>0.999... = 1

You...never went to high school?

>>3638672
they never taught me that at high school. I think i learned it here as well.

>>3638672
Technically we don't have high-school in my country, so no.

>>3638672
>0.999... = 1

noep.jpeg

0.999... at a count of infinity has a limit of 1 but never reaches quite reaches 1 exactly.

yfw I learned about precession as part of my curriculum at 16.

>>3638678
But yeah they didn't teach this to us in the equivalent of high-school neither.

I learned that engineers love the cock.

>>3638685

nope.jpg

It does.

>>3638685
We're not having this discussion. Read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

>>3638686
Did you read anything beyond the first paragraph?

>>3638704

I was referring to all of it. U jelly of our kick ass british schools?

>>3638685
If 0.999... is a number at all, it has a value. How can it "have a limit of 1" and be equal to something else?

>>3638711
There's no way you learned about diffusion tensor imaging and chemical imaging at age 16.

>>3638719

I actually did though.

>>3638714
Read the fucking wiki page.
>In mathematics, the repeating decimal 0.999... (which may also be written as 0.9 with dot over the 9, 0.(9), or as 0. followed by any number of 9s in the repeating decimal) denotes a real number that can be shown to be the number one. In other words, the symbols 0.999... and 1 represent the same number. Proofs of this equality have been formulated with varying degrees of mathematical rigour, taking into account preferred development of the real numbers, background assumptions, historical context, and target audience.

I don't think I actually learned too much here... I learned about the Dunning-Kruger effect, and I got a few neat textbooks. Also heard about that Stanford AI-class here first. Had a few interesting discussions related to evolution that didn't turn into troll-fests... oh yeah, I learned about that new DRACO treatment here and about that using HIV to rebuild T-cells and fight leukemia!

>>3638729
Of course you did.

>>3638735

Confirmed for mad.

>>3638742
I actually though that would come across as quite well composed. Why would I be mad about something so obviously not true? Silly is all it is, but what ever.

>>3638742
confirmed for child

>>3638714

Math graduate here.

Listen, i will tell this once:

The reason why mathematical 'proofs' say that 0.9_ = 1 it is because of the mathematical fallacy towards to reality.

What i want to say is that in math 0.9_ is indeed 1 but not in reality.
That is why many proffs i know say the same thing: mathematics is not a sufficient representation of reality.

In other words, both sides are right, the ones that support the 0.9_=1 are right because proofs say so, the other side is right because in reality 0.9!=1

tldr; Infinity is imaginary, imaginary proofs of imaginary equations are imaginary right.

The nuclear reaction that powers the sun is crazy rare and that's why the sun isn't hotter.

0.9999 is not a number because of infinity.

If you make the mistake to use it as a number you will get 0.999 =1

OCR A level physics


5.4.2 Diagnosis methods in medicine

(f) outline the use of MRI (magnetic resonance
imaging) to obtain diagnostic information
about internal organs (HSW 3, 4c and 6a)

http://www.ocr.org.uk/download/kd/ocr_9587_kd_gce_spec.pdf

Problem, bitch?

>>3638793

Sorry, brainfart, posted wrong thing.


(d) outline the principles of magnetic resonance,
with reference to precession of nuclei, Larmor
frequency, resonance and relaxation time

>>3638758

>Math graduate here
>numbers exist in reality

wat

>>3638797
i levelled with /sci/ sry.

>>3638793
>search DTI, 0 hits
>search diffusion, 0 hits

>Problem, bitch?
No problem at all.

>>3638812

>>Implying that isn't just the basic curriculum.

>>3638838
I don't even know what you are mad about.

>>3638661
>1. pic related
I see you saved my guide :)

>>3638866
:D

>>3638838

>>3638758
>implying mathematics is reality
>the other side is right because in reality 0.9!=1
>implying reality has any bearing on symbolic expressions like 0.9... or 1
nope
hard fail

/sci/ nothing technical.
Writing LaTeX equations.
Trolling/rebutting religious folk.
Job opportunities for scientists are better in Germany than the US.
Good popsci exists. (GEB)

>>3638731
>illiterate anger
I think what you're telling him to read is exactly what he was implying, douche

>>3638685
You're dumb.

1/3 = .333...
2/3 = .666...
3/3 = ???

>>3638866

>CNS

>>3638781
Except it is a number. It's called 1.

>>3638929
It isn't though. He's questioning the fact that 0.999... represents a number because it has a limit.

>>3638714
If a function is continuous and defined at a point, its limit is identical to that point.

>>3638944
>doesn't understand rhetorical use of 'if ...'
confirmed idiot

I learned that no matter which 4chan board you go to everyone's an idiot.

>>3638944
No.

>>3638971
...
0.999... at a count of infinity has a limit of 1 but never reaches quite reaches 1 exactly.

>>3638979
So correct me where I'm wrong. Why are you saying 0.999... =/= 1 again?

>>3638965
>suggesting an expression like 0.9... denotes anything but a constant
>talking about continuous functions
>all over the place
confirmed retard

>>3638987
f(x) = 1

>>3638987
You get to call me a retard, I get to call you someone who doesn't think that .999... doesn't equal exactly 1.

>>3638941
no.
Its not.

The 1/3= 0.333
2/3=0.666
3/3=1

Is not exactly how it looks.
Its a human error and not a mathematical.

>>3638983
>can't follow thread
therefore, illiterate retard
>>3638714 said
>>>3638685
>If 0.999... is a number at all, it has a value. How can it "have a limit of 1" and be equal to something else?
The comment BEFORE it
>>3638685 said
>0.999... at a count of infinity has a limit of 1 but never reaches quite reaches 1 exactly.
such fail

Not much beyond pretty pictures and good pop sci.

>>3639004
I get to call you illiterate because you think that's what I think.
>>3638993
>invoking functions for no good reason
strong retard

>>3638986
That is not what is being said.

>this thread
We all agree 0.999... = 1? Good.

>>3639007
>disregards trailing ...
you are the error your mom didn't abort

>PhD in Mathematics
>Any job I want
>300K starting

That's it.

>0.999.. and 1 are the same number.

Its like saying 1 and 2 are the same number.
If its not the same number its NOT THE FUCKING SAME NUMBER.

>>3639041
>0.999... can't be the same number. you write them differently!
>a = b is impossible. you write 'a' and 'b' differently!
lololol

NO.
0.9999 IS NOT A NUMBER.
I mad.

0.9.. IS 1.
But 0.9 is not a number.
Its more like: 1+1= 2
And after saying that 1+1 is a number.

Am trying to say that 0.9 is a representation of 1 but not a number.

>>3639059
>saying 9/10 is not a number
>saying 9999/10000 is not a number
>dropping trailing ... like a retard
yes, you mad

>>3639059
Why'd you even bring this up?

Goddammit guys this is not what the thread was supposed to be about.

>>3639052
Moron.
A and B are not numbers but variables.

1 is a number and 2 is another number.
They are representations of different quantities.
If you say 1=2 then you are wrong.

0.9 is a quantity, 1 is another quantity.

>>3639071
this is /sci/
and /sci/ is shit
highschool as fuck

What positive number is the closest to 0?
0.0...1 = 0
therefore 0 > 0

>0.99999... = 1
no
99 =/= 100
99.9 =/= 100
99.99 =/= 100
so when does it become 100?

>>3639064
You know that i meant 0.999...unless you are a complete retard.

>>3639080
Stop it.

>>3639007
1/3 does not equal .333.

HHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
MATHEMATICIANS SAY THAT 0.999.... IS 1 SO I WILL SUPPORT IT LIKE A RELIGION AND RATIONALIZE ALL ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF WHAT AUTHORITY SAYS TO ME.

So much hypocrisy.
You think you know why 0.99.. is 1 but you dont get it.

>>3639041
Well, 2/1 and 4/2 are the same number, so...

>>3639091
Stop it.

>>3639085
I expected this reaction.
Obviously i meant infinity.
You are embarrassing yourself.
Stop it.

>>3639096
Stop it.

>>3639091
Ah, so you're correct because you don't make rational arguments that correspond to what experts who've studied this for their entire lives say. Got it.

>Fucking SHEEPLE

>>3639080
>when does it become 100?
when you don't drop the trailing ... like a moron, because it means an entirely different thing

>>3639080
0.9... becomes 1 when it minus 1 is 0.

1 - 0.9... = 0.0...1
= 0

Obviously, you can't have a 1 at the end of infinite 0s.

>>3639094
NO you fucking retard.
2/1 and 4/2 are REPRESENTATIONS of numbers.
Numbers are REPRESENTATIONS of quantity.
1+5=6
2+4=6
3+3=6

1+5, 2+4, 3+3 are NOT numbers, but REPRESENTATIONS of numbers.
6 is NOT equal to 7, because they represent DIFFERENT quantities.

Lrn2logic.

1/9 = .111...
9/9 = .999...

>>3639091
>mathematics
>authority
lololol
>You think you know why 0.99.. is 1 but you dont get it.
we do. YOU don't get it.

>>3639098
Oh, okay. In that case,

1/3 is equal to exactly .333 repeating. Multiplied by 3, it's .999 repeating or 3/3 or 1. It's not "to infinity," by the way, it's just an infinite amount of 3's.

>>3639103
>>3639103
>my pastors studies religion all his life, HE MUST BE RIGHT.

Blind+ sheep=battleship

>>3639123
>Religion = math
lol

>>3639121
>Dumb
Check dictionary on what authority is.

OP here. At this point I decided to get some popcorn, sit back and enjoy the show. It's amazing how far toddlers can throw feces.

>>3639114
Okay, so.

Which is the "number," here?

2/3 or .666...?

Careful. Either answer will make you look like an idiot.

>>3639075
>Moron
is you
>If you say 1=2 then you are wrong.
yep
>0.9 is a quantity, 1 is another quantity.
yep. 0.9... (notice trailing ...) isn't another, though.
>still implying 'different looking expressions' is all it takes to prove numbers differ, like a retard
guess what I'm telling you? you haven't thought about this hard enough.

>>3639123
Thats what am saying, YOU are treating everything like religion.


You are making fun of yourself without realizing.

>hurr if everyone else says its right it must be right.

>>3639114
Okay.

And .999... = 1. One is a representation of the other. They are both quantities equal to each other.

>>3639128
Not him, but if you dont get the irony then you're a retard.

>>3639080
a=9 r=01
1=ar(1−r) 
1=(901)(1−01) 
It's 1.

>>3639091
there is no value between 0.999... and 1

that's why

>>3639146
The only way math is like religion is that people talk about them using words.

I learned that 0.999 = 1 depends on your analysis preference.

>>3639134
>It's amazing how far toddlers can throw feces.
fucking lol'd

>>3639143
Let me explain to you.
A number is 1 or 2 or 3 or 3.5

A representation of a number is an expression like "1+4", which represents 5.
5 is not a representation of 1+4, it is equal to it but not a representation.
While 5 and 1+4 are representations of the same Quantity.

Quantity, number, expression.

Get it through your skull.

>>3639114

I like this explanation, a lot. But, via Murphy's Law, something's wrong with it. What's wrong with it, /sci/?

>>3639148
Whoopsie. That should be
1=ar(1−r) 

>>3639161
>depends on your analysis preference
yeah, if you prefer incorrect analysis

>>3639166
Okay. And .999... = 1.

>>3639161
>I learned that 1 = 1 depends on your analysis preference
wat

>>3639155
But infinity can't be real.
Numbers represent quantities as someone else said with passion here.
Infinity can't be quantified.
Using mathematical rules it is correct, but doesnt correspond to the logic of reality.

>>3639161
Who the fuck was teaching you, a retard?

>>3639181
There's no infinity involved in .999...

It's got an infinite amount of 9's, but it has nothing to do with infinity. Don't just see the word "infinity" and start going crazy about it.

>>3639166
What you are arguing is font and semantics.

1 + 4 is a number. Deal with it.

>>3639187
It's an expression of an infinite sum: 9/(10^n)

>>3639187
>0.99... is infinite, but not infinite.
Got it.

>>3639181
>but doesnt correspond to the logic of reality
I have one jug of water and 3 cups.
I pour an equal amount of water into each cup.
Each cup has 1/3 the amount in the jug, or 0.333...
Together it equals 0.999...
However, I had 1 jug of water, and all of it was distributed, so together, the amount of water in the cups must equal 1

>>3639194
>Don't just see the word "infinity" and start going crazy about it.
Read, please. .999... is not infinite at all.

>>3639198
This relies on the initial assertion that 1/3= 0.3...
If you don't accept that, then the argument doesn't work. If you do, then you accept the principle of 0.9...=1

>>3639192
It's also the expression of a finite sum: 1 + 0. All numbers are infinite by your logic.

>>3639181
exactly. It's mathematically valid, what more do you want?
Numbers are a mathematical concept, infinity is a mathematical concept, where the fuck does your "logic of reality" fit in?

>>3639187
Someone else here.
Infinity is involved in all real numbers. They require infinite amounts of information to be fully represented ("uncompressed", full decimal representation in any base). Rational numbers just have an infinite period. All rational numbers require finite amounts of information to represent. Some reals can be rational numbers, others can be irrational, but still be represented symbolically. Others cannot even be represented symbolically. Others can be described, but their value cannot even be known as it's uncomputable ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitin's_constant ).
Either way, when you involve reals, you're dealing with an uncountable infinity of infinitely-sized objects.

>>3639202
Are you going to honestly assert that .333... != 1/3?

>>3639189
Exactly, SEMANTICS.
Only i got the semantics right, and you are wrong.
1+4 is NOT a number, but an expression of a number.
Its only for convenience one would say that 1+4 is a number, strictly speaking its not a number.
Check dictionary on "mathematical expression"

>>3639206
Then you CAN quantify infinity and the point still stands.

>>3639207
Are you honestly going to say that it does without providing any evidence?

Are you honestly going to try and silence the argument with incredulity?

>>3639200
So 0.9... is finite. Which means that it doesnt equal to 1.
Got it.

>>3639208
Prove that 1 + 4 isn't a number using a logical proof.

>>3639220
That doesn't make any sense.

>>3639224
Nope. Your assertion is that multible numbers in an expression form a number of their own. You support it with a logical proof.

>>3639228
exactly.

A question for you mathematics folks. If two sets of balls are 0.000...1 cm apart, does that mean it is gay (balls are touching)?

>>3639216
Well, I'm not a tard, so I understand simple axioms like x = x.

Punch it into a calculator. Go ahead. Tell me why you believe it's not equal to what the calculator tells you.

>>3639224
ORRR you could read a fucking dictionary, wikipedia, elementary mathematics etc.

>>3639229
Okay.

1 + 4 = 5.
5 is a number.
1 + 4 is a number.

QED.

>>3639234
From a mathematical point of view, that's an impossible number. If the 0s are infinite, then they're not going to be appended by anything.

From a physics point of view, nothing actually touches beyond fields in normal man-on-man action. You're safe from either perspective unless your balls are radioactive.

>>3639241
So, I can ask you to just look up .999... on Wikipedia and ask you to accept what it says, right?

>>3639241
not who you're talking to but i'd like you to know that you're very stupid and very pathetic.

>>3639200
>0.999... is not infinite at all.

>0.999(no ending, infinite), is not infinite at all.
>not infinite
Full retard.

>>3639230
So you agree that your argument is nonsensical.

What an agreeable anon.

>>3639167
The problem is he doesn't know they're ALL expressions because they're written down or use language in some way. Constant expressions like '1' or '0.9...' are expressions. They are also numbers. They're the numbers their expressions denote. Therefore, '0.9... = 1' is a true expression. The constant expressions denote the same number. They ARE that number. Linking the expressions together with '=' makes another expression: a true statement.

>>3639243
I have some whores
I have 7 whores
therefore "some" is a number

Nope.

>>3639259
Some is an approximation. But if you were a mathematician, you'd know that.

If you said you had 1 + 6 whores, then you'd be right.

>>3639251
not the same person either, you are fucking dumb.

Seriously do you know what "expression' means?
1+1 is not a number is an EXPRESSION.
Ofcourse it represents a number, number 2, you could say just for the convinience that 1+1 is the number two, i use that too, but if someone asks me if 1+1 is a number i would say "ITS A FUCKING EXPRESSION"
Have fun being a fucking retard.

>>3639246
thanks

I have just learned that provided my balls are not radioactive I can do anything and not be gay. Oh the wonders of science.

>>3639267
You sound like you have Asperger's, in addition to being incorrect about this.

>>3639266
1+6 is equivalent to 7. It can be interchanged with 7. It is not, however, 7 in itself until it is computed.
>>3639271
Want to have non-gay sex?

>>3639276
>Want to have non-gay sex?
bow chicka wow wow

>>3639276
>A number isn't a number until it's computed
>1 + 6 isn't 7.
The fuck are you talking about?

>>3639256
bored of having fun with you.
Instead i will make you confront reality.

Listen.
When one says 0.999.. it means there are infinite '9's, right?
Because if its NOT infinite then it is FINITE, which makes is a DIFFERENT number than '1'.
And you go there and say that there is NO infinity in infinite '9's.

I wont call you dumb or retard, am only asking you WHY do you think there is no infinity in infinite nines?

>>3639271
Now all you need is a geiger counter and you're good to go.

Is there infinity in a handful of dust?

>>3639281
Taken as a yes. Age/location/favourite state of matter?
>>3639283
Equivalent to is not the same as the same as. They are not necessarily synonyms. Yes, practically, they can be used the exact same way, but they are not the same thing until they're worked out. Not sure how I can explain this further.

>>3639285
There are infinite nines in the way we write it, sure.

But it doesn't change the quality of the number. It is a finite number: 1.

that no.'s that have 2 decimal representations, like 0.999... and 1, can be distinct in certain studys

>>3639297
>Age
21
>location
Berlin
>favourite state of matter?
Liquid, what else?

>>3639297
>until they're worked out
No. They're always the same number. Otherwise, please identify the exact instance that 1 + 6 becomes 7.

>>3639275
I took my time to humbly explain.
Can you explain?

I KNOW what you are trying to say, that 1+1 is equal to the number 2.
Yes we ALL can see it.

Am arguing about the definition of the word 'number' and 'expression'.
Do you understand?

HatersgonnahateAlsoIwanttoseeifenterworksintags

>>3639301
No, no they can't. These studies do not exist.

>>3639246
From a mathematical point of view, you both fail.
'0.0...01' is not a valid expression. Simply slapping symbols together doesn't make a meaningful expression. Check out '...1.1...'. What garbage did I just write?

>>3639310
Well, I'm talking about math, not linguistics, so maybe you should take this idea to /lit/ where it has any relevance.

>>3639298
Exactly.
You said that there is no infinity involved.
But you say that they are infinite nines.
Ofc it is the finite 1.
But infinity IS involved.
Hence you being a retard.
<3 u bro.

>>3639298
If you're talking about a natural number, 0.(9) means that you're talking about a rational or a real number.
If you're talking about a real number, 0.(9) and 1=1.(0) are the same number. People get confused as they don't understand that both numbers are infinite if you consider them as reals.
Of course, reals can also be seen as an extension of natural numbers and N is contained in C, just when you talk about 0.(9) you're either talking about a real or a rational (or something containing either Q or R, such as C).

>>3639315
Internal Set Theory would like to have a word with you.

>>3639323
That's like saying there's no limit because the number of 9's is limitless. You're an idiot.

>>3639328
Show how this means that .999... != 1.

>>3639312
Use ~ for spaces.

>>3639333
You said these studies don't exist. Internal Set Theory exists.

>>3639310
and they're arguing your distinction fails. In math, 'is' means '='. They are numbers. They're also expressions. You deny they can say they're numbers.

>>3639305
Eugh.
>>3639312
I guess not. Anyone know how to use enter in LaTeX?
>>3639309
When you work out that 1+6 is the same as 7 and swap it in.
>>3639318
You wrote 10/9. As there's no number at the start of that initial infinity, there's no reason for it to exist. If there were one and it weren't 0, then it would be impossible.
>>3639334
I'd prefer being able to drop down a line, thanks though.

>>3639348
>I'd prefer being able to drop down a line, thanks though.
\linebreak allow to break the line here.
\newline request a new line.

>>3639343
And I asked you to show how this somehow implies that .999... != 1. You can't just say something exists that justifies your argument without showing how. Apples exist, that means I'm right.

>>3639343
Internal Set Theory isn't a study, and I'm not sure how it's relevant.

>>3639320
So a mathematician asks you what 1+1 is and you say its a number.

He says its an expression and not a number.

If someones shows me the number "1" and he asks me what is that and i say its an equation of 1+0 then he will say am wrong.
Because its a fucking number and not an expression.

Its not 'linguistics' its LOGIC.

>>3639348
You're saying that 1 + 6 somehow becomes 7 when you figure it out in your brain and not that it is always 7.

Wow. That's some deep shit.

>>3639358
IST is an in-depth field of knowledge. Beginners might find http://www.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/books/1.pdf of the most use.

>>3639356
I love you. Thanks.

>>3639360
o its relevant alright, it sthe very distinct between 0.999.. = 1 and 0.999.. < 1, compared to real analysis

>>3639361
I would say that 1 + 1 equals 2. It's also a number.

Any mathematician who tells you that 1 != 1 + 0 isn't worth their salt.

>>3639374
No, no it isn't.

>>3639365
when it is worked out*

An equation isn't an answer to a question, it's the way in which the question can be answered. While its logical result is the same, it is not in itself.
>>3639374
Explain it.

>>3639330
QUIZ:
How many nines are there in 0.9~?
A: infinite.
How many nines are in 99?
A: 2

Is infinity involved in 99?
A: No.
Is infinity involved in 0.9~?
A:Yes
Is 0.9 infinite?
A:No
But it does involve infinity?
A:Yes


See how stupid you are?

>>3639379
"When it is worked out" means when you figure it out. That's not correct. It is always 7. It's always 7/1. It is 14/2. These are always the same number.

Which is a number? .5, or 1/2?

>>3639377
yup, it is

>>3639376
You dont get it do ya?
He and me dont ask "WHAT IS IT EQUAL TO"
An expression is equal to something.

You are constantly answering what an expression is equal to.
Am asking what 1+1 IS and not what is equal to.
Its not semantics or linguistics, its LOGIC.

>>3639377
learn it or accept it, or stay with real anlysis where 0.999... = 1

>>3639379
Outside real analysis, it's acceptable to use additional numbers after the infinite number of 9's to split 0.999... and 1 into separate values.

>>3639390
they represent the same value. Some of them describe it in other terms, but one of them describes the actual value of that number. It's like the difference between "Barack Obama" and "A president with a black father, with a degree in law".

I find it funny how /sci/ has so many 0.(9)=1 troll threads when it's such a trivial truth that anyone who actually understands the context would see.
There are a lot more trickier paradoxes and much stranger and mind-bending truths in math. Unfortunately, most of them are beyond those who haven't studied math beyond middle-school, and sometimes these truths are misunderstood/misused by "intellectuals" who think they understand them, without fully understanding them.

>>3639398
In mathematics, is is the same as an = sign.
So, he's asking what 1 + 1 equals.
1 + 1 = 2.

Or 3 - 1.

They're all numbers.

>>3639407
so you're saying that outside of the set of which the number consists the number can be different?

>>3639409
Which one is the number? Answer that question.

>>3639420
fullretard.tif

>>3639407
No, it isn't. It's only acceptable by stupids.

>>3639417
They're all expressions
>>3639421
7 represents 7. 6+1 represents the value of 6, represented by the 6, and 1, represented by the 1.

>>3639398
What's two plus two?

>>3639424
I love polite informative responses.

>>3639420
He's saying that reals are a set with a specific definition. Given a different definition you may find some non-standard math which could have those 2 numbers be different. They're just not different when you're talking about reals.

>>3639430
No, they're all numbers.

6 + 1 is a number.

You're not providing any evidence.

>>3639425
nope

>>3639436
GYPSY DETECTED

>>3639439
Neither are you, and you're the one making the claim.
>>3639437
Ah. I haven't seen anything like that used on anything like this in the past.

>>3639417
1+1 is an expression.
2 is a number.
1+1 is an expression that is equal the number 2.
2 is still a number.

1+1 is not a number, is an expression of an number.
Do you agree or disagree?

>>3639451
You're making the claim that 1/2 isn't a number.

lol okay

>>3639451
because you're an idiot that assumes what he's been taught is the only acceptable way to view something. i agreed 0.999... = 1 in real analysis, but you lashed out like a pansy faggot with a love affair for being correct. lol, chicken boy chicen boy

>>3639452
1 + 1 is a number. I don't see what's so hard about this.

>>3639456
I'm making the claim that 1/2 is equal to 0.5, which is a number.
>>3639458
I..
What?

>>3639462
1 + 1 is an expression
It simplifies to a number.
It is not a number.

>>3639469
you so badass dude with your eplipses, u got all the anwers bro, u must be so smarts

>>3639475
Well this one time I did get 100% in a geography test

>>3639431
2+2 is an expression and is equal to 4.

Just because someone asks you "what's 2+2'' and you answer 4 doesnt make it a number.
Its a linguistic habit.

>>3639469
Ask any mathematician whether or not 1/2 is a number.

>>3639486
No, a linguistic habit is deciding that 2 + 2 isn't a number.

>>3639348
>You wrote 10/9
nope, I wrote garbage. That the fucking point. Mathematics has a language. Some strings are in that language. Others aren't. '...1.1...' is not. Neither is '0.0...01'. It has no mathematical meaning.

>>3639491
Ask any mathematician if 178 divided by 502 is a number.

>>3639495
Either your native language is not english and you dont know their definitions or you fail at logic and math.

>>3639498
You either wrote 0...1.1... or it was gibbersh. I have no Idea why you are telling me 0.0...1 isn't a number as I have maintained this all along.

>>3639491
1/2= 1:2
1 divided by 2.
1/2 is an expression of the value 0.5

Whats so hard to understand it?
You are confused ONLY because mathematicians have the tendency to call expressions as Numbers, just for sake of convenience.

>>3639509
0.000....1 can be a number

>>3639522
not a real number.

>>3639522
if 0.000~ is infinite then ..1 would never come.
Hence 0.0~1 =0.0~

>>3639452
The expression '2' is not a number. It's an expression.
The expression '1+1' is not a number. It's an expression.
However 1+1 is 2. They're both the number 2, which the symbol '2' denotes in math language.
tl;dr In mathematics, they're numbers!

>>3639557
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Set_Theory
You can have numbers at the end, but not with reals.

>>3639458
No, he correctly assumes no ones talking about non-real numbers. You think the fags on /sci/ know higher math? lololol

>>3639509
The point is there is no point of view. You wrote there are point of views to consider. '0.0...01' is not a number because it's not even a valid expression in mathematics. It's just gibberish.

>>3639564

No.
1,2,3 are numbers.
If you use numbers with signs like +,-,* then they are expressions.
How hard is that?

>>3639571
Saging a math related content.

Fucking retard.

>inb4 troll math, stupid math, etc
No, fucking no, some of us actually try to understand it.
And it is INFINITELY better than unrelated trash on /sci/.
I dont see anyone saging those, fucking hypocrite.


Fucking retarded cancer.
>HURRR UM GUNNA SAGEUM MATEMATIKS

>>3639616
Back to /b/. If seriously, sage just means you don't care about your post as being important enough to bring it to everyone's attention. It's not offensive, despite what some people think. On slower boards, it's even polite to sage and rude not to.

>>3639564


MATHEMATICIAN: THE EXPRESSION 1+1 IS EQUAL TO NUMBER 2.
YOU: 1+1 IS NOT AN EXPRESSION, BUT THE NUMBER 2.


DO YOU REALIZE HOW STUPID YOU SOUND?

>>3639592
Internal Set Theory.
The two views were from mathematical and physical perspectives, not opinions.

>>3639636
If you dont care you dont post.
And obviously you care enough to POST and type SAGE too.

Fucking idiot.

OP troll rating

8/10

>>3639647
But I do. At times I've written many posts spanning many pages, and I've saged them. Why? Because I'm not an egotist. No more than you are a tripfag.

>>3639600
You are trolling right.
So what is -1? An expression, or a number?
Fact:
'2' is an expression. 2 is a number.
'1+1' is an expression. 1+1 is number.