Luke Rainbird Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 Shame she contradicts herself on a couple of occasions in there then really. The majority of her videos are both accurate and pretty entertaining though In "shooting herself in the foot" news, she even wraps it up by talking about a number "infinitely close to, but smaller than, one". As has been mentioned, this magical number will behave exactly like 1 in almost every case imaginable, but then that can be said about 0.99999 in a huge number of instances (for example) With today's tech, it makes no difference in a physical sense, but my original point still stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hI-OOPS-CAPS Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 + 0.00009 + 0.000009 = 0.999999 I remeber the infinite series thing, with the giant E looking symbol. It does that above but till infinity and shows it = 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukasMcNeal Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 When you imagine a song in your head, how comes you can hear it or make it be heard, yet we can only hear through our ears. (properly that is, not like feeling a vibration.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 Maybe because it fires off the hearing bit in your brain. Then the reason you can tell the difference between brain music and real music is because you can feel that the ear isn't picking up sounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TROYston Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 (edited) Biggest problem about that video is about 2 minutes into it i got hungry, and she didnt make me a sandwich. Thats what happens when women leave the kitchen. Here is something to think about. Think of a new colour or letter take your pick and let me know. Edited March 27, 2012 by TROYston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 In the movie Cool Running's, they use sprinters so they can push the bobsled faster at the top to gain valuable milliseconds which can turn into full seconds a the finishing line. But Sanka is not a sprinter. Surely in this case, Sanka would just be left behind? How come he wasn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 In the movie Cool Running's, they use sprinters so they can push the bobsled faster at the top to gain valuable milliseconds which can turn into full seconds a the finishing line. But Sanka is not a sprinter. Surely in this case, Sanka would just be left behind? How come he wasn't? Don't forget they're pushing a 200kg bob. If it was a clear sprint then sure he'd be left for dead but as the best pushcart driver in all of Jamaica he only needs to keep up with them (who are taking the strain of pushing the thing) before jumping in and driving Talula to almost certain failure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_Trials Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Not going with this 0.9999 = 1 Obviously 1/3 is rounded even if you call it 0.333333333333333333333333333333333 it is rounded, hence why 0.3333+0.3333+0.3333 = 0.9999 If you had "infinite" amount of nine, there will still be that "infinite" .1 that needs adding to make it 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Not going with this 0.9999 = 1 Obviously 1/3 is rounded even if you call it 0.333333333333333333333333333333333 it is rounded, hence why 0.3333+0.3333+0.3333 = 0.9999 If you had "infinite" amount of nine, there will still be that "infinite" .1 that needs adding to make it 1. Technically it'd be 0.0000000001 rounded, but as it's not rounded, it's an infinite amount of 0.0000 before the 1. Question is, does that make it 0, if so then 0.99999999etc must equal 1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTrialSpaz Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Not going with this 0.9999 = 1 Obviously 1/3 is rounded even if you call it 0.333333333333333333333333333333333 it is rounded, hence why 0.3333+0.3333+0.3333 = 0.9999 If you had "infinite" amount of nine, there will still be that "infinite" .1 that needs adding to make it 1. The thing about infinite is that it never ends, so 0.333...=1/3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich J Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 The thing about infinite is that it never ends, so 0.333...=1/3 0.333etc is not a third though. 3x1/3=1. 3x.333=.999 or however far along you want to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_Trials Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 The thing about infinite is that it never ends, so 0.333...=1/3 But you can have as many .3's as you like, it still won't equal 1/3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 But you can have as many .3's as you like, it still won't equal 1/3 Unless you have infinite 3's. The it = exactly one third. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Infinity is a f**ked up concept Seriously. This problem has been around for years and hasn't been definitively proven one way or the other by some of the greatest mathematical minds the modern world has ever known. With all due respect, I don't think we're going to solve it here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Infinity isn't too f**ked up in a mathematical sense really. Just like the moneys on typewriters example, it's easy to see how anything is possible once you start throwing around the word infinity. To Jamie: Lets say you have a coin you flipped 10 times, what're the chances you'll get the coin to land on it's edge 10 times in a row. Chances would be astronomical. Lets say you flipped the coin 1,000,000 times for it to land on it's edge 10 times in a row, would still be astronomical, but would be less than before. The more times you flip the coin more likely it'll be that that happens. Eventually you're going to flip it enough times that the chances of that happening will become 50/50, then more flips after that more likely than not. The more times you flip the more and more likely it is to happen to the point when it's 99% likely to happen. Flip even more times and you're going to get the repeating nines 99.9% likely to happen, even more flips 99.999% likely to happen. Millions of years of more flipping and you get 99.99999999% likely to happen. But if there was an infinite number of flips, that 99.99999999% would turn to 100% (aka 1), and the coin landing on it's edge 10 times in a row would become a certainty. If you don't flip the coin an infinite number of times, the probability would be forever getting closer to 100%, but would never reach it, there would just be more 9's after the decimal point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualjoe Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 We don't want to get too obsessed with infinities or we'll end up like Cantor! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Infinity isn't too f**ked up in a mathematical sense really. Just like the moneys on typewriters example, it's easy to see how anything is possible once you start throwing around the word infinity. Oh sweet, thanks for such an eloquent watertight explanation. I'll just go and bang my head against this wall until I forget all that has been said by lecturers, teachers and the like over the years and roll with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) Oh sweet, thanks for such an eloquent watertight explanation. I'll just go and bang my head against this wall until I forget all that has been said by lecturers, teachers and the like over the years and roll with you. I don't really get how the concept is difficult to grasp in a purely theoretical mathematical sense, which is what this is. Obviously if you're talking about the infinite universe that's a whole different mindf**k. Edited March 28, 2012 by JT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 I don't really get how the concept is difficult to grasp in a purely theoretical mathematical sense, which is what this is. Obviously if you're talking about the infinite universe that's a whole different mindf**k. I hope you got a 1st in your maths degree... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Ok so let's break it right down. Does 0.9 = 1? I'm going to go with "no". Now, I'm guessing you've followed that far and probably don't contest it, so next step; Add another decimal place to that. 0.99. I think it's pretty clear that this still doesn't equal zero, right? How about the next step; Does 0.999 - 1? What about 0.9999? As we add more and more decimal places, we're getting increasingly close to a number with a magnitude of 1, there's no doubt about that, but it's not yet equal to it. Still agreeing at this point? Here's where the problem seems to lie; Infinity isn't a number. It doesn't come just after eleventeen-gazillion and three, or some other fixed point, it's a concept to describe a situation that has no end. We can carry out the steps above over and over without the number being precisely 1. Perhaps the difference (which may or may not be there) is too infinitesimal to comprehend and so it's easier to just think of it as equal to 1 - hell, it's as near as makes no difference and almost any physical application would struggle to distinguish anything between them, but to just flat out decide that they are equal holds absolutely no standing. I can't say which way it goes, it's largely down to definition and applications in which case it could be equal, different or even both depending on the circumstances, but yeah. It's really not black and white like you seem to be trying to bluntly make out. It's like asking what an infinite series sums to - often there'll be a fixed number that a function can equal, but in other cases whilst you may see behaviour tending towards a limit, it never takes that value. Out of interest, to what level have you studied maths? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 tending towards a limit I think that's the best you can say for the whole infinity thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeroMatt Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 But does logic take precedence over calculations. If 1/3 is taken as a third of 1 then 1/3 = 0.333... and 3 x 0.333... = 0.999... so you end up with 0.999... being equal to 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 By the same argument as before though, 1/3 isn't necessarily precisely 0.33333 (however many zeros you want to put). They're infinitely close in a worst case scenario, but same rules apply. Saying that 1/3 = 0.3333... and so 1 = 0.9999... means nothing as you're simply assigning a value, rather than proving one. It's the same sort of reason that the x = 0.999, 10x = 9.999, 9x = 9, x = 1 "proof" isn't really "proper" as such. With the "logic over calculations" though, as I've said a few times in a real world situation any difference is negligible 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeroMatt Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 That's the issue with simple proofs and trying to express these fractions simply. You need to start messing with limits and stuff. Hated all this "pure" stuff at school, it makes no sense to me as it has no basis within the real world in my eyes. Much easier for me using a set number of decimals in calculations seeing as there's tolerances to account for Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 Bigtime - for virtually all applications we don't need the additional precision. So long as we know the tolerances to work to, job's a good'un! Unfortunately the curiosity of the human nature leads to a desire to want to fully understand things and so we end up with people that want to know this sort of thing Fortunately, however, another couple of months and I should be able to largely turn my back on all this kind of shit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.