Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ ¹ ² ³ °
 

You are not logged in. #26 20111008 04:42:45
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666Hi Calligar; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #27 20111008 04:59:36
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666hi guys The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #28 20111008 05:03:42
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666I have seen mathematicians that hate set theory. Mathematicians that hate continuous math. Mathematicians who hate pure math, ones who hate applied math and computers. Ones who hate Topology and Logic, almost every type. But I have never seen anyone advancing while he/she held on to the idea that .9999999... ≠ 1 In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #29 20111008 05:59:51
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666
Also, don't forget to include that Signature line: I wish a had a more interesting signature line. #30 20111008 21:50:27
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666hi rya The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #31 20111011 05:00:47
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666Hi, this is more to bobbym... Life isn’t a simple Math: there are always other variables. [unknown] But Nature flies from the infinite, for the infinite is unending or imperfect, and Nature ever seeks an end. Aristotle #32 20111011 05:08:35
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666Hi; That equals 1 / 3. Same thing with .9999999... If you really can not accept that then think of math like a formalist does. That it is a game and games have rules. We do not debate why the knight moves as it does in chess. Rule 1) .999999999... = 1 You can now accept this and move on.
Although that sometimes happens in mathematics it is much rarer than in other fields like biology or psychology for instance. In math we prove things, there are dozens of proofs about this. I have seen many arguments that In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #33 20111011 05:16:49
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666hi Calligar The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #34 20111011 05:55:54
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666What about 9.999999999999...89999999... See the problem, Ricky would have said this number is igloo myrtilles fourmis #35 20111011 06:05:20
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666i like persistence,as long as it doesn't turn into stubbornness.we didn't get there yet,but we may very soon. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #36 20111011 06:07:53
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666Hi John; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #37 20111011 07:58:33
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666Okay, to bobbym...
It is true math has rules, but math is directly logical. In order to do math, you start with the rules, and using those rules, you work your way through it logically. Adding rules later just to justify things aren't....correct persay; if they directly defy logic because of it, then that doesn't make them correct. However, since there are rules against this, and its controversial as I said earlier, I think this will be my last argumentative post about that. I still don't agree with it though, but thank you.
One is showing 0.3 recurring, recurring 3s go on forever, the way it can be expressed accurately in decimal form, however the other 0.3 recurring persay was equal to 1/3, as in exactly equal, which can not be expressed accurately as a decimal form, nor any other way. Second, I'd rather you not accept everything I'd say, because I'm neither perfect nor right about everything.
This is why I first posted in the first place, to express that 3.3 recurring + 6.6 recurring = 9.9 recurring, not 10, because 9.9 recurring is 1/∞ away from 10, as they are not limited. It is therefore not making it the same number UNLESS it was originally intended that it was 3 1/3 + 6 2/3 = 10 expressed as a decimal, which in that case is correct. However, I will not argue this any further, due to the fact that there are apparently rules in math that go against this according to bobbym, which whether I disagree with it or not, it is stating I'm wrong.... Last edited by Calligar (20111011 07:59:14) Life isn’t a simple Math: there are always other variables. [unknown] But Nature flies from the infinite, for the infinite is unending or imperfect, and Nature ever seeks an end. Aristotle #38 20111011 10:18:00
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666hi we find it works ok with all the other stuff we know about powers. Then when someone poses the question “I wonder if we can find a sensible meaning for: the answer is, yes, we can. It makes good sense to let it have the value ‘1’ because this is consistent with the rule of powers: Now to get back to those infinitely recurring decimals. They are just another abstract form of number. I know I cannot write all the digits, but I can still think about how the number behaves as if I could. I know that if I try to work out 1 divided by 3, I’ll keep getting a remainder, and so if I keep on dividing I’ll end up with 0.33333333r. So, it’s entirely consistent to treat 1/3 and 0.3333333333r as if they were the same. It does lead on, as others have shown, to results like ½ = 0.5 = 0.49999999999r but so what? The rules that allow this are quite consistent and allow us to teat all terminating decimals as if they were recurring. eg. 0.37 = 0.36999999999999r. That then allows us to explore the concept of number density as in ‘the reals’ are more dense on the number line than the ‘rationals’. And there’s nothing wrong with exploring mathematically interesting concepts. Number theory, and especially all the theorems involving primes, were once thought to be the province of the most pure of pure mathematicians. But now this theory is essential for internet trading. And consider all those uses for complex numbers. Not so ‘imaginary’ now, are they? So don’t worry if some mathematical ideas seem a little strange when you first meet them. You just need to let your imagination run with the ideas and be prepared to see where it all leads. Infinity, underground maps, non Euclidean geometry .... all are possible in the world of mathematics. And there’s definitely a continent where If you’ve read this far, thank you for your patience. Bob Last edited by bob bundy (20111011 10:23:08) You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei #39 20111011 10:32:39
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666
I don't wish to appear sycophantic or anything, but actually I think you made some pretty good points which the overzealous (I'm certainly thinking of my younger self when I say this) should think long and hard about, before treating mathematics as something which it is not. #40 20111011 11:47:20
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666Very nicely explained, bob, well done. "The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..."  Leon M. Lederman #41 20111011 15:24:18
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666
Darn! I am going to get the last word in on one of these .999999999999...., 7.77777777777...,6.6666666666...., 3.333333333333...., 0.00000000000..., ∞.∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞..., discussions. I will achieve victory by writing a lengthy rebuttal in the old style. No one will be able to get through it and I will win.
In the book "1984," Orwell sought to banish thoughtcrime by reducing the language to the point where incorrect thought was impossible. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #42 20111011 17:05:18
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666
It need not be a person. Certain animals have a concept of numbers and counting.
This is not a correct example of "a rule that doesn't always work,"
You have made a blanket statement. It is not so where x = 0. So 0^0 could equal 1, Signature line: I wish a had a more interesting signature line. #43 20111011 17:19:10
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666Hi;
It can be indeterminate, undefined or 1. Those are the ones that are consistent and make sense with all branches of math. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #44 20111011 18:48:57
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666to reconsideryouranswer
I was trying to simplify the idea that the rules for, say, vectors, are not the rules for arithmetic. You have supported my argument by demonstrating that one needs to be clear of the circumstances before applying a blanket rule . And ...
Here again you have shown that mathematicians may select their own rules to fit what they want to use them for.
That's very interesting. If it's true, I don't think it changes my argument; just substitute 'some animals including humans' for 'person'. But which animals did you have in mind? Last edited by bob bundy (20111011 18:52:49) You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei #45 20111012 04:12:23
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666
Certain chimpanzees Signature line: I wish a had a more interesting signature line. #46 20111029 18:45:49
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666Okay, I have spoken to my brother about this in great detail (whom I consider a math genius). He was explaining to me that this has been argued numerous times before in history, and ultimately from what it is considered now, I was wrong about this. On top of that, he corrected me about infinitesimals saying that was the accepted way how to represent that, but that doesn't make what I say related to one, as infinity is mostly only used in calculus and higher. As an example, he showed me an indefinite integral problem. Now, my brother did state something interesting. Logically, I can argue this, because he understands the way I'm looking at this, and can understand where I am coming from. However, that according to the rules that already exist in math to prevent misunderstandings and things that people don't understand well enough to be definite on, that I am wrong, and that in order to be right, the rules would need to be changed on that. But just as Bobbym had said in an earlier post, there were in fact rules in place that my brother actually showed and explained to me why it was like that. So to conclude all of this, I admit defeat. I was told I was wrong here, only to be proven it later by my brother. It's like my brother said, I can argue this logically, but that wouldn't make it correct in math. So, let me say this: 3.¯3+6.¯6=10 because 9.¯9 DOES equal 10, unlike what I was arguing before. Life isn’t a simple Math: there are always other variables. [unknown] But Nature flies from the infinite, for the infinite is unending or imperfect, and Nature ever seeks an end. Aristotle #47 20111029 20:53:10
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666Hi Calligar; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #48 20121016 08:06:47
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666
This reminds me of "By his bootstraps" and "The man who folded himself"... The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #49 20121017 09:00:12
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.6666666610. I have discovered a truly marvellous signature, which this margin is too narrow to contain. Fermat Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world. Archimedes Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them.  Neumann #50 20121017 10:35:34
Re: 3.3333333 + 6.66666666I give it a 9.99999999999... In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. 