mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2021-01-03, 08:12   #67
SarK0Y
 
SarK0Y's Avatar
 
Jan 2010

2×43 Posts
Talking

Side effect of research == \sqrt{2} is the rational number https://alg0z.blogspot.com/2021/01/square-root-of-2-is-rational-number.html?m=0
SarK0Y is offline  
Old 2021-01-03, 08:16   #68
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

22·5·307 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SarK0Y View Post
For once I am pleased that the linked target displays nothing without JS, because just the title makes it look like a crank worthy post.

Would you like to summarise what it says?
retina is offline  
Old 2021-01-03, 10:04   #69
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

3·43·73 Posts
Thumbs down

In a nutshell, he says:
Let's take a rational number p/q = 2/3.
"but definition of the odd/even has absolutely no sense for rational numbers," (direct quote)
so we cannot say that integer p=2 is an even number. it's neither even nor odd. It is 1.99999999999... End of proof.

Is that right, Evgeniy? 2 is not an even number? Would it make you feel better, if p/q = 1414/1000, "we cannot prove that integer 1414 is an even number"?

I attached his "proof".
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Square root of 2 is rational number.pdf (131.9 KB, 23 views)
Batalov is offline  
Old 2021-01-03, 23:16   #70
SarK0Y
 
SarK0Y's Avatar
 
Jan 2010

5616 Posts
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batalov View Post
In a nutshell, he says:
Let's take a rational number p/q = 2/3.
"but definition of the odd/even has absolutely no sense for rational numbers," (direct quote)
so we cannot say that integer p=2 is an even number. it's neither even nor odd. It is 1.99999999999... End of proof.

Is that right, Evgeniy? 2 is not an even number? Would it make you feel better, if p/q = 1414/1000, "we cannot prove that integer 1414 is an even number"?

I attached his "proof".
Ã…ctually, no :) 2 is 2, but when you deal with rationals you cannot treat them like natural numbers. for example..
\frac{1}{9}\cdot9 \neq\frac{9}{9}\cdot1
at 1st glance, looks strange, but...
\frac{1}{9}\cdot9 \eq0.11111111111111..11\cdot9

according to the very principle of limits, approximation of continuous function cannot reach its final point. Here we could recall
Achilles and the Tortoise
SarK0Y is offline  
Old 2021-01-03, 23:37   #71
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

13·367 Posts
Default

No, 1/9 times 9 is 1, even in decimals.
0.9999-repeating is equal to 1- yet you claim it is not, and make fuzzy reference to a limit. If it's not equal to 1, how far away from 1 is it? Or, what number can you fit between it and 1?
VBCurtis is offline  
Old 2021-01-03, 23:59   #72
SarK0Y
 
SarK0Y's Avatar
 
Jan 2010

2×43 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
No, 1/9 times 9 is 1, even in decimals.
0.9999-repeating is equal to 1- yet you claim it is not, and make fuzzy reference to a limit. If it's not equal to 1, how far away from 1 is it? Or, what number can you fit between it and 1?
0.9 < 0.99 < 0.999< .. < 0.999..99 it's continuous sequence/function. if you assume it can reach its final point 1 then you fall into bad situation like..
\lim_{x \to 1}\frac{1}{1-x}\eq \frac{1}{0}
SarK0Y is offline  
Old 2021-01-04, 00:10   #73
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

3×43×73 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SarK0Y View Post
Ã…ctually, no :) 2 is 2, but when you deal with rationals you cannot treat them like natural numbers. for example..
<<some red herring>>
Don't get distracted.

Observe: a p/q is a rational number, where p is an integer and q is an integer..
Done with rationals. Now all you have are integer numbers until the end of Euclid's proof.

Now, are you saying that it's not true that all integer numbers are either even or odd? Hint: they are!
Batalov is offline  
Old 2021-01-04, 00:38   #74
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

13×367 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SarK0Y View Post
0.9 < 0.99 < 0.999< .. < 0.999..99 it's continuous sequence/function. if you assume it can reach its final point 1 then you fall into bad situation like..
\lim_{x \to 1}\frac{1}{1-x}\eq \frac{1}{0}
Neither side of your limit example exists, so your congruence is nonsensical- and irrelevant to whether 0.9-repeating is equal to 1.

There is no sequence involved in the single number 0.9-repeating, either. I didn't ask about 0.9, nor 0.99. 0.9-repeating is neither of those numbers. Every member of your sequence is strictly less than 0.9-repeating, anyway.

You might figure out the flaws in your reasoning if you used words properly- how do you define "continuous sequence"?
VBCurtis is offline  
Old 2021-01-04, 01:15   #75
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

452610 Posts
Default

(1) OP seems to be confounding "fractions" (rational numbers) and "decimal fractions," i.e. fractions that can be expressed with a power-of-ten denominator. Not all rational numbers are decimal fractions.

(2) OP also seems to think that invalidating a proof of A automatically proves ~A (not-A). It doesn't. (Here, A is "The square root of 2 is irrational.")

OP, of course, did not invalidate the proof. What he actually did was (1).

Expressing the statement that the (positive) square root of 2 is rational as an equation in positive integers p and q,

(*) p2 = 2*q2

invites a Euclidean proof that the square root of 2 is not rational, because the equation is impossible.

Euclid also proved a result now known as the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, AKA unique factorization.

The equation (*) violates the Fundamental Theorem, because the left side is divisible by 2 evenly many times, while the right side is divisible by 2 oddly many times.
Dr Sardonicus is offline  
Old 2021-01-04, 03:59   #76
SarK0Y
 
SarK0Y's Avatar
 
Jan 2010

8610 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus View Post
(1) OP seems to be confounding "fractions" (rational numbers) and "decimal fractions," i.e. fractions that can be expressed with a power-of-ten denominator. Not all rational numbers are decimal fractions.
don't confuse numerical system & numbers itself == any proper numerical system can express any number. Another moment is how efficient that expression could be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus View Post
(2) OP also seems to think that invalidating a proof of A automatically proves ~A (not-A). It doesn't. (Here, A is "The square root of 2 is irrational.")
no, the very point is, you must uniform objects before you do operations on them. that proof messes w/ two different types of objects. for instance, 1/3 is odd or even? or let p,q \in \mathbb{N}\; \frac{p}{q}=\epsilon,\; p=\epsilon\cdot q everything looks fine out there, right? But we have the damn grave problem, even two ones...
 p=\epsilon\cdot q exists everywhere for any p & q. second form has two troubling cases == 1st one w/ q = 0 and 2nd one is that..
\displaystyle \lim_{q \to \infty}\lim_{p \to \infty}\frac{p}{q}\eq????
SarK0Y is offline  
Old 2021-01-04, 04:00   #77
SarK0Y
 
SarK0Y's Avatar
 
Jan 2010

2·43 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
Neither side of your limit example exists, so your congruence is nonsensical- and irrelevant to whether 0.9-repeating is equal to 1.

There is no sequence involved in the single number 0.9-repeating, either. I didn't ask about 0.9, nor 0.99. 0.9-repeating is neither of those numbers. Every member of your sequence is strictly less than 0.9-repeating, anyway.

You might figure out the flaws in your reasoning if you used words properly- how do you define "continuous sequence"?
so \ln(x) and  \frac{d\ln(x)}{x} do not exist, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
There is no sequence involved in the single number 0.9-repeating, either. I didn't ask about 0.9, nor 0.99. 0.9-repeating is neither of those numbers. Every member of your sequence is strictly less than 0.9-repeating, anyway.

You might figure out the flaws in your reasoning if you used words properly- how do you define "continuous sequence"?
Oh, boy, really?
\lim_{n \to \infty}\left(1-\frac{1}{10^{n}\right)\eq0.9999..99


Last fiddled with by SarK0Y on 2021-01-04 at 04:10
SarK0Y is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fast Factoring and Cracking The RSA Owl Miscellaneous Math 11 2021-01-01 01:26
Pope "Deviled Eggs" Benedict, heaven help us for cracking such yolks jasong Soap Box 9 2013-03-17 03:28

All times are UTC. The time now is 20:17.

Fri May 7 20:17:49 UTC 2021 up 29 days, 14:58, 1 user, load averages: 3.14, 2.75, 2.53

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.