>believes repeated division of the remainder by two will ever

just hide it, guys

>>8624358
This is wrong on so many different levels.

>>8624364
Give proof. Currently my proof is standing victorious, undefeated, shining example of mastery of mathematics. You on the other hand are just yelling like a feeble child.

>>8624385
Ever heard about limits, my boy ?

>>8624389
Careful not to fall for it

>>8624389
Sure, that archaic, pre-civilized, imaginary concept that is incorrect.

>>8624389
>>8624389
You truly believe by doing the same function on same thing in same circumstances produces a different results if you just do it enough many times? :D

Like
>1+1 = 2
>Actually, if I repeat that process to infinity, I will sometimes get 1+1=3.

>>8624358
>He fell for the 0/0 meme

Claim. Let x be a rational number. x/2^n = 0
Proof.
- Suppose x/2^n = 0.
-Then 1/2^n = 0/x
-Then 2^-n = 0
-Then 2^n = 1/0
-Then 2^n is undefined

Therefore x/2^n = 0 iff 2^n is undefined.

>1/2^n =/= 0 for any n
>[Idk, stuff maybe? :^)]
>therefore 0.999999=/=1

File: 1446079113314.webm (680KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

680KB, 960x720px

>>8624358
>>8624667
Sage
>A thread died for this