this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

Science Memes

13408 readers
1933 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Valthorn@feddit.nu 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

x=.9999...

10x=9.9999...

Subtract x from both sides

9x=9

x=1

There it is, folks.

[–] Blum0108@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

I was taught that if 0.9999... didn't equal 1 there would have to be a number that exists between the two. Since there isn't, then 0.9999...=1

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Somehow I have the feeling that this is not going to convince people who think that 0.9999... /= 1, but only make them madder.

Personally I like to point to the difference, or rather non-difference, between 0.333... and ⅓, then ask them what multiplying each by 3 is.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I'd just say that not all fractions can be broken down into a proper decimal for a whole number, just like pie never actually ends. We just stop and say it's close enough to not be important. Need to know about a circle on your whiteboard? 3.14 is accurate enough. Need the entire observable universe measured to within a single atoms worth of accuracy? It only takes 39 digits after the 3.

[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

pi isn't even a fraction. like, it's actually an important thing that it isn't

The problem is, that's exactly what the ... is for. It is a little weird to our heads, granted, but it does allow the conversion. 0.33 is not the same thing as 0.333... The first is close to one third. The second one is one third. It's how we express things as a decimal that don't cleanly map to base ten. It may look funky, but it works.

[–] Shampiss@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Divide 1 by 3: 1÷3=0.3333...

Multiply the result by 3 reverting the operation: 0.3333... x 3 = 0.9999.... or just 1

0.9999... = 1

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

You're just rounding up an irrational number. You have a non terminating, non repeating number, that will go on forever, because it can never actually get up to its whole value.

[–] WldFyre@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

1/3 is a rational number, because it can be depicted by a ratio of two integers. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, you're getting basic algebra level facts wrong. Maybe take a hint and read some real math instead of relying on your bad intuition.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

1/3 is rational.

.3333....... is not. You can't treat fractions the same as our base 10 number system. They don't all have direct conversions. Hence, why you can have a perfect fraction of a third, but not a perfect 1/3 written out in base 10.

[–] WldFyre@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

0.333... exactly equals 1/3 in base 10. What you are saying is factually incorrect and literally nonsense. You learn this in high school level math classes. Link literally any source that supports your position.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

.333... is rational.

at least we finally found your problem: you don't know what rational and irrational mean. the clue is in the name.

[–] Klear@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

TBH the name is a bit misleading. Same for "real" numbers. And oh so much more so for "normal numbers".

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

not really. i get it because we use rational to mean logical, but that's not what it means here. yeah, real and normal are stupid names but rational numbers are numbers that can be represented as a ratio of two numbers. i think it's pretty good.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

non repeating

it's literally repeating

[–] ArchAengelus@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

In this context, yes, because of the cancellation on the fractions when you recover.

1/3 x 3 = 1

I would say without the context, there is an infinitesimal difference. The approximation solution above essentially ignores the problem which is more of a functional flaw in base 10 than a real number theory issue

[–] Shampiss@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The context doesn't make a difference

In base 10 --> 1/3 is 0.333...

In base 12 --> 1/3 is 0.4

But they're both the same number.

Base 10 simply is not capable of displaying it in a concise format. We could say that this is a notation issue. No notation is perfect. Base 10 has some confusing implications

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 8 months ago

They're different numbers. Base 10 isn't perfect and can't do everything just right, so you end up with irrational numbers that go on forever, sometimes.