Math controversy should not exist

Debates: 0

Posts: 287

0

2

5

08.01.2023 03:05PM

0

2

5

08.01.2023 03:05PM

-->

@zedvictor4

Because you can not divide 1 precisely by 3 decimally.

Yes, we can divide 1 precisely by 3 the easiest way is to use the duodecimal system. What changing the decimal system means is that 1 is made up of 12 parts instead of 10 parts as a fraction. It was the solution Archimedes had used along with the Roman Empire. This means that 1 divided by 3 = .40 and 1 divided by 4 = .30, 1 divided by 6 = .20, while 1 divided by 2 = .60 all that need to be remember in the process is the new decimal system is equivalent to 1 = 12 and not 1 = 10 changing 2 into a decimal means the value is 24 andnot 20 as in 2 = 20/20th or for 24 it is 1 = 24/24th.

What is then needed is a new ruler to make measurement.

#63

Debates: 0

Posts: 287

0

2

5

08.01.2023 03:13PM

0

2

5

08.01.2023 03:13PM

-->

@Math_Enthusiast

Sorry for notresponding directly to your post. Was up late. I understand what you aresaying, and I understand what you see in the video, as I see it as well. Itdoes make logical sense but is simple not in a Boolean state of numerical valuea false statement. Thank you for you patients with me in this debate.

Topic's author

#64

Debates: 8

Posts: 184

0

2

6

08.01.2023 04:54PM

0

2

6

08.01.2023 04:54PM

-->

@John_C_87

Infinite people, infinite buses, infinite rooms, andinfinite hotels...Are to be proven that is the Hypothesis. The groups ofpeople on the bus do not end, nor do the groups of rooms in the hotels. The veyuse of odd even rooms in the video, the people on the buses are all still allpeople, simply the infinite group is on every bus to be counted in simultaneoussequence.

If this is meant to be a counterargument, I don't see what it proves.

Yes.......no, mathematics states Pi is invalid.

Mathematics does not state that "π is invalid." That's ridiculous. Could you link to a source which states this, or prove that "π is invalid?"

Topic's author

#65

Debates: 8

Posts: 184

0

2

6

08.01.2023 04:57PM

0

2

6

08.01.2023 04:57PM

-->

@zedvictor4

Yep.

There is a reason for an infinite number of nines.

And I just explained why.

This is the first time you have spoken on the case with an infinite number of nines, so no, you didn't "just explain why."

#66

Debates: 0

Posts: 287

0

2

5

08.01.2023 08:59PM

0

2

5

08.01.2023 08:59PM

-->

@Math_Enthusiast

If this is meant to be a counterargument, I don't see what it proves.

The video is not meant to be a counter argument. lol...... how does anyone counter a theoretical condition we are pretending which is describing a scenario with its own goal not condition set to be factual sound prinicples. Please do not get me wrong I like the video it is simply not how I would describe it, that is all. Again I am sorry I can get offensive. As fact we agree there is no such thing as an infinite number of people, correct? Conflicts change when theoretical conditions are not meant to be argued as a truth. Again, the video is a lie made to prove a point. Point taken. I am just giving a limited point of view on logic and reason. Honestly it was a great video all things aside.

I have gone over with "zedvictor4" thereis no infinite number of nines it is a low-level program error in a calculator.Nothing more than the numbers repeating is nothing but a choice over cost effective production of calculators and the computer age ate it up like prime beef or a meatless steak if we role that way. We have cited the work Archimedes and the issue had been made clear Centuries ago by his work.

#67

Debates: 0

Posts: 287

0

2

5

08.02.2023 01:14AM

0

2

5

08.02.2023 01:14AM

Calculus and group theory really don't have much to do with each other. Especially not the Archimedean property.
Calculus has a lot to do with sets but sets and groups are not the same.

Groups and sets have everything to do with fraction stranslated and written as decimals. As does calculus According to Archimedes and mathematics the infinite decimal does not exist. Citing Archimedes property is just the wrong as a call addressing infinite in relationship to irrational decimals as irrational numbers. The guy wrote Calculus....

Everything in the video has a fixed value. The cardinality of the hotel and of the buses is aleph null, and the cardinality of the party bus at the end of the video is the continuum. (see the second meaning of "continuum" on the linked webpage) Cardinal numbers never show up in calculus, but this isn't calculus, it's set theory.

Everything in the video has a fixed value. No, it started that way but quickly changed...the hotel for all we know has an infinite number of buildings, one for each bus. The buildings only hold 10, 100, 1,000,10,000., 100,000, 1,000,000, 10,000,000, 100,000,000, and 1,000,000, 000 people as so we can identify by series the truth of infinite. The real issue is that the calculator is just having sex and multiplying like a rabbit the sequence of 0.99999 is a flaw in the calculator’s design. Rights Reserved Patent pending.As a mathematician a person has a certain obligation to uphold a standard of morality when issues of human safety are involved with instruction of mathematics. Laws of education govern only the principle of instruction not injustice or legal negligence, it is law of negligence and other laws which does this. Usually,. Not always by usually….

#68

Debates: 0

Posts: 287

0

2

5

08.02.2023 01:25AM

0

2

5

08.02.2023 01:25AM

-->

@Math_Enthusiast

Mathematics does not state that "π is invalid." That's ridiculous. Could you link to a source which states this, or prove that "π is invalid?"

Odd enough yes the derinition Wiki uses for Pi describes the sum of by being unfit to use in any calculation that requires a sum.......

" meaning that it cannot be a solution of an equation involving only sums, products, powers, and integers."

Pi - Wikipedia

I can even quote you as you have said the 3.14159 is not used instead a veriable vlue symbol is used π.

#69

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,331

3

6

08.02.2023 05:55AM

3

6

08.02.2023 05:55AM

-->

@John_C_87

Yep that's the way we used to do it as kids....Pre decimal.....We called them fractions.

But not the same as dividing 1 by 3 decimally.

You know what decimal means?

#70

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,331

3

6

08.02.2023 05:57AM

3

6

08.02.2023 05:57AM

-->

@Math_Enthusiast

#27

And so on.

#71

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,331

3

6

08.02.2023 06:06AM

3

6

08.02.2023 06:06AM

-->

@Sidewalker

The conundrum is simple.

And infinite isn't mysterious.

And fractions is what I was brought up with.

But 0.9999.....will still never equal 1

Because you can not divide 1 precisely by 3 decimally.

#72

Sidewalker

Debates: 6

Posts: 2,063

3

2

4

Sidewalker

08.02.2023 09:29AM

3

2

4

08.02.2023 09:29AM

-->

@zedvictor4

The conundrum is simple.

It simply is not a conundrum.

And infinite isn't mysterious.

But the decimal system is mysterious?

And fractions is what I was brought up with.

But 0.9999.....will still never equal 1

0.9999.....has always equaled 1 and it always will. No conundrum.

Because you can not divide 1 precisely by 3 decimally.

Yes you can, it ust gives you a repeating decimal.

#73

Debates: 0

Posts: 287

0

2

5

08.02.2023 12:36PM

0

2

5

08.02.2023 12:36PM

-->

@zedvictor4

Yep that's the way we used to do it as kids....Pre decimal.....We called them fractions. But not the same as dividing 1 by 3 decimally. You know what decimal means?

I'm going to take you over the edge of mathematics, I aways found this info interesting though I learned a lot of it through early world history and not math class.

The method Archimedes used himself is a little different zedvitor4 the decimal system Archimedes the person who had written such things as Archimedean property, and calculus, the same mathematician used a decimal system that was based on 1/12 not 1/10 as fractions .12 = 1, .1212 = .11, and .121212 equaled.111 how decimals are used now on calculators and computers. 1 divided by 3, 1/ 3 = .40 not (.33333....) Thus (3 x .40 = 1 as 12.0 ) we translate 12 to mean 1. This also meant that 1 divided by 4, (1 / 4 = .30). A hard to understand decimal value in this mathematics is 7, 1 divided by 7, 1 / 7 = .1111111... the three elevens go on infinitely. What is important to see is that not all of the numbers create infinite values, like before, and what is helpful is the two numbers which do (11, 7) create the same decimalinfinite value of .1111... and it is only the length of the identification stage of the repeating values that change. In case you did not notice how much this math is like algebra, anolog time or how it relates to binary value in bits. I would like to point out It does as it is the foundation of how those three things had been developed. See in Binary and in a decimmal system using 1/12th the numeric values can be seen as two subgroups as either (0 or 1).

As this solution is confusing as anything to look at. I will try and help with a little more detailed lay out. 12 subtracted by 7 equals 5 and the first decimal is .11 we do not go over twelve. (5 x 12 is 60) 8 x 7 is the closes match as it equals 56, 60 - 56 = 4 the value is short so it becomes 11 again. .1111 with a remainder of four. 4 x 12 equals 48, the next match is at 6 x 7 equals 42. It is (48 - 42 = 6). Keep in mind this is math that is Centuries older than what is taking place now.

#74

Debates: 0

Posts: 287

0

2

5

08.02.2023 03:16PM

0

2

5

08.02.2023 03:16PM

-->

@Math_Enthusiast

The metaphoric nature of this debate is about Stars, Solar System, Galaxy, and Universe. The debate used infinite numbers created by a calculator to do this, it is the calculator which creates the idea of endless space that a sum may fill. This is not the identical reasoning and logic behind the infinite universe. The bus video is taking this scaling condition in a different direction than the # 0.99999 issue of the debate and the infinite concept of an unexplained volume in a boundless universe.

Topic's author

#75

Debates: 8

Posts: 184

0

2

6

08.02.2023 05:33PM

0

2

6

08.02.2023 05:33PM

-->

@John_C_87

The video is not meant to be a counter argument. lol......

That's not what I said. I was referring to this:

Infinite people, infinite buses, infinite rooms, andinfinite hotels...Are to be proven that is the Hypothesis. The groups ofpeople on the bus do not end, nor do the groups of rooms in the hotels. The veyuse of odd even rooms in the video, the people on the buses are all still allpeople, simply the infinite group is on every bus to be counted in simultaneoussequence.

how does anyone counter a theoretical condition we are pretending which is describing a scenario with its own goal not condition set to be factual sound prinicples. Please do not get me wrong I like the video it is simply not how I would describe it, that is all. Again I am sorry I can get offensive. As fact we agree there is no such thing as an infinite number of people, correct? Conflicts change when theoretical conditions are not meant to be argued as a truth. Again, the video is a lie made to prove a point. Point taken. I am just giving a limited point of view on logic and reason. Honestly it was a great video all things aside.

We agree that there is no such thing as an infinite number of people, but the "people" in this video are a more intuitive way to represent abstract mathematical objects like the natural numbers that do indeed exist in infinite quantities. The video is effectively a fictional metaphor for a very real mathematical phenomenon.

I have gone over with "zedvictor4" thereis no infinite number of nines it is a low-level program error in a calculator.Nothing more than the numbers repeating is nothing but a choice over cost effective production of calculators and the computer age ate it up like prime beef or a meatless steak if we role that way. We have cited the work Archimedes and the issue had been made clear Centuries ago by his work.

You keep referring to calculator error. At no point have I made use of a calculator in my arguments. I am discussing the fact that 0.99999... = 1, which is provable without use of a computer, calculator, electron microscope, or any equipment whatsoever. One simply needs the definitions, and 0.99999... = 1 pops out as the result of a step by step logical argument. I discussed this in post #14, but I can lay out the argument in more precise, rigorous detail if you would like.

Topic's author

#76

Debates: 8

Posts: 184

0

2

6

08.02.2023 05:51PM

0

2

6

08.02.2023 05:51PM

-->

@John_C_87

Groups and sets have everything to do with fraction stranslated and written as decimals.

No, they don't. Groups and sets are abstract mathematical objects defined in contexts well beyond the real numbers. Even in the context of the real numbers, however, sets themselves don't have anything to do with the conversion of fractions to decimals.

As does calculus

No, it doesn't. Calculus is effectively the rigorous study of infinitesimals. Calculus doesn't have anything to do with converting fractions to decimals.

According to Archimedes and mathematics the infinite decimal does not exist.

Infinite decimals are a well-defined mathematical construct: https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/decimals.html#:~:text=To%20begin%20with%2C%20one%20defines,7%2C8%2C9%7D

Citing Archimedes property is just the wrong as a call addressing infinite in relationship to irrational decimals as irrational numbers.

The Archimedean property is a provable mathematical fact, so under no circumstances is it wrong to cite it while proving another mathematical fact.

The guy wrote Calculus....

First of all, this is blatantly wrong: https://amsi.org.au/ESA_Senior_Years/SeniorTopic3/3b/3b_4history_1.html#:~:text=Today%20it%20is%20generally%20believed,turn%20of%20the%2018th%20century. Second of all, how is this relevant?

Everything in the video has a fixed value. No, it started that way but quickly changed...the hotel for all we know has an infinite number of buildings, one for each bus. The buildings only hold 10, 100, 1,000,10,000., 100,000, 1,000,000, 10,000,000, 100,000,000, and 1,000,000, 000 people as so we can identify by series the truth of infinite. The real issue is that the calculator is just having sex and multiplying like a rabbit the sequence of 0.99999 is a flaw in the calculator’s design. Rights Reserved Patent pending.As a mathematician a person has a certain obligation to uphold a standard of morality when issues of human safety are involved with instruction of mathematics. Laws of education govern only the principle of instruction not injustice or legal negligence, it is law of negligence and other laws which does this. Usually,. Not always by usually…

In the hypothetical it is just one building: The hotel. Where the buses come from is irrelevant, since as I explained earlier, everything in the video is a stand-in for an abstract mathematical object. Metaphors don't have to be realistic so long as they represent what they are meant to represent effectively. You bring up calculator error again. As I have already explained, calculators are not relevant here. As to all the stuff about morality and legal negligence, this has not the slightest hint of relevance to this discussion.

Topic's author

#77

Debates: 8

Posts: 184

0

2

6

08.02.2023 05:59PM

0

2

6

08.02.2023 05:59PM

-->

@John_C_87

Odd enough yes the derinition Wiki uses for Pi describes the sum of by being unfit to use in any calculation that requires a sum.......

Yes, the decimal expansion for π is basically entirely useless within the field of pure mathematics. π itself, however, is most certainly not. π is very important in pure math and the real world. Also, regardless of usefulness, π decimals expansion most certainly is valid.

meaning that it cannot be a solution of an equation involving only sums, products, powers, and integers

The fact that π is transcendental means nothing about its decimal expansion. It is a fact about the number itself.

I can even quote you as you have said the 3.14159 is not used instead a veriable vlue symbol is used π.

Yes, that is correct. There is no good reason to use the decimal expansion as opposed to the symbol, at least in the context of pure math.

Topic's author

#78

Debates: 8

Posts: 184

0

2

6

08.02.2023 06:04PM

0

2

6

08.02.2023 06:04PM

-->

@John_C_87

The metaphoric nature of this debate is about Stars, Solar System, Galaxy, and Universe. The debate used infinite numbers created by a calculator to do this, it is the calculator which creates the idea of endless space that a sum may fill. This is not the identical reasoning and logic behind the infinite universe. The bus video is taking this scaling condition in a different direction than the # 0.99999 issue of the debate and the infinite concept of an unexplained volume in a boundless universe.

This debate has nothing to do with stars, the Solar System, the galaxies, or the universe, nor does it have anything to do with calculators, despite your insistence that it all comes down to calculator error, which is false. As I have already explained, calculators are entirely unnecessary to prove 0.99999... = 1.

Topic's author

#79

Debates: 8

Posts: 184

0

2

6

08.02.2023 06:07PM

0

2

6

08.02.2023 06:07PM

-->

@zedvictor4

And so on.

"And so on" won't be enough to magically generalize your argument to the infinite case. 0.99999... with n nines is alway 10^-n away from 1, but this difference is 0 with infinitely many nines, as the limit as n -> ∞ of 10^-n is 0.

#80

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,331

3

6

08.02.2023 06:18PM

3

6

08.02.2023 06:18PM

-->

@Math_Enthusiast

Nice math.

But strays from the simplicity of the fraction decimal incompatibility in this instance.

Though I liked that some we keen to revert to fractions and convert 10 into 12.

And then try and say, therefore 0.999... = 1.

#81

Debates: 0

Posts: 287

0

2

5

08.02.2023 08:31PM

0

2

5

08.02.2023 08:31PM

-->

@Math_Enthusiast

In thehypothetical it is just one building: The hotel. Where the buses come from isirrelevant, since as I explained earlier, everything in the video is a stand-infor an abstract mathematical object. Metaphors don't have to be realistic solong as they represent what they are meant to represent effectively. You bringup calculator error again. As I have already explained, calculators are notrelevant here. As to all the stuff about morality and legal negligence, thishas not the slightest hint of relevance to this discussion.

I am going to disagreeand say there are multiple infinite numbers of decimal numbers, created by gradeschool mathematics such as devission, multiplication, addition, and evensubtraction becoming a set if groups according to Wolfram MathWorld.

Agroup isa finite or infinite set of elements together with a binary operation (called the group operation) that together satisfy the four fundamental properties ofclosure, associativity, the identity property, and the inverse property. Theoperation with respect to which a group is defined is often called the"group operation," and a set is said to be a group "under"this operation. Elements A, B , C, ... with binaryoperation between A and B denoted A B forma group. Group --

from Wolfram MathWorld.com

Agroup G is a finite or infinite set of elements together witha binary operation (called the group operation) that together satisfy the four fundamental properties ofclosure, associativity, the identity property, and the inverse property. Theoperation with respect to which a group is defined is often called the"group operation," and a set is said to be a group "under"this operation. Elements A, B , C, ... with binaryoperation between A and B denoted A B forma group.

#82

Debates: 0

Posts: 287

0

2

5

08.02.2023 11:17PM

0

2

5

08.02.2023 11:17PM

-->

@Math_Enthusiast

Yes, the decimal expansion for π is basically entirely useless within the field of pure mathematics. π itself, however, is most certainly not. π is very important in pure math and the real world. Also, regardless of usefulness, π decimals expansion most certainly is valid.

I cannot say Pi is useless it just happens to be closer to a ratio of 4: 1 than 3: 1 adn tht is the reason it almost works when using Trigonometry. It is trigonometry Isaace Newton formulated as a mathematic and what he had done is added woprk to Achemidese efforts in calculus.

This debate has nothing to do with stars, the Solar System, the galaxies, or the universe, nor does it have anything to do with calculators, despite your insistence that it all comes down to calculator error, which is false. As I have already explained, calculators are entirely unnecessary to prove 0.99999... = 1.

No it is the error in mathmematics at the binary level in calulator and calulating systems the chips and low level coding create the infinite decimal.

Achimedes and the whole Roman empire for a period of time had used a 1/12 fraction as a decimal in place of 1/10 or much of the Romen Empires money.

Topic's author

#83

Debates: 8

Posts: 184

0

2

6

08.03.2023 03:03PM

0

2

6

08.03.2023 03:03PM

-->

@John_C_87

I cannot say Pi is useless it just happens to be closer to a ratio of 4: 1 than 3: 1 adn tht is the reason it almost works when using Trigonometry.

It does not "almost work" when using trigonometry, it works when using trigonometry. I'm really not sure what you were trying to get at here.

It is trigonometry Isaace Newton formulated as a mathematic and what he had done is added woprk to Achemidese efforts in calculus.

Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz invented calculus, not Archimedes. We've been over this.

No it is the error in mathmematics at the binary level in calulator and calulating systems the chips and low level coding create the infinite decimal.

You insist on attacking a source that I am not even using. In my arguments that 0.99999... = 1 I have at no point made use of a calculator, so your insistence that it is a result of calculator error is ridiculous. This would be like if someone told you that the Earth was round, and you responded with "well, you can't trust wikipedia!"

Achimedes and the whole Roman empire for a period of time had used a 1/12 fraction as a decimal in place of 1/10 or much of the Romen Empires money.

What's your point?

Topic's author

#84

Debates: 8

Posts: 184

0

2

6

08.03.2023 03:05PM

0

2

6

08.03.2023 03:05PM

-->

@zedvictor4

But strays from the simplicity of the fraction decimal incompatibility in this instance.

This is a counterargument how?

Topic's author

#85

Debates: 8

Posts: 184

0

2

6

08.03.2023 03:09PM

0

2

6

08.03.2023 03:09PM

-->

@John_C_87

I am going to disagreeand say there are multiple infinite numbers of decimal numbers

There are not "multiple infinite numbers of decimal numbers." The cardinality of the decimal numbers is the continuum, which is one infinite number. I don't even need to address what you say after this because operations on a set have nothing to do with its cardinality.

#86

Debates: 0

Posts: 287

0

2

5

08.03.2023 04:15PM

0

2

5

08.03.2023 04:15PM

-->

@Math_Enthusiast

Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz invented calculus, not Archimedes. We've been over this.

Yes, you are correct and thank you, Newton's work in trigonometry just sticks in my mind better for some reason. I am under the weather and willneed to come back to some of this in a couple days.

You insist on attacking a source that I am not even using. In my arguments that 0.99999... = 1 I have at no point made use of a calculator, so your insistence that it is a result of calculator error is ridiculous. This would be like if someone told you that the Earth was round, and you responded with "well, you can't trust wikipedia!"

It is a machine error or specifically a human judgment call directing the error the machine makes. With all the buttons that calculators can have on it the addition of a couple of buttons which change the fraction value that are translated to decimal by a calculator is not that big of a deal. As we are going to go back and forth with this and in the end, we need a few more different rulers if you agree with me I am going to rest.

Topic's author

#87

Debates: 8

Posts: 184

0

2

6

08.03.2023 09:07PM

0

2

6

08.03.2023 09:07PM

-->

@John_C_87

Yes, you are correct and thank you, Newton's work in trigonometry just sticks in my mind better for some reason. I am under the weather and willneed to come back to some of this in a couple days.

Okay, I understand. I hope you feel better soon. I will still respond to what you wrote in this post, but I will be patient for a response.

It is a machine error or specifically a human judgment call directing the error the machine makes.

You are only reiterating the same argument that I have repeatedly explained the irrelevance of. You will need to point out an error made in my argument, rather than some other one. My argument did not involve the use of a calculator, so claiming that this is where the error lies is nonsensical.

As we are going to go back and forth with this and in the end, we need a few more different rulers if you agree with me I am going to rest.

This is true. I agree that it is not productive if we simply go back and forth with the same thing over and over. I honestly don't see how calculator or computer error is relevant here, but if you could explain that, I will try to have an open mind.

#88

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,331

3

6

08.04.2023 05:04AM

3

6

08.04.2023 05:04AM

-->

@Math_Enthusiast

Not an argument.

Just a statement.

#89

Debates: 0

Posts: 287

0

2

5

08.04.2023 10:56AM

0

2

5

08.04.2023 10:56AM

-->

@Math_Enthusiast

You are only reiterating the same argument that I have repeatedly explained the irrelevance of. You will need to point out an error made in my argument, rather than some other one. My argument did not involve the use of a calculator, so claiming that this is where the error lies is nonsensical.

I am in fact only citing the calculator as a source giving the reason why it is a source in my point. That reason is human error. I need to change my approach to what method of mathematics gives us the number.99999... we are debating. Was it addition, subtraction, multiplication,division? The reason of logic behind asking is it will determine if the sum is an answer or a statement describing what is not an answer.

Why I call the value .999999..... agroup. This may have been wrong on my part, though, I am not getting indications on your part that I am wrong yet. ( I call this fishing) Though I am still uncertain it is wrong. I continue to assume the math when performed on paper or by calculator is telling us what the precise answer to the equation is not. This is opposition to the calculator telling us what istrue. First it tells us it is not 9/9th, it then goes on to say it is not99/100th, to which later it goes on to explain under no condition is the answer precisely 999/1000th. Mathematics is so obsessed that unless stopped by humanor natural intervention it will look forever for the precise answer.8 / 9 = .88888888....

8.0

9

.80 Not it!

72

.080 Not it!

72

.0080 Not it!

72

.0008 Not it!

Interpreting the incorrect answer as the correct answer is anerror.

#90

Debates: 0

Posts: 287

0

2

5