Terry Tao weighs in

Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.

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

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

Thread images: 3

Anonymous

Terry Tao weighs in 2016-02-11 14:35:54 Post No. 7850790

[Report] Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]

Terry Tao weighs in 2016-02-11 14:35:54 Post No. 7850790

[Report] Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]

File: 798px-999_Perspective_Vector.svg.png (24 KB, 798x114)
Image search:
[iqdb]
[SauceNao]
[Google]

24 KB, 798x114

>A different definition involves what Terry Tao refers to as ultralimit, i.e., the equivalence class [(0.9, 0.99, 0.999, …)] of this sequence in the ultrapower construction, which is a number that falls short of 1 by an infinitesimal amount.

Can we now finally admit that .999... != 1?

>>

.999...! isn't a number that falls short of 1 by an infinitesimal amount.

It's just a representation of a number, in this case, 1.

.333...! represents 1/3

.666...! represents 2/3

.999...! represents 3/3 or 1

If you argue that .999...! isn't 1,

then you have to argue that .333...! doesn't equal 1/3.

Which is stupid, because .333...! is a commonly agreed upon way to represent 1/3 in decimal form.

>>

>>7850796

>Which is stupid, because .333...! is a commonly agreed upon way to represent 1/3 in decimal form.

But the question isn't whether we agree to let it represent 1/3, the question is whether it -is- 1/3.

>>

>>7850801

You can't play this game in math.

>>

>>7850801

representation is identity

>>

>>7850796

>.333...! represents 1/3

>.666...! represents 2/3

>.999...! represents 3/3 or 1

>If you argue that .999...! isn't 1,

>then you have to argue that .333...! doesn't equal 1/3.

It's pretty easy really. Said fractions merely don't have an accurate decimal expansion in the reals.

>>

>>

>>7850790

>Can we now finally admit that .999... != 1?

If we're in nonstandard analysis, you'll be right.

However, the most common field of work is the field of standard real numbers, and the way decimal representation is defined in that has 0.9999....=1 as a simple consequence.

>>

>>7851078

>dude, representation is identity

>"No there's multiple representations!"

fuck off

>>

>>7851264

This.

The important thing to remember is that there is *no non-zero infintesimal* in the real numbers. It *does* exist in the hyperreals, but without qualification, decimal numbers generally represent real numbers (rational if they repeat or terminate). That's why a number like 0.000...1 (if it were to exist) could only equal 0 as a real number.

>>

>>7850790

Ultralimits are used to construct nonstandard extensions of the real numbers, called "hyper-reals".

[math] .999\ldots = 1 [/math] as real numbers. This is absolutely unambiguously true.

Perhaps, by abuse of notations, the same symbols could be used to represent distinct hyper-reals. But this would be strictly abuse of notation.

>>

[math]

{

Proving that 0.333... equals 1/3 : \begin{eqnarray*}

{x}&=&0.333...\\

10x&=&3.333...\\

10x&=&3 + 0.333...\\

10x&=&3 + x \quad\text{(from first equation)}\\

9x&=&3\\

x&=&\frac{3}{9}=\frac{1}{3}\quad\square

\end{eqnarray*}

Proving that 0.999... equals 1: \begin{eqnarray*}

x&=&0.999...\quad\text{(1)}\\

10x &=&9.999...\\

10x &=&9 + 0.999...\\

10x &=&9 + x\\

9x &=& 9\\

x &=& \frac{9}{9} = 1 \quad\square

\end{eqnarray*}}

[/math]

>>

>>7850796

>.999...!

>.666...!

>.333...!

>!

>>

>>7851519

Fuck TeX and 4chan's usage of mathjax

Why not latex? either way, screenshotted it. Here is the proof now stfu

>>

>>7851572

Can someone help me see where the analogy of this reasoning must break down for the hypernatural number defined as the equivalence class of (.9, .99, .999, ...) in the ultrapower?

>>

>>7851739

What are you talking about?

There aint no fallacy in the reasoning.

>>

>>7851931

In the real numbers .999 = 1.

In the hyper-reals, the hyper-real defined as the equivalence class of (.9, .99, .999, ...) in the ultra filter is not equal to 1 (i.e the equivalence class of (1, 1, 1, ...) in the ultra power), as follows by Los's theorem.

So there is some fallacy in the analogue of >>7851572 applied to the specified hyper-real.

>>

>>7851993

Uhm, i gues so, I don't know i'm just an engineer never heard of that theorem.

[math]

0.999...=\sum\limits_{i=1}^\infty9 *10^{-i}

[/math]

>>

>>7850831

They do though, just not in base 10

>>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cI7sFr707s

I'll just leave this here, watch it until you actually understand math. :)

>>

>>7852440

It worls perfectly in other bases too.

What you don't understand is that the reasoning only works for rationals, when we now that the decimals are repeated to an infinity.

>>7852475

Well, I define the real number using the number line and the supremumaxiom. But i read more on about cauchy sequences and guess what.

0.999... does converge into a rational number, while sqrt(2) does not.

>>

>>7850790

>Can we now finally admit that .999... != 1?

We never needed to. Almost all deniers are mathematically illiterate, and all deniers don't fully understand the concept.

Thread images: 3

Thread DB ID: 513456

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.

This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.

If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's