64 = 65? (sorry if it's been done already)

[MasteR]

[quote="flowbug";p="116043"]As previously pointed to in these posts... the whole 2=1 equation relies on the mathematical trick that you must divide by zero. Everyone knows that you're not supposed to be able to divide by zero. However, the equation is sneaky. It changes everything into algebraic varibles, so you don't realize you're dividing by zero until you write it all out.

Here is the ellusive equation:

Firstly, let's say that: x = 1

Therefore: x² = x

x² - 1 = x -1

Factorising: (x - 1)(x + 1) = x - 1

Dividing through: x + 1 = 1

[/quote]

But... like in that thing i posted, x=1, so x-1=0, and you can't devide by 0.

[quote="flowbug";p="116043"]

Substituting: 2 = 1

So there you have it. You tried to forget about it in 9th grade, and here I go digging up rotting corpses again. All right, I'll put 'em back. Sheesh. Complainers.

Anyway... I had a friend who tried to prove once that 1.999... (insert repeating line) is equal to 2. He basically used logic to account for the fact that it's theoretically impossible for there to be any number in between them, therefore they must be equal. That goes on the logic that between any two points, is an infinite number of points, because a point is infinitely small. Since there can't be a single point between them, they are the same. That ought to throw smart scientist people for a loop... or just get normal people confused about all this inifite garbage. Folks, this is why smart people and crazy people usually end up being one and the same.

My response to what my friend was trying to prove, was that the difference is a theoretical 'infinite carrier'... essentially there is always something slightly missing, even though it is immeasurably small. The missing piece is just stuck up there, being carried over forever.

[/quote]

That's why its called theory.

[quote="flowbug";p="116043"]

However, as I've grown older, and into my practicality - I've reallized that dammit, when I'm building a f***ing shelf... 1.999... had damn well better be equal to 2... because I'm not holding the level in one hand, and the tape measure in the other - for another f***ing hour!!![/quote]

1.999 repeating is not equal to 2, its aproxamently equal to 2. Ever seen the equal sign with the tilde like thing over it? Thats what you usually see.

1.999 (repeating) =(aproxemently) 2


and i can't spell.


EDIT: correcting myslef. its not an equal sign with a tilde like things. its an equal sign made of 2 tilde like things. anyway yeah....

[flowbug]

Okay, MasteR...

1st - about the comment you made when you first quoted me... you say that as though you're contradicting me, and yet what you have to say seems to be in agreement.

2nd - about the second time you quoted me: okay, I agree.

3rd - the third time you quoted me you seemed to be completely missing the humor of the statement. The last paragraph of my little rant is just a joke! Have you ever tried to build something to exact specifications, and just ended up frustrating yourself? If not, perhaps you're not a perfectionsist... but that's just the humor of it. If you spend a fricken hour trying to move a ruler .111... said units - you may as well give up and call it 2 already. So yeah. ha ha, see that was supposed to be funny.

And just BTW, I know about the double tilde approximate symbol. I also know about many other fancy mathematical things, but I don't think anybody really cares. It's not important to beat each other to death with complex explanations, whirlwind theories, or smarter-than-you attitudes. What's important is that we leave entertaining articles for others to enjoy.

On that note...

*flowbug drops his pants, and everyone laughs at his black-and-green polka dotted boxers.

[Stapr]

[quote="flowbug";p="116572"]If you spend a fricken hour trying to move a ruler .111... said units - you may as well give up and call it 2 already.[/quote]

It's actually .00000000000......1 said units.

[MasteR]

Flowbug, nothing personal but i just used your post as an example. I wan't tyring to contradict anything. I just added some commments. Sorry if i offended you.

I wasn't trying to beat anyone to death or prove you wrong. Just adding to the conversation, ok?

Jeeze calm down.

I could have used any post to quote or just not quote and used my own to make my point.

edit: adding- If you took it that personal i'll delete my post, up to you i don't care.

[gdjohnson]

1.9 repeating = 2:
To convert repeating decimals into fractions, put the number over nine instead of ten. So .3 repeating is 1/3, and .6 repeating is 2/3. This is exact, not approximate, by the way.
.9 repeating is thus 9/9, or 1.
Another way to look at it is that .9 repeating = .3 repeating + .6 repeating.
Thus .9 repeating = 1/3 + 2/3
And thus .9 repeating = 1
Makes sense to me, anyway.

[flowbug]

Hey MasteR, I'll apologize myself if my tone came out sounding overexcited. I am not offended, and I am not upset. I did not take anything personally, so feel free to leave the post. I didn't mean to sound like a hardass, because I'm really not that touchy of a person. I was just poking at the fact that you appeared to miss my humor... but I wasn't trying to make a big deal out of it.

Guys... for anyone who reads this, make a note for future reference. I am not a whiny snot who gets hurt about every little thing. If you make a post that contradicts something I say, keep in mind that I'll usually respond with a sarcastic note of humor... but I'm not going to get all pissy because you disagree. As long as you're not being blatently rude, it's all cool.

Stapr, You're right about the .000...1 thing. I just wasn't thinking when I typed what I typed, but it doesn't matter. The point still gets put across.

I didn't really mean to turn this thing into a technical argument... but, on the other hand, I suppose it keeps the string going, and that's what all our posts are really all about, aren't they?

And I just want to point out to everyone that these thoughts were originally discussed between two high school sophomores. True, we were in advanced mathematics classes for our age... but we still hadn't gotten into anything beyond beginner's calc (actually, I personally didn't get that far) - so we may have been discussing things that would eventually be solved later on, in advanced mathematics. However, for high school kids in the classes we were in, it was a pretty good mystery to try and solve.

[Stapr]

Flowbug, I was actually aiming for a funny comment. See, you were talking about perfectionists, and I was making the comment that a perfectionist would probably make. Yea, I know, sounds lame, but it seemed like a perfectly good plan.

Hmmm, now that I think about it, this reply seems to be something a perfectionist would make, isn't it?

[Grumlen]

I get the feeling this should get moved to the science and philosophy debate forum at this point . . .