This thread is way too long to read but they are equal.
This thread is way too long to read but they are equal.
Good job, wanna cookie?
.9=tenths
.99=hundreths
.999=thousandths
.9999=ten thousandths
.99999=hundred thousandths
.999999=millionths (or whatever is, I did decimals in the begining of the school year, so I forgot)
It just keeps going.
I like math. 5/6x7/6= 35/36!
All life begins with a Nu and ends with a Nu.
Oh wow, what was I on when I wrote my last post or two. I guess yesterday was my day for too much math.Originally Posted by Dr Unne
I apologize for the person who temporarily occupied my body and wrote those last one or two very illogical and confusing posts.
And Dr Unne, I think the real question is: is the part I added to the definition redudant or is the /1 in x/1 redundant?
Del Murder, the idea of theory is to minimize possibility so that you can conclude what something is or how something functions. Redundant possibility is just that, redundant. It has no place in the context of something else. It's like giving someone driving directions. If you just stick in some random spot for the driver to take four rights, that wouldn't change anything. After the fourth turn, they would be right back where they started at the first turn (well, technically they'd be a block back from where they started, but you get my drift), and then finish the drive. Dividing by one is like taking four right turns, it does nothing. You can tell the driver to take the four right turns, but why? You can divide by 1, but why? (and when I say 1 I literally mean the number 1, not something equal to 1 to help solve an equation) To make an integer appear as a fraction? What does that do?
Moo Moo the New Cow, another practical use of calculus is a lot of aspects of physics.
You could argue the part you added is redundant, because using the /1 trick is part of the working to show that integers are rational numbers. The final step of the proof would be drawing the conclusion from such representation, and not that representation itself.
The formal definition of the set Q of rational numbers though is:
Q = { x : x = a/b, a, b ∈ I, b != 0 }
(the block is the member-of symbol for you non-unicode users, good thing I couldn't find a not-equals unicode symbol quickly to avoid two blocks)
where I is the set of integers, which implies you can have a 1 on the bottom to show integers are rational numbers. It doesn't even mention you have to simplify the fraction either.
but i know pie to eight didgets with out looking at a calcualtor!
Ugh.......*cries*, *gives up*
I hereby refute everything I have posted on this thread before now. I think I have devised a way (and a rather simple way) for me to fathom this possibility.
*Note: RS stands for Riemann Sum
.999.... can be rewritten as RS(i=1->infinity) 9/(10^i) which can further be rewritten:
lim (n->infinity) RS(i=1->n) 9/(10^i)=lim (n->infinity) RS(i=1->n) (9/10)(1/10^(n-1))
which sets up a property of Riemann sums, so this equation becomes:
lim (n->infinity) (9/10)(1-(1/10^n))/(1-(1/10))
As n->infinity, the denominator of 1/10^n become larger and larger, and the quotient gets closer and closer to zero, and thus lim (n->infinity) 1/10^n=0. So we have:
(9/10)(1-0)/(9/10)=1
And that is the jest of it. I guess I have no more arguement left in me to the contrary. You can't fight calculus proving something.
Riemann sum symbol = Σ ?
It's in your character map. Here are some other fun symbols:
√ ∞ ∑ ∩ ≠ ≡ ≤ ≥
Kids, today on Sesame Street we're going to have fun with math symbols.
I tried that. When I posted my last post, it gave me some weird text instead of sigma, so I edited my post.
That's odd. But you can read my symbols properly, right?
*moves to the help forum*
I think possibly I was getting the symbol from a different font that the page was using and it couldn't process it. So if I use the correct font:
∑ → √ ∞ ≡ ≠ ∩ ≤ ≥
Edit: yeah, that worked.
Posting Permissions
