Math "Disproofs"



11092012, 03:19 PM




RE: Math "Disproofs"
Get in here Johnny!


12092012, 10:17 PM




RE: Math "Disproofs"
(11092012 12:55 PM)Phaedrus Wrote: Numbers of the form "0.000...0001" implying an infinite series of 0s followed by a one, do not exist. They are mathematically invalid. An infinite series cannot be terminated. Of course an infinite number can terminate with a different digit. And clearly you didn't watch the video. For example, I showed .444... multiplied by 9. The result is .444...46. I have "read up on infinity", and infinity as we know it isn't how it works in algebra, no matter how much you want it to. My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her nonstick pan. 

12092012, 10:23 PM




RE: Math "Disproofs"
(11092012 07:31 AM)Chas Wrote:(10092012 09:55 PM)Starcrash Wrote: No... 1/9 is .1111... with a remainder of .0...01. (Same all the way down through 8/9) I did the math, and you didn't pay attention. 9/9 certainly is 1, but that's because you've magically hit the point where the remainder becomes divisible and can be added in, so it no longer remains invisible. Algebra doesn't work the way you think it does. Try again. Of course there's a remainder. Do you guys comment on videos that you don't bother to watch? If you multiply .111... by 9, it gives you .999..., not 1. That's how we check our work  if X/Y = Z, then Z(Y) = X. If it doesn't, then we did the math wrong. That's exactly what I'm saying... you did the math wrong. Stop doing it on a calculator... the calculator rounds off. Let me give you further math proofs. If .999... = 1 and X squared = X squared, then .999 squared should = 1 squared. It doesn't. 1 squared is 1, and .999 squared is .999...980...001. Even if you don't understand the math there, I'm sure you realize that two numbers ending in 9 multiplied give you a "1" on the end, not a zero (as in 1.0000....). 2X = 2X. But 2(.999...) = 1.99...98, while 2(1) = 2. X  X = 0, but 1  .999 = .00...01 (or negative .00...01 subtracted the other way). The math doesn't work. No matter what you do to both sides, it will never come out equal. My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her nonstick pan. 

12092012, 10:28 PM




RE: Math "Disproofs"
(11092012 07:25 AM)Chas Wrote: I suggest you study up on infinite series and induction to aid your perception of countable infinity. Can we stop with the condescension? Stick to the arguments at hand. Do you really want to keep getting told "you don't get what I'm saying"? We keep talking past each other  you insist on the argument being "reductio ad absurdum", as if that means that it can break the laws of math and/or logic. It doesn't. Let me put this in a logical proof. Please, point out where it is invalid or unsound. Premise 1: Cantor's diagonal argument creates a number, N. Premise 2: If a number is not found in the set of all real numbers, then it is not a real number. Premise 3: N is not found in the set of all real numbers. Conclusion: Therefore, N is not a real number. Good luck with that. My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her nonstick pan. 

12092012, 10:34 PM




RE: Math "Disproofs"
(12092012 10:17 PM)Starcrash Wrote: Of course an infinite number can terminate with a different digit. I'm thinking that's the end of the conversation, right there. 

3 users Like houseofcantor's post 
13092012, 09:21 AM




RE: Math "Disproofs"
(12092012 10:17 PM)Starcrash Wrote:(11092012 12:55 PM)Phaedrus Wrote: Numbers of the form "0.000...0001" implying an infinite series of 0s followed by a one, do not exist. They are mathematically invalid. An infinite series cannot be terminated. No, it's infinite. It doesn't terminate. Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims. Science is not a subject, but a method. 

13092012, 09:23 AM




RE: Math "Disproofs"
(12092012 10:23 PM)Starcrash Wrote:(11092012 07:31 AM)Chas Wrote: There is no remainder. It is an infinite expansion, a power series. The expansion is infinite, there is no 'end', there is no rounding, there is no truncation. Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims. Science is not a subject, but a method. 

1 user Likes Chas's post 
13092012, 09:59 AM




RE: Math "Disproofs"
Thing is, I got no bones with Supernova's passion, here. I'm thinking there's something wrong with transcendental infinity myself, only I'm too stupid to figure it out.


13092012, 01:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 13092012 04:06 PM by GirlyMan.)




RE: Math "Disproofs"
(10092012 09:41 PM)Chas Wrote:(10092012 07:18 PM)Starcrash Wrote: Apparently mathematicians didn't stumble across this because they didn't realize that math with infinities was so simple. StarWreck just don't seem to be able to appreciate, let alone accept, proof by contradiction. Fair enough, that makes him a strict constructivist. ... Myself, I feel constructivism unwarrantedly restrictive. ... But to each his own. (12092012 10:28 PM)Starcrash Wrote: Let me put this in a logical proof. Please, point out where it is invalid or unsound. There is nothing constructive about Cantor's argument. Hypothesis: The cardinality of the set of natural numbers is the same as the cardinality of the set of real numbers between 0 and 1. Argument: What the fuck? Here's a shitload of counterexamples that refute that hypothesis. Conclusion: The cardinality of the set of natural numbers is strictly smaller than the cardinality of real numbers between 0 and 1. ... That is all. QED. As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen. And I will show you something different from either Your shadow at morning striding behind you Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you; I will show you fear in a handful of dust. 

13092012, 05:06 PM




RE: Math "Disproofs"
(13092012 09:59 AM)houseofcantor Wrote: Thing is, I got no bones with Supernova's passion, here. I'm thinking there's something wrong with transcendental infinity myself, only I'm too stupid to figure it out. Then you had better start thinking about changing your name and avatar. Just sayin'. Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims. Science is not a subject, but a method. 



« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)