Mathematic Fallacy

[mrtwosheds]

I think this is funny because you are SO wrong. Math is EVERYTHING.

What was wrong?
Maths could possibly be used to describe everything, given infinite time and capacity to calculate it.
Reality has that by default, reality is not just mathematics incarnate. Mathematics is a human language.
If you want maths to be everything then you are going to have to start expressing your equations in matter, energy and nothing.

[Clavin12]

Yes, I love math

That's not what I asked.

[Feared_1]

That's not what I asked.

I was joking because your sentence was grammatically incorrect for the context you wanted.

"Is math love?" isn't the same as "Is love math?"
The answer you wanted: It could be if you wanted it to be. Do I need to give examples or can you figure it out yourself?

MTS, I see where you're coming from. Example: The planets don't "use" math to orbit the sun, but that orbit can be defined using math and a pattern can be found pertaining to the other planets to make a "law." That "law" applies to all planets, even ones that have not been discovered. In fact, it applies to all OBJECTS. It perfectly describes what it needs to. The catch is people not being able to use the equation correctly.

If you don't want "infinite time and space", then you need to add values and variables to give it a specific limit. That's much more complicated, but perfectly possible. Using the example from before: A planet is orbiting the sun as defined by an unnamed orbit equation. A massive meteor strikes the planet and strongly disrupts the orbit of the planet. You can't use the equation anymore to define the orbit because it doesn't apply anymore. You would need to add more variables or values in order to get a mathematical balance again. The issue is that (as Avatar stated), people are not perfect and could easily come up with the wrong equation to describe the new orbit. It may work in that one situation, but in reality it doesn't apply to all.

Great thing about math... if you're going to say anything about it, you have to prove it.

.99999...... is exactly 1. Let me prove it...

x = .999999999...

Multiply both sides by 10

10x = 9.999999999...

Because x = .99999999..., let's subtract it (x) from both sides

9x = 9

Divide both sides by 9

x = 1 = .999999...

[Clavin12]

I didn't say that. He said math is everything and so I asked if math was love. I'm not going to ask is love math because it wouldn't fit the context. Math is not love nor is love math.

[Steeveeo]

INCORRECT! B is 0. Dividing both sides by B is dividing by zero. The fabric of space time breaks down when you divide by zero. Hence, 2=1

Complex Numbers.

There is another one, though.

Code Select Expand


1/3 = 0.3`

0.3` + 0.3` = 0.6`

0.6` + 0.3` = 0.9`


What is three thirds?

Only like this if you use Floor rounding. If you use normal or (for some reason) cieling rounding, 2/3 = 0.67 (or 0.7, since you were going to tenths).

0.67 + 0.33 = 1

[Nielk1]

.9' is not 1
.3' + .6' is not .9'

Great thing about math... if you're going to say anything about it, you have to prove it.

Shall I do induction on the length of the infinite decimal? That is how they create 100% will happen indisputable proof for math facts.

[Feared_1]

I didn't say that. He said math is everything and so I asked if math was love. I'm not going to ask is love math because it wouldn't fit the context. Math is not love nor is love math.

How about this:

Code Select Expand

L = f(L)
f(L) is the dependent variable (H)
Let H be a function of L

...Where L is love and H is happiness. Depending on each different person (i.e, throwing in different values and variables), how happy that person is depends on his/her relationships. If few people love that person (L is really low), then, assuming the person is dissatisfied for no one loving them, H should be low as well.

That's algebra.

[Clavin12]

So? You're just naming a variable love, and another happiness. That doesn't make math love or love math in any way.

[Nielk1]

So? You're just naming a variable love, and another happiness. That doesn't make math love or love math in any way.

No he is quantifying. Get it right.

[VSMIT]

So? You're just naming a variable love, and another happiness. That doesn't make math love or love math in any way.

Read a post completely before replying.

[eddywright]

I tried this equation on my PC, looked what happened

[Rocket]

.99999...... is exactly 1. Let me prove it...

x = .999999999...

Multiply both sides by 10

10x = 9.999999999...

Because x = .99999999..., let's subtract it (x) from both sides

9x = 9

Divide both sides by 9

x = 1 = .999999...

this calculation was interesting to me, but it took me awhile to find out what's wrong with it.

when you get to the point where you say, "lets subtract x from both sides" the equation no longer is true, since x = 0.9999999999... and 9 times x is 8.99999999999999999999.......999991 and is NOT 9, therefore the equation is false since x is not equal to 1, but is 0.999999999....

btw, you cannot change what x is equal to, after you have given it a value.

[Feared_1]

this calculation was interesting to me, but it took me awhile to find out what's wrong with it.

when you get to the point where you say, "lets subtract x from both sides" the equation no longer is true, since x = 0.9999999999... and 9 times x is 8.99999999999999999999.......999991 and is NOT 9, therefore the equation is false since x is not equal to 1, but is 0.999999999....

btw, you cannot change what x is equal to, after you have given it a value.

1. 9x is NOT 8.999...91, because the 9's go on FOREVER after the decimal point. Yes, (.999)*9 = 8.991, but .999 is finite. You cannot count the number of repeats after a repeating decimal, so you can't add a random number at the end. There is no end. It is also not possible to tuck infinite 9's between the decimal and 1. If that were true then I could tuck infinite anything into anything, changing their values completely.
I love it how people try to stop infinite. There is no stopping it because it is not growing. It's already infinite, and it always has been. It is simply forever. Humans are always trying to see infinite. Grasp the fact that you can't even think about reaching it. Just call it "infinite."

2. I never changed the value of x.
.99999999999... is the same as 1. They're the same number, just written differently:
x = 0
and
x = 0*(6)
I still didn't change the value of x. They're the same, just written differently.


I'm right about this. I promise. That proof I used isn't mine. It was taught to me in a math class a while back. I'm not the only one who knows this.

[Nielk1]

.99999999999... is the same as 1. They're the same number, just written differently

I'm sorry but no they are not. Graphically it is called an asymptote, look it up. It approaches 1  but never reaches it.

and AGAIN, .6' + .3' DOES NOT EQUAL .9' , it equals ONE.

There is no rounding, it is exact. I will bug one of my professors about an inductive proof for this just to set it straight.

[AHadley]

Take a look at a reciprocal graph. The values all approach zero but never reach it, instead shooting off into infinity.