Instigator / Pro
4
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Topic
#157

1/3 is not actually 0.3r and also 1 doesn't equal 0.9r, the reason the misconception of 1/3=0.3r is accepted by mainstream math is due to a flaw in the decimal number system.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Death23
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1553
rating
24
debates
56.25%
won
Description

No information

-->
@Vader

==================================================================
>Reported vote: SupaDudz // Moderator action: Removed<

3 points to Con (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I was very close to voting PRO throughout the debate, but RM decides to concede the rebuttals in Round 5 with a stupid saying. Darn... I vote CON because PRO concedes all r5 and Deaths rebuttals

[*Reason for removal*] The voter needs to explain which rebuttal that Pro conceded was sufficient to win Con the debate. It is not enough to say *that* Pro conceded Con’s R4. This would be analogous to giving argument points to one side because the other side forfeited one round out of five and the entire RFD being "forfeit."
==================================================================

-->
@Ramshutu

Not at all, I made a flawless one.

-->
@RationalMadman

I read what you wrote, it’s not that I don’t understand, but that I understood and found that your opponent did much better. His explanation of infinite series was good.

Perhaps next time you should make a better argument.

-->
@Ramshutu

Why did he? Did you even read what I wrote?

-->
@RationalMadman

That was a typo on my part- I meant con explained it very well.

-->
@Ramshutu

You have no idea what you are doing or how to think
You spend the whole last sentence complimenting me and vote con thank you very little

-->
@RationalMadman

You didnt. And it was clear from your opponents argument that this was just a typo on his part.

-->
@bsh1
@Ramshutu
@Death23

When the fuck did I say 0.9r = 0.0r1

Just stop this low Iq voter cult. Pass a quiz to vote please.

-->
@Ramshutu

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments

>Reason for Decision: The whole debate from both pro and con break down into a discussion about infinite number series. Con makes a series of arguments about infinite number series, and argues what they actually mean, the best summary from his arguments was.
“Pro's argument here is that 0.9r = 0.0r1. This is not true. This is incorrect as it's logically inconsistent with the idea of infinity. By definition, infinity has no end and consequently there is no "after" with something infinite. There is no 1 after 0.0r because there is no "after" in the case of an infinitely long sequence. There is no "final number". Infinity goes on forever. The hypothetical 1 occurring after 0.0r supposed by Pro can't and doesn't happen as it's a logical impossibility.”
This on its own, wins the debate for con on arguments. This convincingly shows both the reason why pros arguments around number series is wrong, and demonstrates why (despite it being non intuitive), 0.9r = 1.
Pros entire argument effectively relates to variations on a theme to there being a number between 0.9r and 1, which requires them to hold different values: con shows this to be false with his explanation of infinite’s and number sequence. Pro doesn’t provide any convincing rebuttal of this silver bullet argument. Both pros mathematical and “intuitive” arguments were very, very well explained.

>Reason for Mod Action: The debate clearly surveys the main arguments and weighs them to reach a sufficient verdict.
************************************************************************

I'll try to read it to see if i understand. Numbers just scare me so i didn't read it knowing i'd probably not understand anything if it has to do with math... logic is a different issue so let me see.

-->
@Outplayz

This is actually pure logic debate (in both of our eyes the other is absolutely wrong) and not a knowledge-heavy one at all.

I'm not qualified to vote for this debate... but interesting topic.

-->
@whiteflame

yes tyvm

-->
@RationalMadman

I'll be working on it this weekend.

-->
@Outplayz

you as well (read previous comment)

-->
@secularmerlin
@David
@whiteflame
@Logical-Master
@3RU7AL

You are tagged as I believe this debate will both interest you and because you are a good voter (or maybe only 1 of these 2). Please read and keep an open mind and note: ROUND 5 WAS NOT ME CONCEDING, it was because I genuinely had nothing left to say (Con was repreating themselves in R4 and I have already rebuked it all).

-->
@Death23

You are wrong.

-->
@3RU7AL

First example number: 0.0r1 - A logically impossible number as it supposes a point beyond infinity.

Second example number: 0r1 - A logically possible number as it doesn't suppose a point beyond infinity. The "1" here is where infinity begins, not beyond a supposed end.

-->
@Death23

So we agree that endless digits behind a number is just as illogical as endless digits before a number?

Infinite - There is no number so close to infinity such that you can't multiply it by 2 and have a new number larger still. Therefore, there is no closest number to infinity. Is that not what an infinite number supposedly is? Or rather, is that not what 0.9r is? A number infinitely close to 1 but not at 1? Such a number isn't logically possible because it's existence isn't consistent with the foregoing reasoning excluding such a number's existence.

-->
@3RU7AL

Re: Infinitesimals - There is no number so close to 0 such that you can't divide it by 2 and have a new number smaller still. Therefore, there is no closest number to 0. Is that not what an infinitesimal supposedly is? Or rather, is that not what 0.0r1 supposedly is? A number infinitely close to 0 but not at 0? Such a number isn't logically possible because it's existence isn't consistent with the foregoing reasoning excluding such a number's existence.

Re: "The question" - This is a loaded question. The question contains the assumption that "one direction [... is] more logical than the other". That assumption is false.

-->
@Death23

"...the possibility of such a remainder is eliminated by the logical impossibility of infitesimals."

and

The question of how is one direction (of endless digits) more logical than the other?

-->
@3RU7AL

Which position are you referring to?

-->
@Death23

Ok, I gathered as much from your previous comments.

Can you present any logical reasoning in support of your position?

-->
@3RU7AL

I don't think that.

-->
@Death23

Why would you think it might be more logical for the zeroes to extend endlessly in one direction, but not in the other direction?

How is one direction more logical than the other?

-->
@3RU7AL

It's not. Why does that matter?

-->
@Death23

How is it "more impossible" for "infinity" to be before a number instead of after a number?

When you write a 1, isn't it implied that there is an infinite number of zeroes both before and after the 1?

r0000000000000000001.00000000000000r ?

-->
@Death23

then .3r is impossible and so is 0.9r

-->
@3RU7AL

There's no remainder. It converges at infinity. Any theoretical remainder would have to be infinitesimal, but the possibility of such a remainder is eliminated by the logical impossibility of infitesimals.

-->
@Death23

Certainly 0.9r ROUNDS to 1. However, in the "real world" you have to add something to 0.9r in order for it to actually cross the line between 0.9r and 1.

The smaller the increment, the more accurate your result will be, but there is a very real practical limit to how small of an increment can be realistically added.

And so, we end up with a precision problem. Certainly there may be some theoretical "remainder", but if that remainder is beyond our scope of measure, it is de-facto meaningless.

-->
@Death23

They get infinitesmally large. ;)

-->
@RationalMadman

Those aren't infinitesimals.

-->
@Death23

then 1/3 can't exist. Same with 0,9r

-->
@3RU7AL

Infinitesimals can't exist. You're familiar enough with the arguments to know that.

-->
@Death23

1.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000009999999r

=/=

0.9r which makes this a precision problem. The difference between 0.9r and 1 is not zero.

-->
@3RU7AL

0.9r + 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 = 1.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000009999999r = 1.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

-->
@3RU7AL

And then if that's true, 0.9r never reaches the last 9 to ever equal 1.

-->
@RationalMadman

You seem to have failed to properly address Death23's proposed definition of "infinity".

There are recognized situations where "infinity" is treated as a set and you can have two or more "infinities", or even "infinity" + 1.

As a practical matter, anyone could add a... 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 to anyone else's 0.9r and your point of precision would most likely be beyond anyone's practical ability to measure.

For example if I added 0.9r and the very very real number... 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 together, what would the result be?

It would seem to be "1". Therefore the difference between 0.9r and 1.0 is not zero.

-->
@RationalMadman

Yeah, right.

Everything you brought up was already disproven by my previous rounds beyond any dispute as it's irrefutable fact.

-->
@RationalMadman

When you fail to respond to an argument, you drop the argument. You failed to respond to my round 4 arguments. Ergo, you dropped those arguments.

-->
@Death23

I dropped nothing you liar.

Yeah I caught that. It took me a minute or so to figure it out though.

-->
@Death23

1/3 not 1.3 for that sum at the start of my R4

-->
@Death23

No: 4.9999r rounds.

5 rounds?