jokebookservice1 wrote:

MeIoetta wrote:

-ShadowOfTheFuture- wrote:

-ShadowOfTheFuture- wrote:

<snip>

I'll put it another way:

What's 1 - 0.(9)?

I guess you could write it as 0.(0)1, an infinite number of zeroes, and then a one.

However, since there's an infinite number of zeroes before the one, you'd never reach the one in the first place and there's no point in writing it. So in other words: 1 - 0.(9) = 0.(0).

Now, common sense tells us that 0.(0) = 0.

So 1 - 0.(9) = 0. From there, 1 = 0.(9).

This isn't really an official proof, but there you go.

You proved my theory, because 1 - 0,(9) = 0,(0)1
It means that 1 and 0,(9) is different by 0,(0)1
Theoretically, they are different.

No.

In mathematics, we work with a set of axioms that work beautifully together, and then we derive cool stuff.

Now, tell me this:

5½ = 5.5

Is that true?

I mean… they're written differently, so they can't possibly have the same value?

Except, they do. They're different ways of writing down the same thing.

Now, in the same way, 0.(9) has to be 1.

Why? Because in maths, paradoxes are really another word for contradictions. If you found a paradox, we'd change our axioms.

And you're not the first person to notice that 0.(9) can be proven to be 1.

Yet for your “paradox” to work, you have to assume that 0.(9) is less than 1. That it isn't equal. This is not a widely accepted axiom for the precise reason that it leads to such a paradox.

Thus, 0.(9) is another representation of 1.

And 0.4(9) is another representation of 0.5.

And 0.(0)1 doesn't exist.

Video resource.

We have to define 0.(9) to be 1, else algebra would break… and that's not good!

In maths, we define things to seem weird.. but they work out fine.

<3

wow cool explaination
so both theories are true, 0,(9) is and isn't equal to 1

jokebookservice1 wrote:

MeIoetta wrote:

-ShadowOfTheFuture- wrote:

-ShadowOfTheFuture- wrote:

<snip>

I'll put it another way:

What's 1 - 0.(9)?

I guess you could write it as 0.(0)1, an infinite number of zeroes, and then a one.

However, since there's an infinite number of zeroes before the one, you'd never reach the one in the first place and there's no point in writing it. So in other words: 1 - 0.(9) = 0.(0).

Now, common sense tells us that 0.(0) = 0.

So 1 - 0.(9) = 0. From there, 1 = 0.(9).

This isn't really an official proof, but there you go.

You proved my theory, because 1 - 0,(9) = 0,(0)1
It means that 1 and 0,(9) is different by 0,(0)1
Theoretically, they are different.

No.

In mathematics, we work with a set of axioms that work beautifully together, and then we derive cool stuff.

Now, tell me this:

5½ = 5.5

Is that true?

I mean… they're written differently, so they can't possibly have the same value?

Except, they do. They're different ways of writing down the same thing.

Now, in the same way, 0.(9) has to be 1.

Why? Because in maths, paradoxes are really another word for contradictions. If you found a paradox, we'd change our axioms.

And you're not the first person to notice that 0.(9) can be proven to be 1.

Yet for your “paradox” to work, you have to assume that 0.(9) is less than 1. That it isn't equal. This is not a widely accepted axiom for the precise reason that it leads to such a paradox.

Thus, 0.(9) is another representation of 1.

And 0.4(9) is another representation of 0.5.

And 0.(0)1 doesn't exist.

Video resource.

We have to define 0.(9) to be 1, else algebra would break… and that's not good!

In maths, we define things to seem weird.. but they work out fine.

<3

did this just turn into a math lesson

aking_ wrote:

jokebookservice1 wrote:

MeIoetta wrote:

-ShadowOfTheFuture- wrote:

-ShadowOfTheFuture- wrote:

<snip>

I'll put it another way:

What's 1 - 0.(9)?

I guess you could write it as 0.(0)1, an infinite number of zeroes, and then a one.

However, since there's an infinite number of zeroes before the one, you'd never reach the one in the first place and there's no point in writing it. So in other words: 1 - 0.(9) = 0.(0).

Now, common sense tells us that 0.(0) = 0.

So 1 - 0.(9) = 0. From there, 1 = 0.(9).

This isn't really an official proof, but there you go.

You proved my theory, because 1 - 0,(9) = 0,(0)1
It means that 1 and 0,(9) is different by 0,(0)1
Theoretically, they are different.

No.

In mathematics, we work with a set of axioms that work beautifully together, and then we derive cool stuff.

Now, tell me this:

5½ = 5.5

Is that true?

I mean… they're written differently, so they can't possibly have the same value?

Except, they do. They're different ways of writing down the same thing.

Now, in the same way, 0.(9) has to be 1.

Why? Because in maths, paradoxes are really another word for contradictions. If you found a paradox, we'd change our axioms.

And you're not the first person to notice that 0.(9) can be proven to be 1.

Yet for your “paradox” to work, you have to assume that 0.(9) is less than 1. That it isn't equal. This is not a widely accepted axiom for the precise reason that it leads to such a paradox.

Thus, 0.(9) is another representation of 1.

And 0.4(9) is another representation of 0.5.

And 0.(0)1 doesn't exist.

Video resource.

We have to define 0.(9) to be 1, else algebra would break… and that's not good!

In maths, we define things to seem weird.. but they work out fine.

<3

did this just turn into a math lesson

MATH MY BRAIN!

A textbook has a glossary. The entry for Infinite Loop says “See Loop, Infinite”. The entry for Loop, Infinite says “ See Infinite Loop”.

gigamushroom wrote:

Ever seen the video where some mathematicians prove that the sum of all natural numbers is equal to -1/12?

Well, I don't think that's true, as the sum of the first n natural numbers can be written as n(n+1)/2.
Lim n => ∞ (n(n+1)/2) = ∞.

However, they say that it does appear to be true in string theory, so I'm guessing that's a paradox…

Depends on context, as everything. For example, see this video.

MeIoetta wrote:

jokebookservice1 wrote:

MeIoetta wrote:

-ShadowOfTheFuture- wrote:

-ShadowOfTheFuture- wrote:

<snip>

<snip> <snip> <snip>

Video resource.

We have to define 0.(9) to be 1, else algebra would break… and that's not good!

In maths, we define things to seem weird.. but they work out fine.

<3

wow cool explaination
so both theories are true, 0,(9) is and isn't equal to 1

In what way?

jokebookservice1 wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

jokebookservice1 wrote:

awsome_guy_360 wrote:

Every lie I say is truthful.

Is totally fine, if you misunderstand the truth but then attempt to intentionally tell a falsehood. Additionally, not everything you say is a lie – so the above statement could be both truthful and intended to be so.

The word lie means “an intentionally false statement” so even if you try to lie but accidentally tell the truth, it's not a false statement so it isn't a lie.

That's what I'm saying, isn't it?

No, read it again. Lies are intentionally false. That means not only are they intended to be false, they are false.

bump

██       ██  ██            ██  ██       ██
██       ██  ██            ██  ██       ██
██       ██  ██     ██     ██  ██       ██
██       ██  ██     ██     ██  ██       ██
███     ███   ██   ████   ██   ███     ███
 █████████     █████  █████     █████████

So let’s say you have a random number generator set to giving you numbers from 0 to infinity. (Yup, we’re discussing infinity again…)

The probability of you getting a certain number is 1/infinity. The probability of you getting any other number is 1 - 1/infinity. However, in the set of “all the other numbers”, each individual element has a 1/infinity chance to be generated. We can safely say that the probability of you getting any desirable number, say 2, is the reciprocal of infinity. We’ll assume that’s equivalent to zero.

Now, you HAVE to get a certain number after pressing the “generate” button. While the probability that you get A number is one, the probability that you get THE number is zero. So… do you get anything, or not?

gigamushroom wrote:

So let’s say you have a random number generator set to giving you numbers from 0 to infinity. (Yup, we’re discussing infinity again…)

The probability of you getting a certain number is 1/infinity. The probability of you getting any other number is 1 - 1/infinity. However, in the set of “all the other numbers”, each individual element has a 1/infinity chance to be generated. We can safely say that the probability of you getting any desirable number, say 2, is the reciprocal of infinity. We’ll assume that’s equivalent to zero.

Now, you HAVE to get a certain number after pressing the “generate” button. While the probability that you get A number is one, the probability that you get THE number is zero. So… do you get anything, or not?

same reason .(9) = 1 and .(0)1 = 0
plot twist, it's schrodinger's cat all over again, and so you get both something and nothing.

gigamushroom wrote:

So let’s say you have a random number generator set to giving you numbers from 0 to infinity. (Yup, we’re discussing infinity again…)

The probability of you getting a certain number is 1/infinity. The probability of you getting any other number is 1 - 1/infinity. However, in the set of “all the other numbers”, each individual element has a 1/infinity chance to be generated. We can safely say that the probability of you getting any desirable number, say 2, is the reciprocal of infinity. We’ll assume that’s equivalent to zero.

Now, you HAVE to get a certain number after pressing the “generate” button. While the probability that you get A number is one, the probability that you get THE number is zero. So… do you get anything, or not?

I think you get…

GIGA!


-Applause-

bump

██       ██  ██            ██  ██       ██
██       ██  ██            ██  ██       ██
██       ██  ██     ██     ██  ██       ██
██       ██  ██     ██     ██  ██       ██
███     ███   ██   ████   ██   ███     ███
 █████████     █████  █████     █████████

Don't listen to what I say below this text:
Don't listen to up there ^ Listen to the text below this text
Don't listen to the top text, listen to the text above and the text below.
Don't listen to the text above, and above that. It is a lie. Don't listen to the text below.
Listen to the text right on the top.

Okay, so on line #5 it says “Listen to the text on the right on the top”, the top line states not to listen to the text below. But line #5 states to listen to the text on the top. But we don't listen to the bottom text, which means we shouldn't listen to the top. Which means everything below is what we should listen to.

Hmm……

Kewl right?

The Deku King accessed the Deku Shrine, and got to the end.
The Deku Butler didn't want to serve today.
His son told the princess not to trust what he said.
She told the king.
The king used the Song Of Time, which the butler taught him that day, to go back in time.
The king makes the butler change his mind.
The king does not learn the Song Of Time, since the future has been overwritten.
The butler opened the doors of the shrine.
The Deku King accessed the Deku Shrine, and got to the end.

braxbroscratcher wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

braxbroscratcher wrote:

Ooh. I have one.

It's opposite day.

Already stated.

Trump goes to build a wall, but he can only build a wall where there is not a wall. Therefore Trump can't build a wall because after he places a singular brick, there will be a wall, however miniscule, preventing him from building the wall. However, since Trump can't build a wall there, he won't, so he COULD. Which means he can't… and so on.

Actually, I do not agree with this one. If Trump were to place 1 brick, and call it a wall, yes he would have made a wall. But, next to it is nothing, there is no wall there, therefore he can place a brick there. There also isn't a wall on top of the new larger wall, therefore Trump is able to place a brick on top of the wall, yet again, making the wall larger.

If Trump keeps doing this, he will eventually have the wall he wants to build.
Think this explanation is incorrect? Please comment on this to let me know why this explanation is wrong.

If you don't know, a paradox is something that logically can be “proven”, but makes no sense in the real world.
For example, Zeno's paradox tells us that you physically cannot get to your destination.

Forum_Helper1 wrote:

PARADOXES!
If you don't know, a paradox is something that logically can be “proven”, but makes no sense in the real world.
For example, Zeno's paradox tells us that you physically cannot get to your destination.

Zeno wrote:

1) I will prove that you cannot get to your destination.
Let's say that you are at point A. You wish to get to point B.
To get to point B, you first have to get halfway to that point.
Now in order to get to point B from your current location, you must first move half of the remaining distance.
And again, move halfway of the remaining distance.
On and on, the fraction keeps getting smaller and smaller, the distance left gets shorter and shorter.
But that distance never reaches 0, so you have not reached point B.

About Zeno's Paradox, let's say we change it a little bit to that there are now 2 objects, let's say cars, one of which moves 10 times as fast as the other, and the slower one has a 1KM head start.
The paradox would now be that if the faster car were to travel the 1KM, the slower car would have moved 100 meters, and be 100 meters in front. Then, the car will travel the remaining 100 meters, and the slower car will move 10 meters. This will continue on into infinity, and the faster car will never surpass the slower car.
However, what if the faster car were to move 2KM the first time? Since we know that the faster car goes 10 times as fast as the slower car, the slower car would've only moved 200 meters, and because of the 1KM head start, the faster car would be 800 meters ahead of the slower car.

But let's say, we go back to your example, and the target does not move forward.
In this case, if we were to walk half of the distance, we would of course already be halfway. But in this case, we can walk the distance we just walked, again, and we would reach our destination.

If this solution does not satisfy you however, how about we move the target 1 meter forward? In this case, we will have 2 targets.
The first target is where you are secretly planning to go, and the second target that has moved 1 meter forward. You will now want to keep walking half of the distance to target 2.
Eventually, you will move past the first target, and because you have moved past the first target, you can stop moving.
If you however think my logic failed, please let me know along with an explanation why.

SuperJumpCube wrote:

If you don't know, a paradox is something that logically can be “proven”, but makes no sense in the real world.
For example, Zeno's paradox tells us that you physically cannot get to your destination.

Forum_Helper1 wrote:

PARADOXES!
If you don't know, a paradox is something that logically can be “proven”, but makes no sense in the real world.
For example, Zeno's paradox tells us that you physically cannot get to your destination.

Zeno wrote:

1) I will prove that you cannot get to your destination.
Let's say that you are at point A. You wish to get to point B.
To get to point B, you first have to get halfway to that point.
Now in order to get to point B from your current location, you must first move half of the remaining distance.
And again, move halfway of the remaining distance.
On and on, the fraction keeps getting smaller and smaller, the distance left gets shorter and shorter.
But that distance never reaches 0, so you have not reached point B.

About Zeno's Paradox, let's say we change it a little bit to that there are now 2 objects, let's say cars, one of which moves 10 times as fast as the other, and the slower one has a 1KM head start.
The paradox would now be that if the faster car were to travel the 1KM, the slower car would have moved 100 meters, and be 100 meters in front. Then, the car will travel the remaining 100 meters, and the slower car will move 10 meters. This will continue on into infinity, and the faster car will never surpass the slower car.
However, what if the faster car were to move 2KM the first time? Since we know that the faster car goes 10 times as fast as the slower car, the slower car would've only moved 200 meters, and because of the 1KM head start, the faster car would be 800 meters ahead of the slower car.

But let's say, we go back to your example, and the target does not move forward.
In this case, if we were to walk half of the distance, we would of course already be halfway. But in this case, we can walk the distance we just walked, again, and we would reach our destination.

If this solution does not satisfy you however, how about we move the target 1 meter forward? In this case, we will have 2 targets.
The first target is where you are secretly planning to go, and the second target that has moved 1 meter forward. You will now want to keep walking half of the distance to target 2.
Eventually, you will move past the first target, and because you have moved past the first target, you can stop moving.
If you however think my logic failed, please let me know along with an explanation why.

The thing about that paradox is that if you wanted to get from point A to point B, you could go to point C, which is twice as far from A as A is from B. To get to C you obviously have to travel half the distance to get there, but then you're at point B.

done

If you plan on traveling back in time and doing something, and then you time travel back into the past and do it, when you return to the future present then the action would already have been done and you wouldn't go back in time and do it. Yes I know that's an old paradox but still.

██       ██  ██            ██  ██       ██
██       ██  ██            ██  ██       ██
██       ██  ██     ██     ██  ██       ██
██       ██  ██     ██     ██  ██       ██
███     ███   ██   ████   ██   ███     ███
 █████████     █████  █████     █████████