I love when someone puts out a flame like that without any explanation. Which point do you find incorrect? As for knowing the "basics of math", I was taking 2nd year calc when I was 15, and had perfect grades on college math entrance exams and recently graduate level math exams.
And if you doubt my math cred (which is fine, this is the internet after all), here is a page from a book written by some lesser-known mathematician (sarcasm intended). Although put into slightly different terms, shows that fractions can be expressed by an infinite series of decimals.
Or the other possibility is you just don't get it.
You state "a =.999 so 10 = 9.999; but this fails immediately. If a =.999 then 10a = 9.99 and the rest of the "proof" false apart."
But TFS puts dots after the 9's indicating it repeats infinitely. If you don't accept the premise that 1/9 can be represented this way, then you reject practically every introductory math book out there.
And seriously... is this really front page material? The simplest proof is to say "express 1/9" as a decimal. Now multiply both sides by 9. I remember this in elementary school algebra.
I was able to prove that with even one less "9" after the decimal point, it STILL equaled 1. I plan on doing this for a few more iteration until I can prove that . = 1
The analogy does not fail. If an entity is able to exist outside of time and see events unfold at will or at the very least know the results beforehand, this is perfectly analogous to the Tivo situation.
Slashdot Mirror
I love when someone puts out a flame like that without any explanation. Which point do you find incorrect? As for knowing the "basics of math", I was taking 2nd year calc when I was 15, and had perfect grades on college math entrance exams and recently graduate level math exams.
Slashdot will not accept the bar over the top. A trailing "..." as used in the summary is also acceptable.
Please see my replies to two others who essentially posted the same theorem.
Then do the long division with them and ask them where the one's stop. If they can't accept that, then it is not a deficiency on the explainer's part.
And if you doubt my math cred (which is fine, this is the internet after all), here is a page from a book written by some lesser-known mathematician (sarcasm intended). Although put into slightly different terms, shows that fractions can be expressed by an infinite series of decimals.
Or the other possibility is you just don't get it.
You state "a = .999 so 10 = 9.999; but this fails immediately. If a = .999 then 10a = 9.99 and the rest of the "proof" false apart."
But TFS puts dots after the 9's indicating it repeats infinitely. If you don't accept the premise that 1/9 can be represented this way, then you reject practically every introductory math book out there.
100+ versions? To make it easier they should just program to 99.99999999999.....+ versions.
Please note that the first part of his theorem stated a = b. Please try to read ALL of the message thread before commenting. Thanks.
Excellent point. I will submit a story about 1/2 = 0.4999999....
Are you really that clueless?
I am compelled to answer...
Divide both sides by (b - c - a) is dividing by zero.
Pretty damn easily. Go do your long division, and you will clearly see that the one will repeat forever.
this probably isn't necessary for most of the Slashdot crowd, but...
(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b) --> a + b = b
Required division by (a-b) on both sides. Since a = b, this is division by zero.
It is easy to explain.
1. 1/9 = 0.111111111111111111111111111111.....
2. Multiply each side by 9
3. 9/9 = 0.999999999999999999999999999999......
4. Simplify fraction
5. 1 = 0.999999999999999999999999999999......
Monty Hall trips up even serious math enthusiasts.
And seriously... is this really front page material? The simplest proof is to say "express 1/9" as a decimal. Now multiply both sides by 9. I remember this in elementary school algebra.
I was able to prove that with even one less "9" after the decimal point, it STILL equaled 1. I plan on doing this for a few more iteration until I can prove that . = 1
But hey, I am not 100,000 light years away to make that kind of judgment.
I am. It is why I can never get first post.
Get busy then.
Apparently this post also cloaked itself before you posted.
Yeah, if Carl Sagan were alive, he'd say
"HELP!!! GET ME OUT OF THIS BOX!!! IT IS SO DARK AND COLD!!!! HELP!!!!"
(stupid lameness filter) Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
You cold at least acknowledge my caveat "or at least the ability to fully use that omnipotence" :)
:)
The analogy does not fail. If an entity is able to exist outside of time and see events unfold at will or at the very least know the results beforehand, this is perfectly analogous to the Tivo situation.
By that definition is free will even possible? I could always set up a hypothetical situation where an entity knows your actions beforehand.
And you don't understand analogies. And I don't care to explain it to such a rude person. Have a nice day.