Scratch

wolvesstar97 wrote:

*cough*

*cough* math and stuff too *cough*
I believe that 0.9999999999999999999999999999999999................... = 1.

Last edited by Firedrake969 (2012-08-15 12:54:27)

samtwheels wrote:

I believe that time dilation is 4 dimensional inertia.

EDIT: and for your theory, that is just a way of explaining it. It's not really like that.

which theory?  And I agree with your theory.

jackrulez wrote:

Silly rabbit, that's just an analogy!

Seriously, though, that example is flawed. Large objects don't sink into the space-time continuum; they distort it.

EDIT: Ninja'd by eight minutes.

True about the space thing.  Don't expect spelling cuz I'm typing on my iphone. Ps:  mass "shrinks" the continuum around it.  Darn this new scratcher status

Firedrake969 wrote:

wolvesstar97 wrote:

*cough*

*cough* math and stuff too *cough*
I believe that 0.9999999999999999999999999999999999................... = 1.

Why? If it's the "3*(1/3)=0.99999" but "(3*1)/3=1" proof then that's flawed because 1/3 can never be worked out to full accuracy so you can't really use it in an equation.

Harakou wrote:

RedRocker227 wrote:

Firedrake969 wrote:

*cough* math and stuff too *cough*
I believe that 0.9999999999999999999999999999999999................... = 1.

Why? If it's the "3*(1/3)=0.99999" but "(3*1)/3=1" proof then that's flawed because 1/3 can never be worked out to full accuracy so you can't really use it in an equation.

Yeah, I've never understood why some people think that works. .3333.... is an approximation, so you can't work with it like that.

But what IS 1/3 as a decimal then?  Isn't it just .3333333333333...... infinitely?

Firedrake969 wrote:

Harakou wrote:

RedRocker227 wrote:

Why? If it's the "3*(1/3)=0.99999" but "(3*1)/3=1" proof then that's flawed because 1/3 can never be worked out to full accuracy so you can't really use it in an equation.

Yeah, I've never understood why some people think that works. .3333.... is an approximation, so you can't work with it like that.

But what IS 1/3 as a decimal then?  Isn't it just .3333333333333...... infinitely?

Yes.  Look up irrational numbers.

BTW, I'm starting to feel like there are too many types of numbers with names implying impossibility.  To (vaguely) quote Michio Kaku, you can't make large intellectual revolutions without being considered 'a crackpot or a loon.'

Firedrake969 wrote:

Harakou wrote:

RedRocker227 wrote:

Why? If it's the "3*(1/3)=0.99999" but "(3*1)/3=1" proof then that's flawed because 1/3 can never be worked out to full accuracy so you can't really use it in an equation.

Yeah, I've never understood why some people think that works. .3333.... is an approximation, so you can't work with it like that.

But what IS 1/3 as a decimal then?  Isn't it just .3333333333333...... infinitely?

That's an approximation. You can never work out 1/3 to full accuracy.

Really? Some of this is just a little embarrassing...

Yes you can show a decimal APPROXIMATION for 1/3 as .33333333333...and even though "we can never work out 1/3  to full accuracy" we can identify a pattern (3 repeating forever and ever).  You don't need infinite digits in the real world.  In fact, I remember reading that with just 39 digits of pi, you could calculate the circumference of a circle the size of the visible universe to the accuracy of the size of a hydrogen atom (i.e. you're only off by that amount at most).  We don't need infinite 3's following a decimal point because it's impractical and simplified forms are applicable.

As for the .9999... = 1 it is technically true, but it's also false because we can never represent 1 in this way...it's a tad simpler to do just 1.  Also, this comparison is usually used to show in calculations that are asymptotic.  That is, they approach, but never reach, a number.  Using this, we can see the number it is approaching, not the number it eventually reaches...because it never reaches a specific number.

Firedrake969 wrote:

RedRocker227 wrote:

Firedrake969 wrote:

But what IS 1/3 as a decimal then?  Isn't it just .3333333333333...... infinitely?

That's an approximation. You can never work out 1/3 to full accuracy.

If you could make it go to infinity you would.

But you can't :L

Wes64 wrote:

Firedrake969 wrote:

AtomicBawm3 wrote:

Really? Some of this is just a little embarrassing...

Yes you can show a decimal APPROXIMATION for 1/3 as .33333333333...and even though "we can never work out 1/3  to full accuracy" we can identify a pattern (3 repeating forever and ever).  You don't need infinite digits in the real world.  In fact, I remember reading that with just 39 digits of pi, you could calculate the circumference of a circle the size of the visible universe to the accuracy of the size of a hydrogen atom (i.e. you're only off by that amount at most).  We don't need infinite 3's following a decimal point because it's impractical and simplified forms are applicable.

As for the .9999... = 1 it is technically true, but it's also false because we can never represent 1 in this way...it's a tad simpler to do just 1.  Also, this comparison is usually used to show in calculations that are asymptotic.  That is, they approach, but never reach, a number.  Using this, we can see the number it is approaching, not the number it eventually reaches...because it never reaches a specific number.

In other words, .9999.... = 1 is both true and false OR neither true nor false.   

actually its false. no matter how many decimal places you extend 0.3333... to it always ends in 3, therefore when multiplied by 3 the final number always ends in 9. the same way no matter how many 0s you add together you will still have 0.

Have you seen this.

Um...no.

That's just a depiction.

You can think of spacetime as "densities".

High density would be like more gravity, and vice versa.

Rgh...

That's the simplist 4D explanation I can think of.