Recurring numbers

[Jumpingmedic]

Because your intuition leads you the wrong way. We aren't dealing with infinity in the sense that 0.9r is an infinite quantity. I don't think anyone would argue with the fact it's less than something like 1.1, and more than 0.

There are loads and loads of ideas in maths which deal with infinities. I don't know how old you are, but A Level students meet the idea of infinite sums when dealing with certain geometric series. If you include the idea of limits, you can derive integration which is the foundation of so much of engineering, maths and physics. Then in the opposite direction you've differentiation, dealing with things going to zero, and you've even more of maths, physics and engineering. Considering we design 100 story buildings, computers, planes, power stations, launch satellites and (try to ) predict the weather using those ideas based on the concept of infinity and completeness, obviously something is going right or we'd be unable to do those things.

If you're a pure mathematician, the kind which scare most sane people, you can even start talking about how there are infinitely many different infinities. Sounds crazy I know, but if you follow certain ideas to their logical conclusion, it's an indisputable fact, unless you dispute things like 1+1=2 and 1>0 which I think we can all agree on

If you want more reading on how we CAN deal with infinities, have a gander here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completeness

I don't mean to sound rude, but it does seem terribly like you're just sticking with a preconceived notion you have about something which when you boil it down, you don't actually understand or know much about. I wouldn't pretend to know more than a professional programmer when it came to C, C++, Perl, VB or whatever because I've not learnt much about those things, so unless you're a mathematician by profession (or very least, degree, but then you wouldn't be making the errors you are) it's hard to make comments on material well estabilished in concrete and proven logic for at least 100 years.

Heh well frankly the links you've posted are too complicated for me. So I suppose you're right that my statements are based on assumptions. Nevertheless i'm too stubborn to give in that easily My assumptions are every bit as valid as anyone elses untill proven, and from what I've read there, no-ones proven 0.9 recurring equals 1.

Just to be difficult I will refuse to accept inifinity as a calculable number untill I see it proven before my eyes in understandable terms. Alternatively I would accpt proof that 0.9 recurring = 1 providing you use a formula that makes sense. But when i see a formula that makes a number equal to a compeltely different number alarm bells go off. Unless you can prove otherwise i would say that points to a mathematical error rather than a universal proof.

 

[Omicron]

and from what I've read there no-ones proven 0.9 recurring to equal 1.

I think it was Haircut, and the Wiki link I gave which proved thagt 0.9r does indeed equal 1. This is shown through the notion of geometric series to 17 year olds, so if you invest a bit of time into it you should hopefully get your noggin around it

Just to be difficult I will refuse to accept inifinity as a calculable number untill I see it proven before my eyes in understandable terms.

Ah, but no one has said this. As a concept, and something related to 'limits' it is well defined, but it is most certainly not a calculable number, because by definition 'Infinity is bigger than any real number', so if you have me a trial value for infinity by saying 'Tell you what, I reckon infinity is equal to 3858398398493......." I'd just say 'Tell you what, add one to it, and I bet you get a bigger number!"

This is why so many people get confused by it. Because it lacks that instant 'Oh I see where you're going with this' nature that me saying 'One million is a 1 followed by 6 zeros' gives, it's something many people don't accept.

Everything I've mentioned is provable by logic. 0.9r=1, 1.9r=2, there are infinitely many distinctly different infinities, that sort of thing. The logic might require a year or two of university level learning (and perhaps a screw loose to want to do that ) but ultimately, the logic is there.

Believe me, if there WAS an error and a mathematician found it, he (or she) wouldn't brush it over and ignore it, they too would shout it from the roof tops, because showing such an error exists would get them huge fame in the maths community (right up there with Brad Pitt then!). You can become just as famous for showing something is wrong as showing something is right!

Given the logical nature of maths though, proof exists (provided you accept logic). Hence, there isn't a problem with 0.9r=1, it's just the same as saying 2/4 = 1/2. They represent the same number, just in different forms

 

[Jumpingmedic]

Snip

1/2 and 2/4 have a mathematical reason for being the same number. 0.9r can never equal one because if a number is infinite then it can never reach a final value, leaving a corresponding infinitessimal value preventing it from reaching a whole number. If one of the links you posted contains proof to the contrary then you'll have to post it verbatim, because I sure can't find it.

I'll admit I'm no maths expert. But that doesn't mean I'm just going to accept things things from people just because they're PHDs. Theories have been wrong before and I've yet to see anything that threatens my opinion.

 

[Omicron]

if a number is infinite then it can never reach a final value

You imply that 0.9r is tending towards something, as if on a journey. 0.9r is an unchanging, set number.

If 0.9r isn't 1, what is it? A lot of people say it's the closest number to 1 without actually being 1. Even if you don't know about 'dense sets' and 'completeness', it's easy to show this is illogical.

If 0.9r is the closest number to 1, but isn't 1, what is (0.9r+1)/2 ? Obviously it's closer to 1 than 0.9r than 0.9r but isn't 1. But that's illogical, I just defined 0.9r as the closest number to 1 which isn't 1. Since I've just done something illogical, I can only assume an assumption I made was illogical, and that was that 0.9r is 'the closest number to 1 without being 1'. There is no such number.

If no number exists between A and B, then A=B (by the logic I just used). Therefore 0.9r = 1.

leaving a corresponding infinitessimal value preventing it from reaching a whole number.

The Real Numbers do not contain infinitesimals, they obey the Archimedian Principle. The only infinitesimal in the Reals is infact zero

If by some incredible freak of luck you've heard of infinitesimals and non-standard analysis, I should point out that there is a theorem which proves any true statement in standard analysis is true in non-standard analysis. There are a buynch of threads on www.physicsforums.com which go into it. I think the poster is called Huykl or something like that. Very clever guy!

I'll admit I'm no maths expert. But that doesn't mean I'm just going to accept things things from people just because they're PHDs. Theories have been wrong before and I've yet to see anything that threatens my opinion.

You are thinking of physics. Mathematics is logic based, and isn't trying to model anything in reality (which means doing measurements and checking your predictions agree etc).

For instance, do you accept 1+1 = 2? Suppose I add 1 to both sides, therefore giving 1+2 = 3.

Do you think that this will be contradicted at some point in the future? No, because it can be shown consistent and true by cold, hard logic. Same goes for 0.9r = 1. It's an extremely simple (on the scale of things) notion.

Consider Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. It was a genius work of horribly hardcore maths, but is true. It won't be shown in 1000 years to be wrong, because logic isn't fluid, it's rigid. Same applied to 0.9r = 1.

The fact you're no maths expert might suggest you don't understand this notion, that once something is proved in maths, it's true for all time. Physics is often updated, and long standing notions changed. Maths isn't like that, it's stiff and unchanging once proof is agreed upon and examined stringently enough.

 

[Scythe]

I always manage to look at my watch at 13.37 for some reason.

And me! If my dads in the room I have to stand up, point at him and shout "Hey nub look at the time!" *he looks at time* Then i shout "OWNED!" (My dads a gamer)

 

[gord]

I thought this was a maths thread so didnt bother coming in, but the 2 pages of replies got my wondering.

I wouldnt usually have posted either (due to being classified a weirdo) unless it was directly relevant to myself but..

When i do look at the clock in the evening i can almost guarantee its 21:21, 22:22, 23:23. Its so strange that at one point it really did freak me out. But i just went back and thought.. hey they are numbers.. it doesnt mean anything..

So i carry on with my life of looking at the clock when the number reccurs.. what more can you do..

 

[Jumpingmedic]

If 0.9r isn't 1, what is it? A lot of people say it's the closest number to 1 without actually being 1. Even if you don't know about 'dense sets' and 'completeness', it's easy to show this is illogical.

It's quite logical. I agree it's close to 1... damn close. but not equal to 1.

If 0.9r is the closest number to 1, but isn't 1, what is (0.9r+1)/2 ?

You can't perform calculations on an infinite number. Prove me wrong if you can. But otherwise it is 100% meaningless to try to attempt it. I do see what you're trying to show. but infinity is infinity... doesn't matter what you add to it or divide it by.. it's still the same number. Infinity/10 = Infinity. Infinity + 10 = Infinity. etc. You plug whatever calculations you like into an infinite number... it will always be the same number.

If no number exists between A and B, then A=B (by the logic I just used). Therefore 0.9r = 1.

There is a number between 0.9r and 1. An infinitesimal number. i can't write it down or give it a name. But it's still there. That recurring 9 goes on forever.... no matter how long it goes on it'll never make a whole number. If it is did then it wouldn't be a recurring number would it.

I'll be blunt here... I think, I've reached the point where i'm just going to have to call the mathematical logic you are using wrong.

I simply do not beleive that any human alive can cope with the true nature of infinity. Maybe one day. But nothing you have said sounds right to me. I'm trying not to sound arrogant here... but frankly i believe these PHDs are straining to explain something they arn't capable of explaining, with flawed logic.

 

[Omicron]

You can't perform calculations on an infinite number. Prove me wrong if you can. But otherwise it is 100% meaningless to try to attempt it. I do see what you're trying to show. but infinity is infinity... doesn't matter what you add to it or divide it by.. it's still the same number. Infinity/10 = Infinity. Infinity + 10 = Infinity. etc. You plug whatever calculations you like into an infinite number... it will always be the same number.

You're confusing a number with infinitely many decimal places with a number whose value is infinite.

0.9r is clearly less than say 1.5, but more than 0. Since it is sandwiched between 0 and 1.5 it's got to be finite in it's size. True, it's number of decimal places isn't, but then neither is 1/3 or 1/7 or pi. We certainly know pi isn't infinite, because the circumference of a circle isn't infinite is it?

If you were talking about Aleph Null (I linked to 'Aleph' earlier) then you'd be right. www.mathworld.com describes some of Aleph Null's properties and ' Aleph Null + 1 = Aleph Null ' is one of them, but then 0.9r is not Aleph Null (or any other infinite candinality).

Do you agree 0.9r is less than 1.5? Do you agree it is more than 0? Do you agree it is therefore a finite quantity?

Can't even begin to comprehend the logic you're trying to use there... sounds like nonsense to me.

It is however perfectly valid. By 'completeness' of the reals, if there does not exist a number between 2 numbers (call them A and B) , then those numbers must be equal (A=B). If they are not equal then (A+B)/2 exists (by completeness) which contradicts the idea no number exists between A and B.

As I've said before, I do not mean offence, but can you not see that you at least are missing several notions of mathematics? I've mentioned several ideas taught to either A Level or undergraduate maths students and are staple to learning about maths. You're arguing from a point of ignorance (in that you haven't heard of these ideas) so the logic you're attempting to employ is lacking in several areas. Remember, 'gut feeling' won't get you very far (I wish it did, but it doesn't ).

I'll be blunt here... I think, I've reached the point where i'm just going to have to call the mathematical logic you are using wrong.

I simply do not beleive that any human alive can cope with the true nature of infinity. Maybe one day. But nothing you have said sounds right to me. I'm trying not to sound arrogant here... but frankly i believe these PHDs are straining to explain something they arn't capable of explaining, with flawed logic.

If we're going down to the bare bones of bluntness (which I've tried very much to avoid), you are talking from a position of complete and utter ignorance. You don't know about completeness, cardinality, geometric series, convergence, proof, axioms, limits, and a dozen other things I've mentioned or linked to. Your mathematical education is at least 50 years less than some people I've linked to.

For instance
http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/
is the webpage of one of the cleverest mathematicians in this area alive. He has a Fields Medal (thats the greatest award a mathematician can get!) and lectures are Cambridge. He asserts and discusses why 0.9r = 1 (or rather 1.9r = 2). Do you have a degree in maths? A masters? A PhD? 10 years lecturing it at post doctorate level? A professorship? Even if you did, this guy has you licked! Can you honestly say you're better than him, every lecturer at Cambridge, Oxford, Princton, Imperial, Harvard, Warwick, Durham, Munich, Berlin, CalTech, MIT and every other uni in the world?

You'll forgive me if I doubt you if you say 'yes'. Please, please, please, do yourself a favour and read up on tynhe subject because at the moment you do little more than look foolish in the eyes of people who actually understand this material (ie read www.physicsforums.com ) claiming that somehow people who have spend decades of their lives studying logic are wrong. Have a gander at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell,_3rd_Earl_Russell possibly the greatest logic mathematician and philosopher ever to live and he fully agreed with 0.9r = 1. Are you better than him?

 

[Jumpingmedic]

You're confusing a number with infinitely many decimal places with a number whose value is infinite.

0.9r is clearly less than say 1.5, but more than 0. Since it is sandwiched between 0 and 1.5 it's got to be finite in it's size. True, it's number of decimal places isn't, but then neither is 1/3 or 1/7 or pi. We certainly know pi isn't infinite, because the circumference of a circle isn't infinite is it?

If you were talking about Aleph Null (I linked to 'Aleph' earlier) then you'd be right. www.mathworld.com describes some of Aleph Null's properties and ' Aleph Null + 1 = Aleph Null ' is one of them, but then 0.9r is not Aleph Null (or any other infinite candinality).

Do you agree 0.9r is less than 1.5? Do you agree it is more than 0? Do you agree it is therefore a finite quantity?

Yes I agree with that. But the numbers on the right of the DP are infinite, therefore they cannot be used in a calculation. I am not confusing an infinite value with a number with infinite DP. But whether the whole number is infinite or not, if the DPs are infinite then you cannot perform a multiplication calculation on it.

It is however perfectly valid. By 'completeness' of the reals, if there does not exist a number between 2 numbers (call them A and B) , then those numbers must be equal (A=B). If they are not equal then (A+B)/2 exists (by completeness) which contradicts the idea no number exists between A and B.

As I've said before, I do not mean offence, but can you not see that you at least are missing several notions of mathematics? I've mentioned several ideas taught to either A Level or undergraduate maths students and are staple to learning about maths. You're arguing from a point of ignorance (in that you haven't heard of these ideas) so the logic you're attempting to employ is lacking in several areas. Remember, 'gut feeling' won't get you very far (I wish it did, but it doesn't ).
If we're going down to the bare bones of bluntness (which I've tried very much to avoid), you are talking from a position of complete and utter ignorance. You don't know about completeness, cardinality, geometric series, convergence, proof, axioms, limits, and a dozen other things I've mentioned or linked to. Your mathematical education is at least 50 years less than some people I've linked to.

For instance
http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/
is the webpage of one of the cleverest mathematicians in this area alive. He has a Fields Medal (thats the greatest award a mathematician can get!) and lectures are Cambridge. He asserts and discusses why 0.9r = 1 (or rather 1.9r = 2). Do you have a degree in maths? A masters? A PhD? 10 years lecturing it at post doctorate level? A professorship? Even if you did, this guy has you licked! Can you honestly say you're better than him, every lecturer at Cambridge, Oxford, Princton, Imperial, Harvard, Warwick, Durham, Munich, Berlin, CalTech, MIT and every other uni in the world?

You'll forgive me if I doubt you if you say 'yes'. Please, please, please, do yourself a favour and read up on tynhe subject because at the moment you do little more than look foolish in the eyes of people who actually understand this material (ie read www.physicsforums.com ) claiming that somehow people who have spend decades of their lives studying logic are wrong. Have a gander at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell,_3rd_Earl_Russell possibly the greatest logic mathematician and philosopher ever to live and he fully agreed with 0.9r = 1. Are you better than him?

Ignorance according to your beliefs in mathematics perhaps. I admit I don't know the theories you keep quoting. But i don't care. I simply think they're wrong.

If you want to challenge my beliefs then post the proofs I'm asking for. Stop giving me URLs. I have read everything you have linked to. Nothing has convinced me I'm wrong.

 

[Omicron]

But whether the whole number is infinite or not, if the DPs are infinite then you cannot perform a multiplication calculation on it.

1/3 = 0.3r

Times both sides by 3

3* (1/3) = 3 * 0.3r
1 = 0.9r

Holy biscuits Batman, not only have you manipulated an infinite number of decimal places, you've shown 0.9r = 1!!

Ignorance according to your beliefs in mathematics perhaps. I admit I don't know the theories you keep quoting. But i don't care. I simply think they're wrong.

So you're admitting ignorance in the material you argue about, but not willing to admit there's the possibility you're wrong?

Does that not strike you as slightly odd?

If you want to challenge my beliefs then post the proofs I'm asking for. Stop giving me URLs. I have read everything you have linked to. Nothing has convinced me I'm wrong.

Well, it's just that other forums and Wiki pages have so much nicer formatting than this place does.

Lets consider a geometric series S_{n}. It has initial term a, and common ratio r

S_{n} = a + ar + ... + ar^n

An example might be

S_{n} = 1 + 1/2 + ... + (1/2)^n

In this case a = 1, r = 1/2

Anyway, lets go back to the general case, S_{n} = a + ar + ... + ar^n. Lets multiply S_{n} by r, so we get S_{n}r = ar + ar^2 + .... + ar^n + ar^(n+1)

Now lets do something really nifty and consider S_{n}r - S_{n} which gives us (ar + ar^2 + .... + ar^n + ar^(n+1)) - (a + ar + ... + ar^n) = ar^(n+1) - a

So now we've the rather nice equation

S_{n}(r-1) = ar^(n+1) - a = a[r^(n+1) - 1]

Divide both sides by r-1 to get

S_{n} = a[r^(n+1)-1]/(r-1)

So now lets set a = 0.9, r = 0.1 and n = infinity. Sounds odd, but we know the resultant sum is not infinite, because any number whose modulus is less than 1 when raised to the power of infinity (when considering limits of course!) is zero. This gives r^(n+1) = 0, and r-1 = -0.9. Therefore

S_{n} = (0.9)(-1)/(-0.9) = 1

But if you write out the geometric series you have 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + .... = 0.9r

Holy Mary Poppins Superman! You've just shown that 0.9r = 1 through a sequence of steps which don't involve linking to an external URL!!!!

By the way, if we were being fair about this, given the overwhelming about of evidence (well, considering it's maths, it's actually proof) for my version of events, the onus is on you to prove me wrong. I've given numerous links to people with PhDs in mathematics proving I'm telling you the logical truth, and you've decided to ignore them. If you wanted to investigate, you'd be able to see logical arguments. Instead you've asked me to basically 'mentally photocopy' a proof from a link I've provided.

Why dont' you play fair now and give me an equally solid mathematical 'proof' showing 0.9r isn't 1. After all, I've 'proved' it does, so it's your turn now. No hand waving, no 'Well obviously it isn't'. I want to see some down and dirty algebra!

 

[Jake 2.0]

I got one that tops the tongue and saliva thing.... breathing... you breathing? You thinking about it? In..... Out.... you breathing to fast perhaps? Maybe too slow?.....

reminds me of a joke (perhaps dumb but here it is anyway)

a blonde goes to the dentist, she is listening to mp3 player. the doctor asks her to take it off as he is going to do some work on her teeth. she says she cant or she will die. dentist insists so she takes it off and lo and behold she dies after 5 or so minutes.. doctor is very intrigued so he listens to the tape only to find
.
.
.
.

.
.














....

















a voice saying breathe in, breathe out, breathe in....

 

[Jake 2.0]

Recurring numbers... Sounds like Lost.

Anyone going on a plane soon ?

i am! and i am scared enough as it is (watching air investigation programmes )

 

[Jumpingmedic]

i have already stated that I don't agree with the multiplication or mathematical manipulation of recurring numbers.

This includes believing that 1/3 does not equal 0.3r. I believe there is a subtle difference that our mathematical system cannot discern.

I have read everything you posted. Previously I was ignorant of these things, no longer. Now I just disagree with them.

I can't prove my case sadly. I won't be able to until infinity can be fully understood. So far you've posted a lot of clever theories and formulas that prove nothing. Anyone can make numbers do the cancan on paper. It'll take more than that to prove something though. Fancy equations prove nothing more than a breakdown in maths.

1 can never equal 2 and 0.9r can never equal 1. You can't prove anything but the failure of our maths.

 

[Omicron]

Anyone can make numbers do the cancan on paper.

Prove 2=3 without dividing by zero or using modular arithmetic.

I suppose it comes down to the fact you've admitted not knowing jack about maths and logic. As such you argue from a position of zero worth. Clearly I cannot convince you because you're suffering from 'See No Evil Hear No Evil Speak No Evil' If you ignore it, perhaps it'll go away. Hopefully others with some sense will see the path logic sets out. I definitely refute you implication you've understood all that I've linked to. You'd understand completeness if you had, since I linked to it on the previous page of this thread, and that'd show how wrong you are about the inability to manipulate infinitely long decimals. After all pi has infinitely many decimals, and the circumference of a circle is 2pi*r in length. OMG, by your logic, circle circumferences don't exist, since we cannot times pi by anything!!!

Keep at it, you might get to understand it one day

 

[MrWhippy]

c'mon medic, sun'll be up soon and then you'll turn to stone.

if you aren't willing to agree but can't put up an alternative then really what are you adding to the discussion.

if you don't have the skill, knowledge or ability to explain to us how "0.99r = 1" is wrong, then why are you arguing so adamantly that it is wrong.

don't you think it's possible that you are simply out of your depth here. people with real maths skills aren't doubting it.

 

[Jumpingmedic]

Prove 2=3 without dividing by zero or using modular arithmetic.

I suppose it comes down to the fact you've admitted not knowing jack about maths and logic. As such you argue from a position of zero worth. Clearly I cannot convince you because you're suffering from 'See No Evil Hear No Evil Speak No Evil' If you ignore it, perhaps it'll go away. Hopefully others with some sense will see the path logic sets out. I definitely refute you implication you've understood all that I've linked to. You'd understand completeness if you had, since I linked to it on the previous page of this thread.

Keep at it, you might get to understand it one day

Perhaps you will too. But at the moment... neither of us do You won't convince me otherwise till you explain the entire concept of infinity to me.

You go on at me about coming at this from a position of ignorance when you know no more about infiinity than me.

What is infinity. Answer that and you'll win... Define infinity for me and I'll have to admit you know something I do not.

All these mathematitions and geniuses... why do they know about infinity, there's a whole lot of theories, but no proof.

They strain to explain things. I just accept that we don't have the ability to explain it.

For all practical purposes we can assume 0.9r = 1. But that doesn't make it so. And no amount of numerical jiggery pokery ever will.

 

[Omicron]

Define infinity for me and I'll have to admit you know something I do not.

I defined it about 10 posts ago. The quantity infinity is defined as the quantity which is larger than any Real.

All these mathemations and geniuses... why do they know about infinity, there's a whole lot of theories, but no proof.

If I was talking to you, I'd say 'Read my lips very slowly', but I'm not, so just read my post very slowly :

Maths is a framework of logic. Taking one result, and using logic you can create another result. If your initial result is true, so is your derived result. By this, by the definition of Reals, infinity (as I just said), countability and limits ( which are all well defined if you cared to look them up) you can derive 0.9r=1, along with integration, differentiation and the existance within mathematics of infinitely many differtent infinities. I've already said that if our notion of limits and infinity was complete tosh then our ideas of integration and differentaition would be too (and we use these to model the real world!)

They strain to explain things. I just accept that we don't have the ability to explain it.

You say this because you haven't studied maths. Tell me, how you heard of Cantor? Feel free to Google him. His lifes work was on infinites!

And no amount of numerical jiggery pokery ever will.

Actually 'no amount of numerical jiggery pokery ever make it not so'. But then, we've seen no maths, no algebra, from you. Just 'OMG it's npot true.'

In the words of Dr Cox from Scrubs, 'OMG Barbie, how do you put your panties on in the morning? All by yourself?!' Sounds to me like you're appealing to more ignorant people, rather than logic. Remember, appealing to ignorant people is easy, how do you think Scientology is still around Working by logic and proving people wrong is a lot harder

Come on now Barbie, show me up. Give us some maths!

 

[Jumpingmedic]

I defined it about 10 posts ago. The quantity infinity is defined as the quantity which is larger than any Real.
If I was talking to you, I'd say 'Read my lips very slowly', but I'm not, so just read my post very slowly :

Maths is a framework of logic. Taking one result, and using logic you can create another result. If your initial result is true, so is your derived result. By this, by the definition of Reals, infinity (as I just said), countability and limits ( which are all well defined if you cared to look them up) you can derive 0.9r=1, along with integration, differentiation and the existance within mathematics of infinitely many differtent infinities. I've already said that if our notion of limits and infinity was complete tosh then our ideas of integration and differentaition would be too (and we use these to model the real world!)
You say this because you haven't studied maths. Tell me, how you heard of Cantor? Feel free to Google him. His lifes work was on infinites!
Actually 'no amount of numerical jiggery pokery ever make it not so'. But then, we've seen no maths, no algebra, from you. Just 'OMG it's npot true.'

In the words of Dr Cox from Scrubs, 'OMG Barbie, how do you put your panties on in the morning? All by yourself?!' Sounds to me like you're appealing to more ignorant people, rather than logic. Remember, appealing to ignorant people is easy, how do you think Scientology is still around Working by logic and proving people wrong is a lot harder

Come on now Barbie, show me up. Give us some maths!

Given the state of the maths you're quoting I'd be ashamed to respond in kind. You blindly accept what supposedly more intelligent people have devised without understanding a word of it, and without a shred of proof, just a lot of fancy quotes and formulae. When a thing is explained it has to make sense, and until it does it remains unexplained.

Oh and J.D gave Cox a spanking on more than one occasion


I'm done with this thread. I can't convince you of my point, nor can you convince me of yours. There comes a point in a debate where it's pointless to continue and this is it. Cya in another thread

Rest assured I'll be PMing you when the mysteries of infinity are actually understood, as opposed to just guessed though.

 

[Omicron]

You blindly accept what supposedly more intelligent people have devised without understanding a word of it, and without a shred of proof, just a lot of fancy quotes and formulae. When a thing is explained it has to make sense, and until it does it remains unexplained.

1) You assume I haven't studied it (that BA on my CV isn't for nothing you know )

2) You assume that Dr, Prof, FRS, DSc etc in the title of thousands of people in the country's names are for nothing

3) You assume thousands of textbooks written in the last 200 years are wrong

4) You assume logic is wrong

5) You assume the theorie built on the proven ideas you claim are wrong are infact wrong.

Basically, you're claiming about 99.9999999999998% of maths is wrong, but none of the people clever at maths than you in the last dozen+ decades have noticed. You must have been a real whiz at maths in school.

But, hang on a sec, we're still waiting for you to demonstrate I'm wrong algrebraicly. Wait.....what's that...? You can't? Then maybe that's the fact you're wrong telling you to stop talking BS?

Rest assured I'll be PMing you when the mysteries of infinity are actually understood, as opposed to just guessed though.

1) PMs down work here

2) Something tells me you don't keep up with the latest analysis

If you did keep up with maths, you'd understand what I've been telling you. If you aren't learning maths, you're waiting for some New Scientist'ish article to say 'Mathematicians finally understand infinity' (not that it'll ever come) and then you'll ' blindly accept what supposedly more intelligent people have devised without understanding a word of it', something you accuse me of.

Hypocrisy, ain't it grand

 

[Che]

I only meant this thread as a joke, I thought everyone would twig about the 99p thing