well on another site they are having a hugr argument over this. its actully kinda funny, but anyways, this one guy said .9~(if you dont no what ~ means it means repeating, going on forever.) = 1 but then people say that .9~ can never reach 1 becuase the 9's never end so it cant reach 1. I think that .9~ = 1 because of these reasons post by some guys.
Gender: Unspecified Location: A galaxy far, far away....
He is right. It goes by the same logic in number theory as the "anything over zero is undefined" rule.
For example, 1/infinity = 0. Nothing divided by anything equals zero, unless the numerator is zero, generally speaking. However, since infinity is considered neverending, whenever a number is divided by it, it is considered, in several branches of math, to be equal to zero. So, the principle is that when a number is infinitely close to something, it is considered equal to it (infinitely similar = same).
Also, by the transitive property of equality, since ~0.9 is equal to 9/9 and 9/9 is equal to one, ~0.9 = 1.
But anyways, he's right (depending slightly on which branch of math/physics/chemistry you're discussing). Sorry to bother you, sir. I hope that that was helpful.
Damn, I didn't see that thing about it not being interesting! I'm such a fool...
__________________
Last edited by Darth L. Dipsit on Jun 29th, 2005 at 05:16 AM
however...if you take the sum of xy over ab squared multiplied by n-2x to the tenth power subsect 3 minus quadrant bc subdivided by n squared assuming the hypotenuse is less than or equal to 0 times the right angle of c minus d times pi over yadayadayada blahblahblah.....
if you're not going to post something constructive, perhaps it'd be better to just not post
I've had similar arguments before...I once tried arguing with a teacher that zero and nothing (nullset) were the same thing if you actually wanted to apply these things to RL...that one was undecided
Gender: Unspecified Location: A galaxy far, far away....
I'm glad I moved up!
And, about Fëanor, the guy was brave as Hell. Took on all those Balrogs by himself. And he had good reason, too! I mean, my friends say he was stupid for trying to kill them all alone, but I probably would have done the same. The guy was a hero. What's your take?
Dammit, I had to edit my post so I could quote what you wrote! I'm a slow poster.
all my buds in the lotr forum felt the same way as your friends did...he had a chance at regaining back the sil and felt he could take on the balrogs
but the thing i like about him is that he is unlike the other elves: willful, headstrong, not one to just make trivial crafts and poetry all day...underneath was a heart of a warrior and would've been a great king had he lived...and his obsession with the silmarillion made him more...human than the others
KMC Community Forums
.9~ = 1.
Jun 29th, 2005 04:42 AM
