also, to the person who posed the question of whether there are more real numbers or odd real numbers, it has been proven that some infities are larger than others, which is why infinity divided by infinity is inconclusive (you need more information). There are more real numbers than odd real numbers, though the answer to both is infinity.
 
[quote name='SS4Brolly']Let X = .99999~

X = .9999~
10X = 9.999~
-1X = -1X (.999~)
9X = 9
X = 1

See?[/quote]
I see it, but it's wrong.

.99~ does equal 1, but what you did does not prove that and actually uses incorrect math. There are several ways to prove it using real math, so I don't know why you've wasted your time using that. Common sense should have told you that it's wrong, but even if you have none, you should have caught it if you knew that infinity does not equal infinity minus 1.

Let me show you a few examples:

x = .99
10x = 9.9
10x - x = 9.9 - .99
9x = 8.91
x = .99

x = .999
10x = 9.99
10x - x = 9.99 - .999
9x = 8.991
x = .999

x = .99999
10x = 9.9999
10x - x = 9.9999 - .99999
9x = 8.99991
x = .99999

x = .99999999999999999999
10x = 9.9999999999999999999
10x - x = 9.9999999999999999999 - .99999999999999999999
9x = 8.99999999999999999991
x = .99999999999999999999

10x will always have 1 fewer decimal points than x. That will never change, even if you go somehow go all the way to infinity.

x = .
10x - x = 9.
9x = 8.

The reason this is true is because infinity does not equal infinity minus 1. If you don't believe me, you can go look it up yourself. The idea that they aren't equal is very basic and should have been taught to you in highschool. Because the decimal value of x does not equal the decimal value of 10x, your math is incorrect. x will always have one more decimal place (with a 9 in it) than 10x does.

You really shouldn't be trying to show people things that you don't understand. Next time you try to do this, use real math.

I understand that .99~ equals 1, that 9.99~ equals 10, and that 8.999~9991 equals 9. The problem is that what you've tried to use to prove it is wrong and doesn't prove anything excpet that x equals x.

Actually, that's all it would prove if you did it right. Since you did it wrong, it doesn't prove anything.
 
[quote name='ReussDr'][quote name='GameDude']The world is flat. It's been mathamatically proven!

Well, that was the thought so many years ago. Just because something is mathmatically proven or thought so by the general scientific community, doesn't make it legit.

There are pink elephants with feathers.

Care to prove me wrong?[/quote]

Ever do any work with Aristotlian Logic? In order to prove an argument, you have a number of premises, and those premises lead to a conclusion. When you want to attack someone's argument, you either point out that one of their premises is in fact wrong, or that the conclusion does not logically follow the premises.

From the base rules of mathematics, the conclusion stated in the original post is correct (errors in his steps not withstanding). Based on the laws of mathematics (the premises in this argument), it does logically follow. What you describe above are consequences on the real world, while this argument only discusses the fundamental principles of mathematics effects on it's own number system. What you instead need to do is research the principles of mathematics, and find which one of them you claim is incorrect. But since we're not concluding anything about the real world by saying that 1 = .9999~, it won't mean anything, because finding a flaw in a premise of Mathematics necessarily makes the number system flawed as well.

Sidenote: The notion that our ancestor's believed that the world is flat is likely incorrect, or at least vastly overestimated. It's popularized to make it seem that we have come a very far way in our understanding of the world, but it's doubted how much the educational elite actually believed it.

Also, to the person who posed the question of whether there are more real numbers or odd real numbers, it has been proven that some infities are larger than others, which is why infinity divided by infinity is inconclusive (you need more information). There are more real numbers than odd real numbers, though the answer to both is infinity.[/quote]

First off, I don't believe I ever said he was wrong. I simply said that he might not be right. I said it's impossilbe to prove or disprove anything - all we know and all we are is in our head - a biased contraption for sure...or is it?
 
It's the view of a philosopher. I much perfer the view of the scientist.

If you hold to the idea that proving or disproving is impossible, you must divorce yourself mathematics, logic, and science itself.
All of these fields are primarily based upon the ability to formulate a hypothesis or thesis, and through use of examination, experimentation, and prediction prove thier validity.

I said it's impossilbe to prove or disprove anything - all we know and all we are is in our head


Not exactly. If that were true, one should be able to distort the natural order of the universe to the specifications that exist in one's own mind...yet gravity and other natural laws still hold sway.

If all you know and all you are is your mind, then why can you not overcome hunger? If everything was in your mind, you should be able to think "I'm not hungry" and your body would be satisfied. But that doesn't work.. If you do that, you will begin to starve, and your body will begin to eat itself.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']It's the view of a philosopher. I much perfer the view of the scientist.

If you hold to the idea that proving or disproving is impossible, you must divorce yourself mathematics, logic, and science itself.
All of these fields are primarily based upon the ability to formulate a hypothesis or thesis, and through use of examination, experimentation, and prediction prove thier validity.

I said it's impossilbe to prove or disprove anything - all we know and all we are is in our head


Not exactly. If that were true, one should be able to distort the natural order of the universe to the specifications that exist in one's own mind...yet gravity and other natural laws still hold sway.

If all you know and all you are is your mind, then why can you not overcome hunger? If everything was in your mind, you should be able to think "I'm not hungry" and your body would be satisfied. But that doesn't work.. If you do that, you will begin to starve, and your body will begin to eat itself.[/quote]

How do I know if I'm really eating anything? How do I know if I'm not floating? I can't prove or disprove it. Everything I interpret is through my mind. You can't prove that you're not an insane person...this whole "reality" may just be in your head. I'm not saying this is true, because if I thought it were true, I'd be insane. :wink:
 
Ok, I see what you're trying to prove, Gamedude. You're trying to give us the text form of a red pill. There is no spoon! We're in the Matrix!

What you're trying to say nothing is proveable i.e. all in your head, so what's the point of trying to prove a point? There is none according to your logic.

You are right, though, you are insane. No I'm not going to back that up with anything, I'm just saying that as an opinion. =P
 
guys, guys, don't fight - can't we just agree to disagree?

no, but really, who brought philosophy into this? the epic battle between JSweeney and GameDude is a battle between ideologies, and it's also really unnecessary. I agree with both of you (really) but you both seem to be on different levels of reasoning. GameDude is all about subjectivity and whatever- this is rooted in psychology and philosophy. JSweeney, I think you should accept the fact that nothing is absolute. BUT- after you accept that, there's the whole idea of relativity (not Einstein's, just literal). TO YOU (and to those who agree, myself included), based on the axioms that society is based on, the current state of mathematics IS infallible, because it is always correct in its field of expertise. It WORKS in our society, even if it is false in another, and therefore its ideas are true because they have been proven in our plane of existance. Regardless of how real or important our existance is, there are a set of truths it accepts. Anyone hear of anthropic principle? It's kind of related. 0.999.... is equal to 1, because it uses a certain set of numbers and ideas that have been proven in its plane of existance. In another plane of exisance, what importance do foreign numbers or ideas have anyway? And vice-versa, what importance do numbers and ideas from another plane of existance have in ours?
 
[quote name='"GameDude"'][quote name='JSweeney']It's the view of a philosopher. I much perfer the view of the scientist.

If you hold to the idea that proving or disproving is impossible, you must divorce yourself mathematics, logic, and science itself.
All of these fields are primarily based upon the ability to formulate a hypothesis or thesis, and through use of examination, experimentation, and prediction prove thier validity.

I said it's impossilbe to prove or disprove anything - all we know and all we are is in our head


Not exactly. If that were true, one should be able to distort the natural order of the universe to the specifications that exist in one's own mind...yet gravity and other natural laws still hold sway.

If all you know and all you are is your mind, then why can you not overcome hunger? If everything was in your mind, you should be able to think "I'm not hungry" and your body would be satisfied. But that doesn't work.. If you do that, you will begin to starve, and your body will begin to eat itself.[/quote]

How do I know if I'm really eating anything?

The tastebuds in your tounge transmit information through your body which is then translated by your brain, and relays either a positive or negative sensation, making it pleasurable or unpleasurable.

Beyond that, you will no if you are eating or not eating by body function.
The mind, as much as people want to talk it up is still but part of a system, and is worthless without it's related functions. The mind cannot exist without the body, unless you perscribe to the view that the mind is the soul.


How do I know if I'm not floating?
The body has a sense of orination. If you were floating, the body would transmit to the mind that sense of disorintation... even if you didn't know what that was. The mind would notice something was wrong due to the mind/body link.


I can't prove or disprove it. Everything I interpret is through my mind.
Iterpret, yes, but not sense. There are even schools of thought that believe that there are parts of the subconcious mind that deal with this sensory information, therefor the mind itself knows reality, even if the concious ego does not.



You can't prove that you're not an insane person...
Yes you can. You may not be able to prove it to others, but you can prove it to yourself. Insanity isn't even a good example, because the boundaries sanity are determined by societal norms. Even if your reality is just in your mind, your sanity would be detrimined by the societal structure in your imagined realm. Sanity is not an absolute.




this whole "reality" may just be in your head. I'm not saying this is true, because if I thought it were true, I'd be insane.

Even if it were, there would still be rules and laws by which knowledge could be dervived and proven from. If it's actually real or not doesn't matter. Things could still be proven to a certainy and concensus from your frame of reference. Pondering wheter or not your frame of reference is the proper one is a rather futile effort, as everything you are going to say is going to hinge on belief.

Trying to figure out if something is absolutely true is a worthless endeavor. It really doesn't matter, as the knowledge is worthless if you are still constrained in the same system, and will still be judged by the rules inherent to that system.

We don't have to prove things absolutely true. All we have to do is show them to be replicable and provide a plausible hypothesis for explaining. If new knowledge comes along that shows us that we misunderstood something, we amend our hypothesis.

It's better to seek out knowledge and strive for truth and understanding that to just say " why bother, it's impossible to prove anything anyway."

It much rather use knowledge and concepts as tools, and view things scientifically rather than to view things as "toy problems" to be tinkered with and viewed philosophically. I know this view is considered small minded, and particularly scorned by philosophers, but I don't really care. If I'm going to accept philosophy based on nothing but faith and belief, I'll take religious philosophy any day over the psuedo-scientific "pop philosophy" any day.
 
[quote name='CaptainObviousXl'].99999~= 1 does it even matter, prove me wrong.[/quote]

If you plan to take higher level mathematics, yes.
If you plan to dig ditches or flip hamburger patties the rest of your life..
no.
 
That's what I love about philosophy. After all is said and done, more was said than done. You can theorize and argue all day about whether something exists absolutely in any number of planes, but when it comes down to it there's still an equation (that was the point of the thread after all) that needs to be solved or work that needs to be done.

A bunch of hooey I tells ya. I'm an engineer, and those were my 2 cents.
 
[quote name='magilacudy']That's what I love about philosophy. After all is said and done, more was said than done. You can theorize and argue all day about whether something exists absolutely in any number of planes, but when it comes down to it there's still an equation (that was the point of the thread after all) that needs to be solved or work that needs to be done.

A bunch of hooey I tells ya. I'm an engineer, and those were my 2 cents.[/quote]

I think that's the major problem here magilacudy... we're scientists.
Scientists and Philosophers can never seem to come to terms... both seek to explain the unexplained, but due to the drastic difference in thier approaches to doing so, rifts often come up.

Philosophical methods aren't so easily explained as the scientific method.
 
guys, guys, don't fight - can't we just agree to disagree?
There's a differnce between a fight and a argument/discourse.
Thanks to the realitively high level of decorum we've been posting with, it hasn't crossed the threshold to being a fight.

no, but really, who brought philosophy into this? the epic battle between JSweeney and GameDude is a battle between ideologies, and it's also really unnecessary.

I think the biggest rift is that both of us aren't being clear enough. I've never be talking about absolutes.. and thier is a difference between proof to a certainty and proof to an absolute. It's just that I never explicitly pointed out that fact. That's the biggest point of contention here. I argee with him to a point if we are only talking about absolute truths. But neither of us explicitly said at any point that we were discusing absolute truths or absolutely proving anything.


I agree with both of you (really) but you both seem to be on different levels of reasoning. GameDude is all about subjectivity and whatever- this is rooted in psychology and philosophy. JSweeney, I think you should accept the fact that nothing is absolute.

I don't accept the fact that NOTHING is absolute, but I do accept the fact that to be able to prove things absolutely is beyond our (humanity) capacity.



BUT- after you accept that, there's the whole idea of relativity (not Einstein's, just literal). TO YOU (and to those who agree, myself included), based on the axioms that society is based on, the current state of mathematics IS infallible, because it is always correct in its field of expertise. It WORKS in our society, even if it is false in another, and therefore its ideas are true because they have been proven in our plane of existance. Regardless of how real or important our existance is, there are a set of truths it accepts. Anyone hear of anthropic principle? It's kind of related. 0.999.... is equal to 1, because it uses a certain set of numbers and ideas that have been proven in its plane of existance. In another plane of exisance, what importance do foreign numbers or ideas have anyway? And vice-versa, what importance do numbers and ideas from another plane of existance have in ours

Exactly. That's been the crux of just about all of my posts. While we don't have the capacity to prove absolute truths, we do have the capacity to prove relative truths. But, if we can prove relative truths, and proving things IS possible.

The biggest problem in this argument has been the specification of terms, just as you said.
 
[quote name='SS4Brolly']Let X = .99999~

X = .9999~
10X = 9.999~
-1X = -1X (.999~)
9X = 9
X = 1

See?[/quote]

I asked my teacher this when I saw someone post this at another message board, and he did the same exact thing you posted.

But I'm the kind of person that just can't seem to see why[/b] that should work. If 1/3 = .33~, 2/3 = 66~, then 3/3 should = .99~. But we all know 3/3 = 1.

I think we need Scooyd-Doo and the gang to solve this mystery!
 
[quote name='JSweeney']guys, guys, don't fight - can't we just agree to disagree?
There's a differnce between a fight and a argument/discourse.
Thanks to the realitively high level of decorum we've been posting with, it hasn't crossed the threshold to being a fight.

no, but really, who brought philosophy into this? the epic battle between JSweeney and GameDude is a battle between ideologies, and it's also really unnecessary.

I think the biggest rift is that both of us aren't being clear enough. I've never be talking about absolutes.. and thier is a difference between proof to a certainty and proof to an absolute. It's just that I never explicitly pointed out that fact. That's the biggest point of contention here. I argee with him to a point if we are only talking about absolute truths. But neither of us explicitly said at any point that we were discusing absolute truths or absolutely proving anything.


I agree with both of you (really) but you both seem to be on different levels of reasoning. GameDude is all about subjectivity and whatever- this is rooted in psychology and philosophy. JSweeney, I think you should accept the fact that nothing is absolute.

I don't accept the fact that NOTHING is absolute, but I do accept the fact that to be able to prove things absolutely is beyond our (humanity) capacity.



BUT- after you accept that, there's the whole idea of relativity (not Einstein's, just literal). TO YOU (and to those who agree, myself included), based on the axioms that society is based on, the current state of mathematics IS infallible, because it is always correct in its field of expertise. It WORKS in our society, even if it is false in another, and therefore its ideas are true because they have been proven in our plane of existance. Regardless of how real or important our existance is, there are a set of truths it accepts. Anyone hear of anthropic principle? It's kind of related. 0.999.... is equal to 1, because it uses a certain set of numbers and ideas that have been proven in its plane of existance. In another plane of exisance, what importance do foreign numbers or ideas have anyway? And vice-versa, what importance do numbers and ideas from another plane of existance have in ours

Exactly. That's been the crux of just about all of my posts. While we don't have the capacity to prove absolute truths, we do have the capacity to prove relative truths. But, if we can prove relative truths, and proving things IS possible.

The biggest problem in this argument has been the specification of terms, just as you said.[/quote]

Let's say that you can prove something. Who are you proving it to? Yourself? EVERYTHING is an interpretation from your mind; your whole being. Sure, you may "prove" to yourself that smoking improves your health, but that doesn't mean that's true.

Does society really determine if someone is insane? Or are you? I bet that person who is considered insane doesn't think so. But who's right? Who's wrong? There is no right or wrong.

The freedom fighters killed the evil Americans.
The terrorists killed the upright Americans.

Who's right? Of course YOUR opinion is right, and mine is wrong...if this weren't true, you wouldn't believe in your opinion.

I think you're just missing my point, because what I'm trying to say is quite simple to grasp. You prove something to someone predicated on what you think. The person your proving it to is there, but perhaps only in your mind...and there's nothing you could do to prove otherwise. Why? Because everything you are, were, and ever will be is in that noggin of yours.
 
[quote name='digioverload']
.99~ does equal 1, but what you did does not prove that and actually uses incorrect math. There are several ways to prove it using real math, so I don't know why you've wasted your time using that. Common sense should have told you that it's wrong, but even if you have none, you should have caught it if you knew that infinity does not equal infinity minus 1.

Let me show you a few examples:

x = .99
10x = 9.9
10x - x = 9.9 - .99
9x = 8.91
x = .99

x = .999
10x = 9.99
10x - x = 9.99 - .999
9x = 8.991
x = .999

x = .99999
10x = 9.9999
10x - x = 9.9999 - .99999
9x = 8.99991
x = .99999

x = .99999999999999999999
10x = 9.9999999999999999999
10x - x = 9.9999999999999999999 - .99999999999999999999
9x = 8.99999999999999999991
x = .99999999999999999999

10x will always have 1 fewer decimal points than x. That will never change, even if you go somehow go all the way to infinity.

x = .
10x - x = 9.
9x = 8.

The reason this is true is because infinity does not equal infinity minus 1. If you don't believe me, you can go look it up yourself. The idea that they aren't equal is very basic and should have been taught to you in highschool. Because the decimal value of x does not equal the decimal value of 10x, your math is incorrect. x will always have one more decimal place (with a 9 in it) than 10x does.

You really shouldn't be trying to show people things that you don't understand. Next time you try to do this, use real math.

I understand that .99~ equals 1, that 9.99~ equals 10, and that 8.999~9991 equals 9. The problem is that what you've tried to use to prove it is wrong and doesn't prove anything excpet that x equals x.

Actually, that's all it would prove if you did it right. Since you did it wrong, it doesn't prove anything.[/quote]

I don't know what high school you went to, but pretty much everything you said is wrong. If you have an infinite number of decimal places, and you take one away, there are still an infinite number of decimal places. The cardinality of a countably infinite set and that of a set containing one fewer element are the same.

The argument the OP gave is correct. It basically has embedded within it the proof of the formula for the sum of an infinite geometric series.
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='CaptainObviousXl'].99999~= 1 does it even matter, prove me wrong.[/quote]

If you plan to take higher level mathematics, yes.
If you plan to dig ditches or flip hamburger patties the rest of your life..
no.[/quote]
ummmmm u dont think i need this even for a highrer levels of mathmatics, also i am the 4th highest scoring math student on the a exam in our school
out of like 250 others who took this
 
[quote name='CaptainObviousXl'][quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='CaptainObviousXl'].99999~= 1 does it even matter, prove me wrong.[/quote]

If you plan to take higher level mathematics, yes.
If you plan to dig ditches or flip hamburger patties the rest of your life..
no.[/quote]
ummmmm u dont think i need this even for a highrer levels of mathmatics, also i am the 4th highest scoring math student on the a exam in our school
out of like 250 others who took this[/quote]

You obviously haven't taken calculus then.
Wow, your the 4th highest scoring math student in your school. We'll definately take your word over the guy who posted a couple of pages back who's getting a PHD in math, or the myraid of computer scientists and engineers posting in this thread.
 
Let's say that you can prove something. Who are you proving it to? Yourself? EVERYTHING is an interpretation from your mind; your whole being. Sure, you may "prove" to yourself that smoking improves your health, but that doesn't mean that's true.

Proof, in the relative sense, you prove to yourselves and others.
In the absolute sense, if you even could, you could only prove it to yourself.
Not everything is interpretation by your mind. In the sense you are using it, Mind is only the concious aspect of the mind, and not the subconcious or even physical parts of the brain itself. As they are all parts of a system, they can not function without each other... unless, as I stated before, you hold the belief that the mind is the soul.

Does society really determine if someone is insane?
Yes, because sanity is decided based upon adherence to societal norms.
You don't dictate the norms... society does.


Or are you?
If you are determining yourself to be insane, you must have a set standard in your mind that you deviate from. If that's the case, where did the stadards come from? More likely than not, the answer is society.

I bet that person who is considered insane doesn't think so. But who's right? Who's wrong? There is no right or wrong.

Since it is society that is laying down the rules, it is. It's doesn't matter if they are absolutely correct.. since they decided the rules and norms that dictate how individuals in a society function, thier decision is correct, even if it is just a relative truth.


The freedom fighters killed the evil Americans.
The terrorists killed the upright Americans.

Two different societies. To different sets of social norms. In each society, based on the relative truths that they hold to, both statements are correct.
Which is absolutely correct? Niether. We (humanity) don't have the capacity to decide that.


Who's right? Of course YOUR opinion is right, and mine is wrong...if this weren't true, you wouldn't believe in your opinion.

Both. and Neither. Relative truths can be found based on the rules and stuctures devised by the society in which one exists.


I think you're just missing my point, because what I'm trying to say is quite simple to grasp.

You are oversimplifying. While you may be correct in the sense of absolute truth, you are radically incorrect in the sense of relative truth.
Both exist, and can exist independantly of each other... but to mention one without addressing or agreeing the existance of the other is terribly negligent.


You prove something to someone predicated on what you think.
This is a relative truth. You forumlate it based upon your experience and the bais of the society in which you live.

The person your proving it to is there, but perhaps only in your mind...and there's nothing you could do to prove otherwise.
In the absolute sense, yes, you couldn't. But in the relative sense, you could show that they have life signs, a conciousness of thier own, and many other examples proving that they do , in fact, exist.


Why? Because everything you are, were, and ever will be is in that noggin of yours.

Wrong. If you're going to argue the value of the mind, you can't just ignore the value and importance of the soul. If you're going to go beyond science and tread in the ground of the supernatural, you can't neglect the concept of the soul.
 
JSweeney, let me ask you: what if CheapAssGamer.com is a figment of your imagination? What if GameDude and I are figments of your imagination? What if everything you know or think you know to be true is just a illusion, including your knowledge of mathematics and the number system, and does not exist for any other being in the universe?
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='magilacudy']That's what I love about philosophy. After all is said and done, more was said than done. You can theorize and argue all day about whether something exists absolutely in any number of planes, but when it comes down to it there's still an equation (that was the point of the thread after all) that needs to be solved or work that needs to be done.

A bunch of hooey I tells ya. I'm an engineer, and those were my 2 cents.[/quote]

I think that's the major problem here magilacudy... we're scientists.
Scientists and Philosophers can never seem to come to terms... both seek to explain the unexplained, but due to the drastic difference in thier approaches to doing so, rifts often come up.

Philosophical methods aren't so easily explained as the scientific method.[/quote]

No way am I giving you that conclusion without an argument...

As someone with a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science and a minor in Philosophy, you're pretty far off base there. Would you say that Descartes, Aristotle, Plato, and Leibniz were Philosophers or Scientists?

Philosophers who use the "I'm not really here" approach are somewhat ridiculous. You can't actually use it as a stepping stone for anything else, so it's a pointless exercise. What Descartes did was to take the approach of a complete skeptic, and go down to the only thing he couldn't doubt... His own existence. After all, even if you really did believe that you don't exist, why would you bother to get up in the morning, consume food, go about your daily business, or respond to posts on a message board. It'd all be pointless, right? To my knowledge, no philosopher has ever died from wasting away to nothing because he ceased to continue to get out of bed in the morning.

Having studied logic as taught (seperately) by Computer Scientists, Electrical Engineers, and Philosophers, there is a difference in methodology, but the rule system is effectively the same (all derived from Aristotlian logic). None of them will let you prove P & ~P (that boolean variable P is both true and false at the same time).

Any philsopher trying to make an argument without an understanding of logic will have his ass handed to him. You simply need logic to make a valid conclusion based on your premises. The "methods" of Philosophy are just as easily explained as those of Mathematics or Science.

That said, most Philosophical arguments are purely mental exercises. The exchanges between philosophers never question the rules for forming an argument and proving it to be valid. Instead, they attack the premises, or the steps taken to arrive at the conclusion (and note that a particular step violated the rules of Logic).
 
A couple of points served up JSweeney style:

1) If that is true that we are but figments of someone's imagination, then that God forbid if that person were to go into a coma or die - - then we all would cease to exist. Anyone care to test that theory?

2) What if someone was to go to your house, rape your parents, kill your pets and burn your house down. Would that be wrong? According to Gamedude's theory, it is not, and can't be judged by our society.

Unless you draw the line somewhere, society (even if it is just in your head) would fall apart. That goes for mathemetics as well, even though I doubt you still remember that was the original post.

3) Opinions are not inherently right, or wrong. They are opinions. If you had the opinion that Morgan Webb was the hottest girl in the world, that would be neither right or wrong, only a opinion (sorry just came to mind hehe). Just because it is YOUR opinion does not have any bearing on the validity of the statement. Hence the relativity.

3) That link to that math site cleared everything up for the most part.

4) Gamedude, were you in my philosophy class last semester? My prof made most of these same arguments you were making, but he showed the flaws in them the next class. Maybe you were absent that day.

5) Philosophers should stick to philosophy, mathmeticians should stick to math, or whatever job you have should stick to debating the expertise in that field. I think it was Socrates who stated that and was killed for it.

6) Now I see how this could reach 200 posts in Gamefaqs.
 
[quote name='sTaTIx']JSweeney, let me ask you: what if CheapAssGamer.com is a figment of your imagination? What if GameDude and I are figments of your imagination? What if everything you know or think you know to be true is just a illusion, including your knowledge of mathematics and the number system, and does not exist for any other being in the universe?[/quote]

So long if I believe that CAG is true, and that is a relative truth to me, the absolute truth (the situation which you state) doesn't really matter to me.. as my relative truth is what dicates my reality and not absolute truth.
 
[quote name='ReussDr']No way am I giving you that conclusion without an argument...[/quote]

I think JSweeney wasn't saying that the logic was any different. You are coming to the same conclusion of the drastic differences as he did, maybe you don't realize it though. Simply put, mathemetics/science questions the how, while philosophy questions the why... *picturing Peter Griffin's ancestor the philosopher*. Yes, logic is needed in both, but what is done with it is the fundamental difference between the two.
 
[quote name='ReussDr'][quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='magilacudy']That's what I love about philosophy. After all is said and done, more was said than done. You can theorize and argue all day about whether something exists absolutely in any number of planes, but when it comes down to it there's still an equation (that was the point of the thread after all) that needs to be solved or work that needs to be done.

A bunch of hooey I tells ya. I'm an engineer, and those were my 2 cents.[/quote]

I think that's the major problem here magilacudy... we're scientists.
Scientists and Philosophers can never seem to come to terms... both seek to explain the unexplained, but due to the drastic difference in thier approaches to doing so, rifts often come up.

Philosophical methods aren't so easily explained as the scientific method.[/quote]

No way am I giving you that conclusion without an argument...

As someone with a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science and a minor in Philosophy, you're pretty far off base there. Would you say that Descartes, Aristotle, Plato, and Leibniz were Philosophers or Scientists?

They were both. It is possible to be both a philosopher and a scientist.. some of the greatest scientist ever were also renoun philosophers. I'm not meaning to talk down the entire field of philosophy with that statement... just the modern brand of pop philosophy... the same type of philosophy that compains about absolute truths, yet fails to accept the plausablilty of theology.

Philosophers who use the "I'm not really here" approach are somewhat ridiculous. You can't actually use it as a stepping stone for anything else, so it's a pointless exercise. What Descartes did was to take the approach of a complete skeptic, and go down to the only thing he couldn't doubt... His own existence. After all, even if you really did believe that you don't exist, why would you bother to get up in the morning, consume food, go about your daily business, or respond to posts on a message board. It'd all be pointless, right? To my knowledge, no philosopher has ever died from wasting away to nothing because he ceased to continue to get out of bed in the morning.

You're not going to get an argument from me on this. I've already used part of this agrument against GameDude. Agruing something similar to what I stated would be fruitless.

Having studied logic as taught (seperately) by Computer Scientists, Electrical Engineers, and Philosophers, there is a difference in methodology, but the rule system is effectively the same (all derived from Aristotlian logic). None of them will let you prove P & ~P (that boolean variable P is both true and false at the same time).

Again, very true. Perhap's it's just that most of the people I've talked with are not truly philosopher's but rather people who've come up with this little toy concept in thier head, and then proceed to agrue it despite not having an understanding of the logic underlying it.


Any philsopher trying to make an argument without an understanding of logic will have his ass handed to him. You simply need logic to make a valid conclusion based on your premises. The "methods" of Philosophy are just as easily explained as those of Mathematics or Science.

Again, more likely that not this is just me making a misinterpretation based on the usage of philosophical concepts by people in everyday conversation or on message boards. All of the logic I've ever been taught was through Comptuer Science, and most of my other coursework was in other branches of science.


That said, most Philosophical arguments are purely mental exercises. The exchanges between philosophers never question the rules for forming an argument and proving it to be valid. Instead, they attack the premises, or the steps taken to arrive at the conclusion (and note that a particular step violated the rules of Logic).

That's probably my biggest sticking point. I'm so used to the usage of the scientific method, and the set rules for even establishing hypothesis that a school of thought where the rules of forming a case are trivial just seems a bit off to me.

[/quote]
 
The idiocy in this thread is absolutely incredible.

.9999~ does in fact equal one. However, there are numbers that are closer to 1 than any other number. If you really want to know, then study some non-standard calculus using the hyperreal or surreal sets of numbers. These make much more sense than your standard set of "real numbers" which are a real hackjob when it comes to infinities and infintesimals. Look for more information at www.wikipedia.com

Of course everyone always should remember that mathematics never proves anything. All it says is that if one thing is true then something else is also true. Ironically mathematical proofs are the closest thing you can get to proving that something is actually true.

P.S. Enough with the philosophy....lets talk mathematics!
 
if you take an object, and keepp cutting off 90% of it, will it eventually dissapear? (pretend that it is just solid stuff, not particles)
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']if you take an object, and keepp cutting off 90% of it, will it eventually dissapear? (pretend that it is just solid stuff, not particles)[/quote]

Yes and No (depending on your definition of "eventually", Merriam Webster confirms that it can be used to describe either of the definitions detailed below)... Let's look to Calculus to solve this

You're looking at the function "Y = .1^X". The limit of Y as X approaches positive infinity is 0. That is to say, that the % of the object remaining (Y) approaches 0 as time (X) approaches infinity. At infinity it is 0, but at any discrete point in time, there is some amount of object remaining (assuming you don't round off to the nearest Quark). If you mean eventually to be some discrete point in the future, then no. If you mean eventually to be an infinite amount of time later, then yes.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']if you take an object, and keepp cutting off 90% of it, will it eventually dissapear? (pretend that it is just solid stuff, not particles)[/quote]

Yes and No (depending on your definition of "eventually", Merriam Webster confirms that it can be used to describe either of the definitions detailed below)... Let's look to Calculus to solve this

You're looking at the function "Y = .1^X". The limit of Y as X approaches positive infinity is 0. That is to say, that the % of the object remaining (Y) approaches 0 as time (X) approaches infinity. At infinity it is 0, but at any discrete point in time, there is some amount of object remaining (assuming you don't round off to the nearest Quark). If you mean eventually to be some discrete point in the future, then no. If you mean eventually to be an infinite amount of time later, then yes.
 
[quote name='ReussDr'][quote name='Quackzilla']if you take an object, and keepp cutting off 90% of it, will it eventually dissapear? (pretend that it is just solid stuff, not particles)[/quote]

Yes and No (depending on your definition of "eventually", Merriam Webster confirms that it can be used to describe either of the definitions detailed below)... Let's look to Calculus to solve this

You're looking at the function "Y = .1^X". The limit of Y as X approaches positive infinity is 0. That is to say, that the % of the object remaining (Y) approaches 0 as time (X) approaches infinity. At infinity it is 0, but at any discrete point in time, there is some amount of object remaining (assuming you don't round off to the nearest Quark). If you mean eventually to be some discrete point in the future, then no. If you mean eventually to be an infinite amount of time later, then yes.[/quote]

Why can't infinity be a discrete point?
 
[quote name='chunk'][quote name='ReussDr'][quote name='Quackzilla']if you take an object, and keepp cutting off 90% of it, will it eventually dissapear? (pretend that it is just solid stuff, not particles)[/quote]

Yes and No (depending on your definition of "eventually", Merriam Webster confirms that it can be used to describe either of the definitions detailed below)... Let's look to Calculus to solve this

You're looking at the function "Y = .1^X". The limit of Y as X approaches positive infinity is 0. That is to say, that the % of the object remaining (Y) approaches 0 as time (X) approaches infinity. At infinity it is 0, but at any discrete point in time, there is some amount of object remaining (assuming you don't round off to the nearest Quark). If you mean eventually to be some discrete point in the future, then no. If you mean eventually to be an infinite amount of time later, then yes.[/quote]

Why can't infinity be a discrete point?[/quote]

because a discreet point is a measurable quantum
 
I'm not going to read all of that, because I don't really care that much.

I took philosophy in college for about a week, then dropped it.

As for the killer, though. To me, he is wrong and evil. However, in his mind, he may have been doing the work of some religious deity or something like that.

Yes, there are moral rights and wrongs judged by society - it's basically called "law." However, if you have a society of killers, killing wouldn't necessarily be thought of as wrong. Which society is right and which is wrong?

To me, the society of killers is evil and wrong, but, that is my opinion and not an absolute.
 
In a society where murder was not thought as of wrong, eventually you'd have a point where everyone would kill each other. There would be nothing stopping them from doing so -- leading to no society period.

Its called Hobbes' State of Nature dawg. Look it up. That's is why there are no societies where murder is considered right. There are moral absolutes, whether you want to acknowledge them or not, as there are mathemetical absolutes as well.
 
i have done a thorough analysis of every comment and input, and my solution to this conundrum is: everybody be quiet. [-X

can you prove me wrong?
:mrgreen:
 
ReussDr: As someone with a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science and a minor in Philosophy, you're pretty far off base there. Would you say that Descartes, Aristotle, Plato, and Leibniz were Philosophers or Scientists?

JSweeney: They were both. It is possible to be both a philosopher and a scientist.. some of the greatest scientist ever were also renoun philosophers. I'm not meaning to talk down the entire field of philosophy with that statement... just the modern brand of pop philosophy... the same type of philosophy that compains about absolute truths, yet fails to accept the plausablilty of theology.

Well, I'm willing to forgive them for their trespass. After all, in order to keep the dialog going you have to have new intellectual heavy weights getting involved in the discourse, and most of the time that means criticizing some ancient but accepted figure.

ReussDr: Any philsopher trying to make an argument without an understanding of logic will have his ass handed to him. You simply need logic to make a valid conclusion based on your premises. The "methods" of Philosophy are just as easily explained as those of Mathematics or Science.

JSweeney: Again, more likely that not this is just me making a misinterpretation based on the usage of philosophical concepts by people in everyday conversation or on message boards. All of the logic I've ever been taught was through Comptuer Science, and most of my other coursework was in other branches of science.

Well, somewhere along the way, people got the impression that Philosophers sit around and smoke pot and pontificate on strange and wacky alternatives to how things really are. Real Philosophers engage in very complex arguments that tend to be extremely well thought out. Unlike an engineer or a doctor, there's no diploma or certification to state that you are in fact qualified to do such work, so many people claim to be the real thing when they are not.

ReussDr: That said, most Philosophical arguments are purely mental exercises. The exchanges between philosophers never question the rules for forming an argument and proving it to be valid. Instead, they attack the premises, or the steps taken to arrive at the conclusion (and note that a particular step violated the rules of Logic).

JSweeney: That's probably my biggest sticking point. I'm so used to the usage of the scientific method, and the set rules for even establishing hypothesis that a school of thought where the rules of forming a case are trivial just seems a bit off to me.

I don't understand that complaint. The rules for the Scientific Method are pretty simple, so that you can get on to the interesting work of coming up with a hypothesis and then testing it. The rules for making an argument are likewise very simple so you can get past the groundwork, and instead concentrate your efforts on coming up with a good argument, working your way to it's conclusion, and coming up with a good way to articulate that argument. In both cases the rules are very simplistic, because they're merely a guide to get you to the actual work.
 
Well, I'm willing to forgive them for their trespass. After all, in order to keep the dialog going you have to have new intellectual heavy weights getting involved in the discourse, and most of the time that means criticizing some ancient but accepted figure.

True, but throwing a bulk of accepted works into a questionable nether-region just to advance your own theory is dangerous. I'd figure that only a few truely giften people could actually get away with doing that and not doing irrepaiable damage to thier own image and career. (Since there is no real burden that one must surpass to call themselves a philosopher).
I'm still rather offput by the disdain that some philosophers hold for theologists, all the while trying to build themselves up.
Theology is just a valid a school of thought, yet always seems to get put on the backburner... with the students of it maligned as nothing but "fanatics" or "blinded by thier religion".


Well, somewhere along the way, people got the impression that Philosophers sit around and smoke pot and pontificate on strange and wacky alternatives to how things really are.

Well, some of that is media perception, and some of that is the people on the internet who've taken one course in philosophy (or even a couple weeks) and pick up the mantle of the philospoher for themselves.

Real Philosophers engage in very complex arguments that tend to be extremely well thought out.

I know. I've read some of the works of philosophy.. and most of them are built from a simple stucture of stating logical premises and explaining and steping through them. If everyone who called themselves a philosopher acted as such, I'd be happy.

Unlike an engineer or a doctor, there's no diploma or certification to state that you are in fact qualified to do such work, so many people claim to be the real thing when they are not.

Very true. That's problem the biggest point of contention between us, and the cause of the perhaps irrational bias I formed against modern Philosophy.. thanks to the misqouting of modern philosophers and irresposible bearing of the mantle of philosopher, I've been jaded to the more logical, formalized brand of philosophy... the way philosophy was intented to be studied.



I don't understand that complaint. The rules for the Scientific Method are pretty simple, so that you can get on to the interesting work of coming up with a hypothesis and then testing it. The rules for making an argument are likewise very simple so you can get past the groundwork, and instead concentrate your efforts on coming up with a good argument, working your way to it's conclusion, and coming up with a good way to articulate that argument. In both cases the rules are very simplistic, because they're merely a guide to get you to the actual work.

I was still working off that same incorrect bias. Looking back at an old philosophy text, and then looking at a couple of other real works (and not the self proclaimed internet philosopher's diatribes) I realized I was wrong in making that statement. Real philosophers and philosophic works are laid out very specifically, often with the author offering up his contention, logically proving it's validity, and then even offering up and discrediting logically it's counter-points and con arguments.
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='CaptainObviousXl'][quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='CaptainObviousXl'].99999~= 1 does it even matter, prove me wrong.[/quote]

If you plan to take higher level mathematics, yes.
If you plan to dig ditches or flip hamburger patties the rest of your life..
no.[/quote]
ummmmm u dont think i need this even for a highrer levels of mathmatics, also i am the 4th highest scoring math student on the a exam in our school
out of like 250 others who took this[/quote]

You obviously haven't taken calculus then.
Wow, your the 4th highest scoring math student in your school. We'll definately take your word over the guy who posted a couple of pages back who's getting a PHD in math, or the myraid of computer scientists and engineers posting in this thread.[/quote]
take my wordabout wat, im just saying that math is my best subjct, dont flip out on me.
 
X9=9 this will only be true if your some how asuming that X=1 not .99~. .99~ isn't areal number so it can go either way for practicle purposes use .99999.... for theoretic proofs use .99999~
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top