Lolsmith
kill all boomers
Yeah, limiting sums in my 2U exam next week will make me giggle. Thanks for that guys.
That is correct and legitimate. The reason being is this idea of limiting sums. The notion of 0.999... represents an INFINITE number of decimal places. In theory this means it should equal 1 "at the point of infinity".is this a legit proof?...
0.999.... let equal x
10x = 9.999...
10x - x = 9x = 9.999... - 0.999... = 9
ie. 9x=9
x=1
0.999... = 1
Who says 1 = -1 is false, afterall:∞ x 0 = - 1
=> ∞ x 0 x - 1 = 1
But 0 x - 1 = 0
=> ∞ x 0 = 1
.: 1 = - 1
which is clearly false, so the initial assumption that ∞ x 0 = - 1 is clearly incorrect
Nice but how the hell do you think like that?That is correct and legitimate. The reason being is this idea of limiting sums. The notion of 0.999... represents an INFINITE number of decimal places. In theory this means it should equal 1 "at the point of infinity".
The reason why most people find this hard to accept is because they always see 0.999... with a finite number of decimal places. If it has a finite number of decimal places it would obviously not be equal to 1.
It's only equal to 1 when there is an INFINITE number of decimal places.
Infinity is NOT a number. It is meant to be treated as a limit when something increases positively without bound. The argument that since the y-axis and x-axis are perpendicular therefore "∞ x 0 = - 1" is enough to incite pure mathematicians to murder you lol
Here is a contradiction to disprove the argument, if
∞ x 0 = - 1
=> ∞ x 0 x - 1 = 1
But 0 x - 1 = 0
=> ∞ x 0 = 1
.: 1 = - 1
which is clearly false, so the initial assumption that ∞ x 0 = - 1 is clearly incorrect
Perhaps a more appropriate definition of two lines with gradients m1 and m2 being perpendicular would be:
m1 = - 1 / m2 if m2 =/= 0
OR
m2 = - 1 / m1 if m1 =/= 0
This should be a better formula which works when one of them equals zero and the other approaches infinity. This means the easier to remember high school result:
m1m2 = - 1
only holds when both m1 and m2 are non-zero and finite
I guess only I found it interesting.Im sorry, how is this very interesting?
This is how pure mathematicians think with lots of rigour to ensure technical precision. That being said, I'm more of an applied person though lolNice but how the hell do you think like that?
undefined can be thought of as being infinity, since infinity is sort of like an undefined number.I thought the gradient of y was undefined, not infinity.
y*x = -1
y*0 = -1
y = -1/0
Therefore y is undefined.
Might be completely wrong here though.
We know that 1/9 = 0.111...., 2/9 = 0.22... etc.is this a legit proof?...
0.999.... let equal x
10x = 9.999...
10x - x = 9x = 9.999... - 0.999... = 9
ie. 9x=9
x=1
0.999... = 1
If it is repeated forever to infinity it will equal exactly 1. Perhaps the reason that this seems hard to accept is that you keep thinking of it with finite decimal places.We know that 1/9 = 0.111...., 2/9 = 0.22... etc.
But the pattern obviously stops at 9, because we all know that 9 divided by 9 is EXACTLY 1 and not 0.9 repeated even if you repeat it for ever.
Yeh you're right.If it is repeated forever to infinity it will equal exactly 1. Perhaps the reason that this seems hard to accept is that you keep thinking of it with finite decimal places.
Perhaps a geometric series argument may be more convincing intuitively:
Suppose 0.9999.... had a FINITE number of decimal places (say n decimal places), then
0.9999... = 9 (1/10 + 1/102 + 9/103 + ..... + 9/10n)
The bracket is a geometric series with a = 1/10 and r = 1/10, hence
0.9999... = 9 (1/10) (1 - (1/10)n) / (1 - 1/10)
= 9 (1/10) (1 - (1/10)n) / (9/10)
= 1 - (1/10)n
As n --> ∞, then we reach an INFINITE number of decimal places. But (1/10)n --> 0 when this happens thus 0.9999... becomes 1 when it has an infinite number of decimal places.
Think about it. For example, there is no way 0.2222.... will ever equal 2/9 unless there are an INFINITE number of decimal places.
Consider the proof for 0.22222... = 2/9
Let x = 0.222222....
10x = 2.22222....
10x - x = 2
Why is it equal to 2 under subtraction? Because there is an INFINITE number of decimal places. If there were a finite number of decimal places then the subtraction would clearly not be equal to 2. It will actually be 1.99999...98 if it had a finite number of decimal places.
But...Who says 1 = -1 is false, afterall:
<img src="http://www.codecogs.com/eq.latex?\begin{align*}i&=i\\\sqrt{-1}&=\sqrt{-1}\\\sqrt{\frac{-1}{1}}&=\sqrt{\frac{1}{-1}}\\\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{\sqrt{1}}&=\frac{\sqrt{1}}{\sqrt{-1}}\\\sqrt{-1}&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{-1}}\\(\sqrt{-1})^{2}&=1\\\therefore -1&=1\end{align}">
For those who take maths a bit too seriously, yes there is a false statement in the arguement but it is pretty hard to find (it took me a few years before I could find someone to point it out)
(-1)^2 =1 ... so yes, the square root of 1 is 1.But...
I;m pretty sure there is a difference between
But...But...