mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2021-01-04, 03:59   #78
SarK0Y
 
SarK0Y's Avatar
 
Jan 2010

2·43 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   #79
SarK0Y
 
SarK0Y's Avatar
 
Jan 2010

1268 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  
Old 2021-01-04, 04:19   #80
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

100100011101002 Posts
minus

The attempt to (and resurrect a dead thread) detected.

Thread is closed.

Mod warning: More wasting of people's time with BS will result in a ban.
Batalov is offline  
Old 2021-01-04, 05:53   #81
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

52×7×53 Posts
Default

\(\lim\limits_{n \to \infty}\frac{n}{n+1}=0.9999..99\); in fact, \(\lim\limits_{n \to \infty}\frac{n}{n+M82589933}=0.9999..99\) too... hihi

edit: whoops, sorry Serge, didn't see the thread is closed.
(but this way I learned an important difference between \TeX and \MathJax (using the \limits when the formula is inline, otherwise the limits are placed as indices, and not compacted vertically).

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2021-01-04 at 05:59
LaurV 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 15:15.

Sat Mar 6 15:15:30 UTC 2021 up 93 days, 11:26, 0 users, load averages: 1.83, 1.69, 1.96

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.