LukaP

i like you too girl <3
 
tho 
@tmclelland455 is bae
@virtualTune is my bro
@Jogostar is jogurtstar fatass bitch
@BonBon Scott is retarded and useless

The DEFINITION of a rational number is that it can be written as n/m where n and m are integers.
 
Both 10 and 3 are integers. 10/3 is rational.

Everyone in the anime club, particularily
@MyInnerFred
@Vitalius
@Pandalf
@wolfgang
@Ruostunut kokis
@Laputacake
@Charger
@CatCloud
@TheProfosist
@BashZeStampeedo
@KingCry
and probably a lot of other ones that I`m forgetting about right now.
 
Also everyone in the osu! thread, particularily
@Wind
@NeatSquidYT
@Mo5
@Vlazzy
 
Members I like which are in neither of those threads are
@Godlygamer23
@ShadowCaptain
@Blade of Grass
@LukaP

nono, im not saying it has a last digit at all, thats my point, there is no first or last digit in the decimal notation. hence in decimal one cant write anything accurately without some standards.
 
we all know that 1 in decimal is just how we agreed to write numbers such as 0*01.0* and 0*0.9*.
 

no it does not. -.- have you even seen my mathematical, as well as philisophical proof? if you want i can prove it to you with a limit as well. (also if you dont believe me about limits, i suggest you read on them)

no it does not. -.- have you even seen my mathematical, as well as philisophical proof? if you want i can prove it to you with a limit as well. (also if you dont believe me about limits, i suggest you read on them)

you can write down 0.9* using the tools provided by math, namely the dot on top of the 9 or simply 1/9*9. Right now, it's as if he was calling bs on the microscope and saying we can't prove what we're actually seeing is his dna.

its just a way of typing it ffs. a decimal notation. we have 3 (actually 4) ways to type an integer in decimal. 0.9999999, 1, 1.000000000 and 1.00000(recurring)0000001. they all hold the same value, its a downside of the decimal notation. it makes sense.
and no, the point of limit is not that you never reach it, the point of it is it describes how a function/series behaves for big n. and that is exactly what we care about. what does this do if n rises through the roof. (also, you do type lim(expression) = number, so there)

no its not. lets go over it slower
 
0.9999*10 = 9.9999999 (all of this periodic) simple multiplication, alls good here right?
9.9999-0.9999 ive taken the result from above, and subtracted the original number = 9 this simple subtraction gives us this result, alls good right? = so then as we agree that we have subtracted one of the 10 factors in the original multiplication, we can also say (10-1) or as its more commonly known 9*0.9999 = and as the last two expressions are equal 9*1  ergo
0.9999 = 1

Umm youre not in high enough math it seems. below i have an algebraic proof of it equaling 1, you could also do an analytical with a series of fractions and its limit towards infinity to prove it
 

nope. by definition 0.9999 periodic equals 1. here is the proof
 
0.9999*10 = 9.9999999 (all of this periodic)
9.9999-0.9999 = 9 = 9*0.9999 = 9*1 (per above) ergo
0.9999 = 1

Approximation is a way to allow people to write infinite numbers. If the only proof you'll take for defining a number is working it out and physically see it written down to the end, you do not understand how math works.
 
We showed you multiple ways to prove that 0.9* IS 1. If you want to continue insisting on a point that was proven wrong multiple times and refuse any logical proof we put before you, be my guest. It's like talking to a man who insists he is a turtle and says we can't prove he isn't because we can't manually unravel his dna to show him the differences.

same shit, just a different expression, as apart from defining pi, its all simple algebra
yes, now i ask you to even with approximation to any degree, (ergo limiting towards infinity) show that 1-0.9* is anything but 0. if you do i will reference you in my paper, as i go pick my PhD and any awards i may get.

All right, tell me what 1-0.9* is then.
 
And read up what "by definition" means.

no it does not. -.- have you even seen my mathematical, as well as philisophical proof? if you want i can prove it to you with a limit as well. (also if you dont believe me about limits, i suggest you read on them)

or e being defined by a limit as well. lim(1+1/x)x = e. its the exact same thing, just a different series/function

Wow, I thought I would never live to see the day when a raging flame war would be wrought over such a fundamental absolute as mathematics. Politics, philosophy, religion, history, sure, happens a thousand times a day!!
 
But MATH?!
 

I guess I was wrong.

except this
 
 
is not 0.9* because you can't define the power of 10. Whereas you can define exactly what 0.9* is - it's 1/9*9. Which is also 1.
 
I don't understand why seeing a number in two different forms bothers you so much. Do you have a problem with 1=-e^iπ too?

i like you too girl <3
 
tho 
@tmclelland455 is bae
@virtualTune is my bro
@Jogostar is jogurtstar fatass bitch
@BonBon Scott is retarded and useless

its just a way of typing it ffs. a decimal notation. we have 3 (actually 4) ways to type an integer in decimal. 0.9999999, 1, 1.000000000 and 1.00000(recurring)0000001. they all hold the same value, its a downside of the decimal notation. it makes sense.
and no, the point of limit is not that you never reach it, the point of it is it describes how a function/series behaves for big n. and that is exactly what we care about. what does this do if n rises through the roof. (also, you do type lim(expression) = number, so there)

no its not. lets go over it slower
 
0.9999*10 = 9.9999999 (all of this periodic) simple multiplication, alls good here right?
9.9999-0.9999 ive taken the result from above, and subtracted the original number = 9 this simple subtraction gives us this result, alls good right? = so then as we agree that we have subtracted one of the 10 factors in the original multiplication, we can also say (10-1) or as its more commonly known 9*0.9999 = and as the last two expressions are equal 9*1  ergo
0.9999 = 1

Umm youre not in high enough math it seems. below i have an algebraic proof of it equaling 1, you could also do an analytical with a series of fractions and its limit towards infinity to prove it
 

I'll add that to my stash of information.

It's kinda OT , but I just remembered about @Askew .
 
Anyway , probably @as96 , @tmcclelland455 and @LukaP.
 
@fizzlesticks for the programming subforum

giggles and shit? Its all shits and giggles until someone giggles and shits (honestly what bout my deep insights into stuf *cries*)