[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
So someone has posed this question. If it...
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

So someone has posed this question. If it actually has a logical answer, I cannot see it. Does anyone have any ideas? Or do you think someone has just put a bunch of random numbers together without any meaning whatsoever?
>>
>>7811704

Maybe ? is a variable to solve for.

?^3 = 64.8
? = 4.o2 (my zero key is broken and I can't even close these brackets. fk.
>>
>>7811704
If 0.999... equals 1 and the sum of all numbers is -1/12 then OP's equation might as well be true. Math is logical my ass. The system of numbers is flawed.
>>
>>7811742
>too complex for you to understand =/= flawed
>>
>>7811722
0 <- here you go, you can copy and paste it when you need it.
>>
File: Low intelligence.jpg (31 KB, 400x400) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
31 KB, 400x400
I did it in the Maxima CAS, and you're all wrong, it's 129.6, all of you are retards.
>>
>>7811742

1-0.99999999... = 0.00000000... and it will go on returning zeroes forever, there will never be a digit after those zeroes which is not itself a zero.
You can do the same with multiplication

2*0.999... = 1.999... = 1 + 0.999... which will again be a number which is not any different from 2. It's just another way to write it. For all intents and purposes, 1 and 0.999... are equal because that's the only way you won't get any errors when calculating something with latter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%2B_2_%2B_3_%2B_4_%2B_%E2%8B%AF
This isn't arithmetics, but deals with infinite sums. It is logical when you spend some time understanding them and how some implications following from such results are actually consistent with what else you "know" about mathematics and mathematical rules.
>>
>>7811745
I would actually agree with him kinda.

It's not the system of numbers that's flawed, it's our method of representing them. It's a weakness of notation, not any of the ideas that the notations represent. A single number should only map to a single written number (not referring to including things like decimal notation versus fraction notation or including operations or whatnot, just like "3" or "32432").
That both 0.9... and 1 refer to the same number is a problem with the notation system.

Fuck if I know how to fix that, or if it's even possible, but to claim that it's not a weakness is kinda short sighted.
>>
File: image.jpg (144 KB, 575x419) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
144 KB, 575x419
Because all of those numbers are bouncy to a degree of 5, ergo equaling 2.