Messages

What he have now just seems so drab.

That's what I was thinking. I'll puke if I play on the same map over and over and over. It really is limited. We don't need to scrap the story, just tweak it to allow more diverse words. It might not even take much tweaking at all.

Then read it again, because you still don't understand what I meant by that.

I'm done here The topic is about math fallacies, not explaining what a mathematical view means.

You're missing the point, obviously. Read it in the context it's placed in.

I was talking to Nielk1 in that post.

It can't be too plain, though. At least stay away from them for long missions. Staring at a single color with not much activity really is a huge turnoff.

So next time you do a calculation that ends up with a - answer, ask yourself how that is possible.

Instead of giving it for me to do, you should do it yourself!

I'll do it this time...
1/2 = 1/2
1/2 * 2/3 = 1/3
1/2 * 2/3 * 3/4 = 1/4
1/2 * 2/3 * 3/4 * 4/5 * 5/6 * 6/7 * 7/8 * 8/9 * 9/10 = 1/10
1/2 * 2/3 * ... * 29/30 = 1/30
1/2 * 2/3 * ... * 99/100 = 1/100
1/2 * 2/3 * ... * 999999/1000000 = 1/1000000
1/2 * 2/3 * ...forever = 0
Where x is the product.

If I were to use a limit:
lim(x -> ∞) = 0
The longer I go, the closer the answer gets to 0. If it goes on forever (which is not humanly possible), the answer you get will be 0.

ask yourself how that is possible.

It's not possible for humanity, but mathematically it is because math can do infinite.

I understand that you're confused. Try to stop trying to give infinite a number value and just accept the fact that it is never-ending and it will become MUCH easier.

The last 3 years of my math has been 'approaching' infinity and zero, you can understand why I have the view I do.

God I am sick of limits.

I totally see your side of the argument. Your view is that "you can't get to infinite, so find the limit." That's valid math.
My view is "you can't get to infinite, but the 'limit x -> ∞' is the same answer as if you plugged in '∞' for x." Also valid math.

Basically, my view is "just give up" and yours is "don't even try." All depends on how you interpret things.

Hmm, you're approaching this from a different direction than I am. You are using limits and I am plugging in "∞."
Because of this, we'll never really reach a conclusion... but oh well.
Sorry if my tone is overly critical, I don't mean to be intense, I'm just having a blast

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ... = 1
Geometrically:
This isn't what we're talking about, but it's the same concept. Take a full square, split it in half. Split that half in half and you get a 4th, split the 4th in half and you get an 8th, split that in half and you get 1/16 and so on and so on FOREVER. If you do this for infinite (not a really big number), you end up with small bits and pieces of the full square. It is impossible to split it in half any longer after you have split it in half for infinite, even though it doesn't stop.

I'm not trying to analyze infinite by giving it a value. I have given up doing that. I am saying that infinite is forever and there is no valid attempt to analyze it any further.

Similarily, 1/2 * 2/3 * 3/4 * 4/5 * 5/6 * 6/7 * ... = 0
"..." doesn't mean go on for a super long time and find out what it approaches, it means do that for infinite without using limits. If you do do it forever, you WILL get 0 as an answer. It is impossible for humanity to do it, but that's what you'll get after forever.



EDIT: in response to your last post:
As far as I'm aware, we're not flaming. I choose not to jump into flame wars, and if it ever were to get there I would step out. I agree, there is no end to this argument (it goes for infinite ). It all depends on how you interpret the math and that's different for everyone.

I AM applying the transitive property because it is CORRECT. What part of my previous proof do you not understand?

.999... has INFINITE 9's at the end of it. INFINITE. You can't stop infinite! It is equal to 1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.999

[.6' + .3' = 1]

I know what an asymptote is, and you can't get one from .999... because .999... doesn't form a curve, it forms a straight line at y=1.
An asymptote is where a function does not exist... EVER. AHadley already brought up (1/x), for example. Because you can't divide by 0, the graph's domain will come from negative infinite and grow as the graph gets closer to 0. The range does shoot off into positive infinite and continues again from negative infinite, NEVER touching 0.

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

You're saying exactly what I just proved but you don't believe.
.6' + .3' = .9'
.9999999... = 1
Therefore, using the transitive property, .6' + .3' = 1

Let me give you something else to chew on:
.33333333... = 1/3
If what you're saying is true, then the above is not true. .3333333... approaches 1/3, but never reaches it.
That's false. In fraction form, .3333333... is 1/3 EXACTLY.
In fraction form, .9999999... is 1 EXACTLY.

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.

Hey guys:

It doesn't matter what the heck it's made out of. It could be made out of plastic for all anyone cares. It all looks the same, and in Battlezone II will have the same effect when you shoot it, run into it, or look at it.

Let's put big, shiny, beautiful crystally objects on the map to make it look more decent.

There shouldn't be too many missions on a moonish planet. Even Pluto in the original story line was sickening by the 3rd or 4th mission.

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.

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...