The Black Vault

[at1with0]

You know how 1/3 = 0.33333......(repeating).

I can notate a repeating decimal for the purposes of this venue as 1/3 = .(3) .

Parentheses (x) denote x is repeated incessantly.

Now multiply both sides of the equation by 3:

3 times 1/3 = 3 times .(3)
ergo,
1 = .(9)

Or: One is zero point nine, nine, nine, nine, nine, repeated incessantly.

There have been TONS of debates across the internet with people trying to disprove this equation, 1 = .(9). They seem unequal, and the guess people make is that .(9) is less than 1.
Pages and pages of debate.

Next time we'll take a look at the Banach Tarski theorem which states that you can take a solid sphere of volume 1, cut it into 5 discrete pieces, and rearrange those pieces into two solid spheres of volume 1.

[greeney2]

You are a math major, I'm sure there must be rules about rounding numbers, that make these kind of odd situations appear logical. By that logic Pi carried out in decimals never ends either, so does than mean we can never determain the circumference of a circle? Does it mean any circumference is not an exact length, if the multiplier never has an ending decimal. How does that affect the rule, the shortest distance between 2 points is a staight line, if you unwrap a circumference into a straight line, but have already determained that circumference is not accuate to begin with, because of Pi? Does that mean we also can not measure the exact length of any straight line?

[at1with0]

You are a math major, I'm sure there must be rules about rounding numbers, that make these kind of odd situations appear logical. By that logic Pi carried out in decimals never ends either, so does than mean we can never determain the circumference of a circle? Does it mean any circumference is not an exact length, if the multiplier never has an ending decimal. How does that affect the rule, the shortest distance between 2 points is a staight line, if you unwrap a circumference into a straight line, but have already determained that circumference is not accuate to begin with, because of Pi? Does that mean we also can not measure the exact length of any straight line?

1=.(9) is no stranger in my opinion than 1=15/15 or 1 = 2 - 1. They are just different ways to write 1.

Every number that has a decimal expansion who terminates has a second form that ends with all 9's.
For example,one half is also equal to 0.4(9)
A transcendental number like pi doesn't have a decimal expansion that terminates, so it is an exception.

Another oddity just occurred to me: since the set of real numbers is uncountable and the set of all descriptions is countable, "most" real numbers do not have a description yet the set of all real numbers can be described. Hmm, that might help actually.

Before I continue, do you mean the idealized concepts of circle, circumference, and lines?

[bionic]

Nine is my favorite number
I'm no math genius but I noticed how cool it was when studying numerology way back..though it was my favorite number before I knew that..but once I saw how cool it was..it seriously became my favorite number

it's critical mass..it's event horizon..or, actually that moment just before

[at1with0]

0, 1, and infinity (aleph null, say) are my favorite numbers.

[bionic]

0, 1, and infinity (aleph null, say) are my favorite numbers.

hence, the sig..
nothingness..some kinda something...everything
I get it
and then we get back to your fascination with lines of demarcation, et all, right?

[at1with0]

and then we get back to your fascination with lines of demarcation, et all, right?

What do you mean?

[bionic]

I refuse to explain myself

[at1with0]

I refuse to explain myself

I've noticed.

[frrostedman]

You know how 1/3 = 0.33333......(repeating).

I can notate a repeating decimal for the purposes of this venue as 1/3 = .(3) .

Parentheses (x) denote x is repeated incessantly.

Now multiply both sides of the equation by 3:

3 times 1/3 = 3 times .(3)
ergo,
1 = .(9)

Or: One is zero point nine, nine, nine, nine, nine, repeated incessantly.

There have been TONS of debates across the internet with people trying to disprove this equation, 1 = .(9). They seem unequal, and the guess people make is that .(9) is less than 1.
Pages and pages of debate.

Next time we'll take a look at the Banach Tarski theorem which states that you can take a solid sphere of volume 1, cut it into 5 discrete pieces, and rearrange those pieces into two solid spheres of volume 1.

1 cannot equal .(9) because you know for a fact that even if .(9) is carried on infinitely, it can never possibly reach 1.

Here we are back to infinity, staring it in the face, because (it's a long story) we exist in a hologram that simply cannot translate perfectly. .(9) can inch closer and closer to 1 until the end of time, and never get there. The same goes for the distance between any 2 points. The same goes for points themselves, which can't possibly physically exist. No point can be demonstrated physically without encompassing multiple points. So points on graphs, and stuff like this, is stuff that can only be imagined. Holographic, man!