You are not logged in.
What do you think might be insulting and to who? And why?
How many folks in the world believe in angels, demons, God, etc. Are they not "aliens" when
compared to the human race? And is it possible that they live in 4 or more dimensions so that
they can be invisible to us when they want to be? So there are perhaps billions of people that
"believe in aliens." Depends on one's definition of "alien."
I was worried about answering that, because I believe that could lead into a controversial matter, and I do NOT want to insult anyone even if that is not my intention. From my personal experience, I try to hold back from getting involved with those matters, unless I know the person, because I do not want to it to be saying stuff that can possible offend the other person, just because its based off of my own beliefs...
Hi, I've realized that even though I've been here for a little bit, I still haven't introduced myself yet, and feel as though I should. So yeah, I am Evan, age 19, currently out of school and living with my older brother at the moment. I joined this forum because, if it wasn't already obvious, I love math! My friend in college said one of his professors made him use this website for something, I can't remember for what, and that's how I found out about it (I don't know the name of the professor, so sorry, I can't give you any details).
I really feel as though I have a strong understanding in all I've learned in math thus far, but unfortunately am a little behind then where I should be as well due to...school related issues I had to go through when I was still in school. Ever since I've gotten out of school, I've spent quite some time learning math on my own. Some of you (like bobbym) might recognize me already mostly for my probably biggest argument on here at the time when I joined with the one topic talking about 3.333...+6.666...=9.999...and 10. I was trying to argue that it did not also equal 10, and used things I didn't fully understand at the time like infinitesimals to back me up, only to eventually admit defeat.
I left for quite some time because I felt I couldn't properly argue this anymore and continued the battle against my brother, even coming up with my own system to how it would work. Though, arguing with my brother made me realize how I couldn't really argue it. But I am back now, because I believe I can still learn a lot more, and help those who don't understand things (that I DO know) to understand them better. I might not be in school at the moment, but that doesn't stop me from learning and wanting to know more, along with helping others IF I can.
So to wrap this fairly long...introduction up, I just mostly wanted to make it a little more clear as to who I really was and well...introduce myself. I hope I can eventually be more knowledgeable and become a more valuable member, because as another lover of math, a forum all about it just seems awesome! I'd also like to note that I really like the friendly community, as I have been on other forums, that....well let's just say not as friendly.
See I was thinking this: if it leads to something more controversial, regardless HOW you say or try to put it, it can be insulting to the other person. Like your intention was not to insult them in the first place, yet they get insulted by what you say, that is why I was thinking it wasn't a good idea to continue. But you're saying it is okay anonimnystefy?
OK, I better start off simple and see if we can agree on five basic ideas.
Okay, so I'm curious just how much we agree on this...
Zero is absolutely no quantity, no space, no area, no length (on a number line), etc. It does not 'exist' because it takes up none of those things. That's how I think of zero. Mathematically, zero over infinity.
I might have been inclined to agree with that myself, except for the last part, "zero over infinity." I do not know quite what you mean by that...but yet again, you seem to be talking about something else. I will give a further example later on in my explanation, but for now will just say, that does not make any sense mathematically.
Infinitesimal is an entity that exists between nothing and something. Something more than zero, but not enough to be finite or measurable. Zero plus something immeasurably small. The least quantity needed for quantity to exist. Scaled with any finite number (no matter how small) and zero, it would virtually appear to be in the same spot as zero (but of course, is not). Mathematically, one over infinity.
Again, I have a problem with the last thing you wrote, "Mathematically, one over infinity." I don't know how to emphasize that idea is no longer valid. If you need proof on that, I can lead you to a number of websites my brother had to take me to to drill that in my head. This is an OLDER idea of what was thought to be an infinitesimal back then, and is NO longer accepted. Infinity can NOT be used as such and I feel like if you understood what infinity was, you'd understand WHY this does not make sense.
Finite numbers take up quantity, space, area, length (on a number line), what have you and are limited. It's what we can deal with, see, touch, measure, conceive of, etc. Mathematically, any finite number over any finite number.
I am not 100% sure what you mean by all of this, mostly the part thats says, "It's what we can deal with, see, touch, measure, conceive of, etc." Besides for maybe the conceiving part, I don't think I can fully agree with all that. On top of that, just like in my last example, you can not use infinity like that with normal numbers...I do not know how I can stress this anymore. This is similar to 1/∞, but instead, now your replacing 1 with x. This is wrong, I already explained that infinity is a different concept, just like in my earlier example...
can you multiply 1 by +?
You just can not do it. Granted infinity might not be the same as +, but by the WAY you are using it, it still comes to the same idea.
Infinite is an entity that exists between something and everything. Something less than infinity, but too much to be finite or measurable. Infinity minus something. A growing, uncountable quantity that doesn't encompass all quantity. If scaled with zero and infinity on a number line, it would appear virtually in the same spot as infinity. Mathematically, infinity over one (expresses the idea of approaching because the one in the denomnator is countable - you can start counting).
Well again, this is YOUR idea that you have been trying to argue the whole time. Yet you seem to mostly be repeating the same thing more or less. I don't really even feel I need to put yet another argument against this, but for arguments sake, I will. Now so I'm not repeating the same old stuff, let me first talk about this. Yet again, another fraction that makes no sense with the use of infinity. Now, just assuming that infinity is a number (breaking the rules here), wouldn't infinity over 1 = infinity, how is that any different then infinity, you fail to prove the difference between infinite and infinity. So now go back to some of the more ... repeated stuff. You at least do manage to say infinity itself is not a number, but seem to have an idea that infinite is a number in the first place. Pretty much using infinite to take the place of infinity. Though I can see potential uses for all this, why is this so important that you argue this? What you should do rather is find a way to prove it. It's interesting because I had just recently made a topic about discovering something new in math. If you are so heart set as to continue arguing this, why not at least find a way to prove it first, rather then continue this conflict which will likely get you nowhere?
Infinity absolutely encompasses all quantity (that can ever exist), the unlimited universe of quantity that cannot begin to be measured or even approached. Scaled with any finite number (no matter how large) and zero, that number virtually looks like zero (but of course, is not). Mathematically, infinity over zero (expresses the idea of unapproachable, because the zero in the denominator is not countable - you can't even start counting).
There is quite a lot I disagree with here. First off, the very first sentence you say, unless I'm misunderstanding it, this yet again sounds like your own definition of it. The second sentence you say, not only do I not agree with that, but you also have a contradiction in there. Even based on things of what you've been saying, you used 0 in there, since you keep looking at it as fractions, I'm going to do the same: 0/infinity in YOUR definition does NOT equal 0? I don't feel like reexplaining the first part, because again, you seem to be going by your own definition there. Lastly, mathematically, based on current rules, that does not even make any sense. Throughout this whole post, whether or not you think infinity is a number, you continue to use it as one, demonstrating the difference as you say, "Mathematically." Yet doesn't this seem contradictory to your other idea of infinite? Either way, I have mostly made my argument; there are many ways to use infinity, wikipedia shows two such examples under real analysis...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity. I just hope you eventually begin to understand what infinity really is, so as to avoid all this confusion.
I know, breaking some established ideas on the last two. But seems to me there has to be a practical use for "infinity over one" and "infinity over zero", and a way to appreciate a distinction between the two ideas.
In these fractions, one becomes merely a symbol for a finite quantity, because it's being placed next to infinity, which is a symbol...the importance of what finite number is used is not that important, but one is used because it is a compact, perfect representation of finite.
Remember when I said this...
You can continue to argue this further because you are using a definition separate then the normal one,
You are proving my point exactly; you continue to argue this based on the way you see it and try to enforce it upon us without much proof besides for your own reasoning behind it. Yet you argue an already established idea and try to change the way things are, which I do not think you realize just how big of an impact that would also have. You take out the current idea and replace it with your own, what happens to everything that is dependent on the previous idea? Your new idea isn't a replacement for it, and if tried to, would present so many complications I don't even know where to begin. I just hope this helps a little...
Well it is quite interesting you brought this up. However, I feel it is mostly unwise to even proceed answering that. You are beginning to change the subject and turn this more into a philosophical discussion, which was never my intention. As I said here...
I see the possibility in all of it, and all-in-all felt like proving it if one didn't agree.
I feel like mostly I already made my case and that was my intention. If I proceed to answer that, I don't feel it would be very appropriate, sorry...
What you are saying is most certainly interesting, but I fear you misunderstand certain things. First off, let me clarify this...
Like I said, it does have a place on the number line...I'll never disagree why it's there...I just disagee on what it is.
You pretty much admit there, unless I'm mistaken, that you are not going by the same definition as everyone else. I am just curious, did you really expect people to not argue this if you are going by a different idea in the first place? Now more for the specifics....
I don't disagree with what you are arguing about how both zero and infinity are different then normal numbers, you have proven that thus far..., but zero is already the idea of nothingness, you are already proving something I'm sure most of us know. See, I feel bobbym already answered your question about counting to 0, even in real life, you can keep taking away until you have nothing left, thus you have 0.
Why not have infinity be called a number? You can put it on a number line also.
Infinity ALREADY has its own definition, though it might not be clear. I have already said what it is more....simply put. Infinity itself is not a number because its a completely different concept. For example, can you multiply 1 by +? It doesn't seem to make any sense because they are 2 different concepts. Then you talk about infinite, which is basically the opposite of an infinitesimal, what an infinitesimal is to 0, an infinite is to infinity. So now then, back to the beginning...
You can continue to argue this further because you are using a definition separate then the normal one, but I ask this: are you really using it correctly then? You might have a possible idea that can be used, but whatever it is, it is not infinity, and that is where I think mostly your argument falls apart.
Figuring it out in the sense that you are taking it would be impossible (or at least very, very improbable), because children "figure out" their mother tongue by examples e.g. they learn that a spoon is a spoon when they are shown a spoon while the word "spoon" is told to them. It can be thought of as a so called firm ofconditional learning. The same kind of technique cannot be applied here, because of the distance.
Okay, so assuming you are right about that, why can it not be done, what are the specific reasons as to why this same technique can not be applied? From what you said, he already saw their spaceships, how do you know he was not physically communicating with them as well? On top of that, there are still other ways (going a little more extreme here), I'm sure you've heard of mental telepathy? Arguably, that is what he could have been doing the whole time, so why can't they teach him first with such things as pictures and images?
Also, you still proved my point when you said, "Figuring it out in the sense that you are taking it would be impossible (or at least very, very improbable),..." because I never once said I believe this guy, only arguing that it is possible, and very, very improbable is still possible, unless you DO literally mean impossible.
By the way, if you feel I am taking this argument too far, then you can just simply tell me to stop. I saw this topic and got interested so decided to play devil's advocate, mostly because regardless of how slim of a possibility it is, I see the possibility in all of it, and all-in-all felt like proving it if one didn't agree. My intention here is not to .... well be an ***hole, so if you feel that's what I'm doing then I apologize and will immediately back off.
Possibly epsilon = ε
Epsilon is the proposed symbol for the infinitesmal
Are you certain? The idea seems arguable, though I wouldn't personally know how to argue it. From what I gathered from it, it seemed more like a different concept, maybe has similarities, but if that's true, I'm not going to even try to argue it. Though I'm not questioning how close it is to an infinitesimal.
along with that, there should be a separate symbol for the infinite, because the infiite is to infinity what the infinitesimal is to zero. Same idea in reverse.
I'm sorry, forgive me if I'm being critical; correct me if I'm wrong. That doesn't even sound like it makes sense, for a number or reasons. Infinity is an arguable opposite to 0 in a different sense, but infinity itself is not a number. Saying that there is a number an infinitesimal away from infinity sounds wrong. I don't know quite what terms are used for it, but that reminds me more of the idea of absolute (by definition in ENGLISH, not math). In otherwords, I don't know quite what that would be called, but what you seem to be talking about sounds like a totally different idea unless I am mistaken somewhere. However, that doesn't quite dismiss the validity of your argument earlier either, which I seemed to have missed....
3. all finite numbers between the infinitesimal and the infinite (including all fractional, irrational and trancendental numbers)
4. infinite (forever approaching, but never reaching infinity)
You keep mentioning infinite as being like....this max number, as I had said earlier, unless I'm mistaken, infinity itself is NOT a number, it is rather an idea of of something limitless or unlimited. However, that doesn't mean that what you are saying either is wrong, the idea itself is still logical, I just think your misunderstanding infinity.
(Please, if I'm wrong about this, tell me! I have spent a LOT of time trying to understand infinity in the past, and I neither want to be misinformed nor misleading someone.)
Why not just make up your own symbol for it. There is no way to represent infinitesimal...1/∞ (contrary to my older belief), doesn't actually make any sense, and this idea has been dropped anyway (can look at things like wikipedia).
Besides for that, to the best of my knowledge, we don't have a character that can truly represent infinitesimals by themselves, we can only really understand the idea of it as the smallest possible number. Making up a character for it could solve that problem, as then we have something to represent it. Just an idea.
That sounds like quite a claim. Though it is obviously quite improbable. Although, I put some of the things you mentioned into question:
What exactly is so funny about aliens being non-hostile? How do you know this man has little blood left? Why does it take aliens to know his language and teach him their language? Now as for the last question I asked is more the one I'm interested in. It brings me to two questions:
Assuming what you say is true, and these aliens knew Serbian, couldn't it still be necessary to learn their language? For example, what if they had important things to tell him that they wanted to make sure no one else could understand if overheard?
As for my second question, how are you so sure that he can't learn their language without someone to translate or for them to know Serbian? Isn't it possible that there are other ways of learning, such as by means of simply figuring it out, similar to how we all learn our first language? Though I know that is arguable, as others would say how our brain changes throughout time and we lose certain abilities that we had as a child that would otherwise enable us to learn these things, but none of this is proven fact either, thereby still plausible.
Now don't get me wrong, it's not that I think this guy is telling the truth and actually believe what he was saying, as I said above, this is very improbable, but all I'm ultimately trying to say is can you really dismiss these things with absolute certainty as well? There are plenty of people who believe in aliens, either out of interest, plausibility, delusions, being "abducted," talking to them, whatever the case might be. Quite a number of these people have also, at least claimed they didn't believe in aliens before hand, and now do. Either way, I don't feel it should be dismissed with such certainty that you assume it's definitely wrong.
I myself do believe in aliens, however I don't believe in the abductions, talking to them or whatever. I more so just simply think they exist. The...multiverse is arguably infinite, I find it hard to believe we are the only planet in it that has "life." Though that can also depend on how you define what life is, which is a completely different argument.
(Sorry for the long post by the way)
I know I might not be an administrator or anything, but I more agree with mathisfun on this (just as a third party opinion I guess). Everytime you delete a member for "inactivity" it discourages and/or frustrates those who actually do plan on doing something eventually, on top of that, it can lead other potential people who are interested in something like this forum away. I myself was inactive for, I'm pretty sure for over 6 months, and I think I had less then 5 posts. Now if I came back and found out my account was deleted, I as a normal member would be pretty annoyed. I don't know if I really made my point that clear, and possibly said more arguable things, but I am only trying to say overall when websites, forums, etc. do things like that, they in turn lose potential members, and was ... at least trying to explain reasons for this, hope I didn't do that bad of a job...
No sorry, was not asking you to prove your honesty. Was just merely...explaining why I can't just simply take your word for it, as it was more of an explanation as to why I had doubts since you had asked me to clarify. It was a lesson taught to me a long time ago by my father, even that I had to think about before thinking of it as being true; but I'm pretty sure you can guess now what I think of that. Anyway, I apologize, I was ONLY trying to clarify like you had asked, and was not really sure of a better way to explain it without going into further detail.
Well, for instance, I do not personally know much about how honest this forum is, none the less, that really does not matter. It is not that I do not believe you but that I have been told before never just take the word of another, rather think upon it and decide for yourself if it is true or not (or something like that). Therefore, without me personally knowing the people on this forum, I can not just unfortunately come to believe this. (By the way, please do not mistaken me calling you dishonest either, it is just more the way I think) On top of that, that is more so just an opinion. As for the other thing you said, that has more validity, (about vixra), though, I am not familiar with this website, so I'll just tell my friend about it, and if he still thinks he has the new idea, he can take a look at it himself. Again, I was getting very curious myself because no one else seems to have had any answers, to be honest though, yours seems more assuring then my brothers answer.
Okay, thanks, I was just curious because my friend said he discovered something recentally to do with math. When he asked me the same question, I had no idea how to respond to him and simply said, I don't know. I began asking my brother and a bunch of other people, majority of people seem not to know, my brother is the only one to give a response so far, you the second. I still have my doubts though, but at least I have more to tell him now.
Even if someone else takes the credit in order for one to stay anonymous?
I am more so just asking, I know numerous people who if they discovered something they would not like to be known but in the case they were to discover something, they would also want the rest of the world to know as well, it is more of a question out of curiosity and was looking for answers because I've often wondered it for quite some time...
What if one wanted to do so more privately?
I've always been curious about something. Suppose you had found out something new in math, and you had a way of proving it to be true, how would you let the rest of the world know about it? When asking my brother the same question, he answered that one would need to distribute the proof amongst as many people as one can, more so mathematicians, so they can try to prove it wrong, and if no one was able to prove it wrong, then it is most likely correct, and will eventually become better known. I had my doubts about this and wanted to ask, remembering I had joined this forum some time ago, I figured it was more appropriate considering this is a math forum. Some of you might remember me back when I was trying to argue that 3.3...+6.6...=9.9...and not 10, only to admit defeat later as rules of math already said this was true. Anyway, my only point is, I am just unsure and would like a second opinion on this, is what my brother saying true, and that someone would need to let other mathematicians know about it, or is this actually wrong and would require something else to be done?
Okay, 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.
Okay, to bobbym...
Rule 1) .999999999... = 1
You can now accept this and move on.
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.
To anonimnystefy,
What I was explaining earlier was that 0.3 recurring and 0.3 recurring were different because of how they are represented.
1/3 = 0.3 recurring because that is the only way to express it in decimal form, but that doesn't mean 0.3 recurring = 1/3, reason is because what if I simply wanted to use the number 0.3 recurring NOT intending it to be 1/3, as I see this as arguably possible. But in turn, something that might get confusing about it, both of those 0.3 recurring numbers would in fact be 2 different numbers, without a way to express the difference in decimal form.
just tell me the difference between 0.3 reccuring and 0.3 reccuring? then i will accept almost anything you say (not really but anyway,...).
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 per-say 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.
Third, an infinitesimal can be found, just not using limiting numbers.
also,an infinitesimal is just a term,but none can really be found.you cannot find any numbers greater than zero that are less than any other number.
1/infinity is not defined!
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....
Hi, this is more to bobbym...
I'm not saying that 0.3 recurring can't equal 1/3, I'm only saying it doesn't have to, however I realise this idea will likely be debated and/or dismissed by assuming I'm automatically wrong.
1/3 = 0.3 recurring because that is the only way to express it in decimal form, but that doesn't mean 0.3 recurring = 1/3, reason is because what if I simply wanted to use the number 0.3 recurring NOT intending it to be 1/3, as I see this as arguably possible. But in turn, something that might get confusing about it, both of those 0.3 recurring numbers would in fact be 2 different numbers, without a way to express the difference in decimal form. You can do this with anything really, not just 1/3. Also, I would argue that 0.5 ≠ 0.49 (with recurring 9s) to reconsideryouranswer, because they are both decimals that are not the same number. One last thing to bobbym, the idea of 0.9 recrurring ≠ 1 has in a sense been used in mathematics, just not in that same way. Let me give you an example: 1 - 0.9 recurring = 1/∞, or an infinitesimal, instead of 0. Although according to the normal rules, this is arguably 0, infinitesimals are still used, therefore I wouldn't dismiss the idea.
To be fair though, if this is controversial, I will not argue this further even though I can. I am just trying to make my point clearer was all...
This Monty Hall problem is actually very difficult to see how it works out logically to 1/3 chance of the same door, and 2/3 chance with the door you switch to. It is also difficult to explain for you to understand, I don't know if this will be of much help, but I'll also try....
The main thing happening here is that originally you have 3 doors to choose from. Therefore, assuming it's totally random, you will have 1/3 chance of picking each door. Now, here's where it gets more trickier: Monty Hall eliminates one of the doors that has a goat. When Monty Hall eliminates a door, it is not random anymore, the key is that Monty Hall got rid of the door that has a goat, therefore changing the chances. Only if he eliminated the door randomly it would change the probability down to 1/2 chance of each door. One way of looking at this could be to look at Monty Hall eliminating a door. Monty Hall knows what is behind each door, and depending on what you chose, he has 2/3s chance of eliminating a door that does not have the the car. So in all, by him eliminating that door, there is higher probability that the car is behind the door if you switch rather then stay...
I hope I didn't do that bad of a job of explaining that....
I'd have to disagree with most of what people are saying here, reason being is because to me it sounds like most people are assuming 3.3 recurring = 3 1/3, however, what if 3.3 recurring were just that? I'll agree with what most people are saying if you meant that 3.3 recurring was SUPPOSED to equal 3 1/3, although I can't because it doesn't. 3 1/3 expressed as a decimal equals 3.3 recurring because you can never get to the end, because ultimately it can not be accurately defined as a decimal. So in turn, I would argue that using 3.3 recurring + 6.6 recurring = 9.9 recurring not 10, unless 3.3 recurring was meant to be 3 1/3 in the beginning. The problem I'm having is what you originally meant, because if you meant 3.3 recurring as 3 1/3, then what I'm saying here is wrong, but looking at 3.3 recurring by itself, I'd disagree with what most people are saying.