# 1=0.999... infinities and box of chocolates..Phliosophy of Math...

I read properly your long winded word salad, the 8-th grade algorithm that divides the circumference of the circle in three equal parts, divides the disc ("MD's pie") into three equal parts as well. Any person with a little knowledge of geometry could figure this out .

*Sigh*

Really, Tach?

Ok then...

Which of the three sectors gets the CENTRAL 'point' as part of ITS sector area value?

Get the point now, Tach?

Read and comprehend properly in context ALL the points raised in that 'word salad' post which you DIDN'T READ properly and hence cannot judge it.

READ and THINK before you KNEEJERK...and then DON'T kneejerk at all, Tach.

so are you saying that 0.9899999999999999999999(9) is a special case of infinity and that it doesn't equal 0.999999999(9)?

What gives you this bright idea?

Comparative case:

if
9.99(9) = 10
then
9.899999999(9) = 9.999(9)

Rubbish. Again. What you are saying is that 8=9

If I am correct then math needs the infinitesimal more than it realizes!

Amazingly , you manage to NEVER be correct.

Ok then...

Which of the three sectors get the CENTRAL 'point' as part of ITS sector area value?

Get the point now, Tach?
I get the point that you do not know math even at the level of an 8 grader. Comes through loud and clear.
The "central point" has measure zero and does not contribute to the area of any of the three sectors in "MD's pie".
Now, let's see: take a rule and a compass and divide the circle in three equal parts. 8-th graders can do it, why can't you?

I get the point that you do not know math even at the level of an 8 grader. Comes through loud and clear.
The "central point" has measure zero and does not contribute to the area of any of the three sectors.
Now, let's see: take a rule and a compass and divide the circle in three equal parts. 8-th graders can do it, why can't you?

You are effectively asserting that there is an 'empty hole' at the center of every REAL PIE disc object?

You are effectively asserting that there is an 'empty hole' at the center of a REAL PIE disc object?

Nope, "measure zero" doesn't mean an "empty hole". Having answered all your inane questions, I am going to ask you to take a break from spamming this thread and to take a rule and a compass and divide the circle in three equal parts. 8-th graders can do it, why can't you?

Nope, "measure zero" doesn't mean an "empty hole". Having answered all your inane questions, I am going to ask you to take a break from spamming this thread and to take a rule and a compass and divide the circle in three equal parts. 8-th graders can do it, why can't you?
@Underfined, there is no point asking Tach to do or think about anything...
All he can do is accuse you of trolling or spamming....especially when he is cornered...
May be he needs to take elementary education in English comprehension.

@Underfined, there is no point asking Tach to do or think about anything...
All he can do is accuse you of trolling or spamming....especially when he is cornered...
May be he needs to take elementary education in English comprehension.

...say the "scientist" who has just "proven" that 8=9
You'll never outlive this, Quack. I think that you , MD, chinglu and Undefined should collaborate on a "paper". It would be published in the Sunday funnies. Later guys, I have had my fill of entertainment.

Nope, "measure zero" doesn't mean an "empty hole". Having answered all your inane questions, I am going to ask you to take a break from spamming this thread and to take a rule and a compass and divide the circle in three equal parts. 8-th graders can do it, why can't you?

Not so fast, Tach. Why so eager to abort?

You can't 'divide' something that has NO spatial extent.

Either there is 'something' which has non-zero spatial extent occupying the exact central position of that real PIE disc object, OR there is an 'void' there that has non-zero spatial extent.

Else you can't 'partition' a 'spatial nothing', Tach.

Comparative case:

if
9.99(9) = 10
then
9.899999999(9) = 9.999(9) = 10

If I am correct, then math needs the infinitesimal more than it realizes!

...say the "scientist" who has just "proven" that 8=9
You'll never outlive this, Quack. I think that you , MD, chinglu and Undefined should collaborate on a "paper". It would be published in the Sunday funnies. Later guys, I have had my fill of entertainment.

If I was to agree with my own proof (jury is still out) I have just proved every number = 9
gosh are you slow today... you could have rubbed my nose in it but you didn't ..why not?

Transient message now removed. Thanks.

Comparative case:

if
9.99(9) = 10
then
9.899999999(9) = 9.999(9) = 10
That makes no sense, QQ.

By what logic does 9.899... = 9.999...?
Is it not obvious that there is a difference of 0.1 between them?

edit...Yeah I think I dropped it...sorry..

using the logic of limits
displayed with
0.99(9) = 1
what does 0.98(9) =

It's 0.99

Start from:
0.00(9) = 0.01

Then:
0.98(9) = 0.98 + 0.00(9)
= 0.98 + 0.01
= 0.99

It's 0.99

Start from:
0.00(9) = 0.01

Then:
0.98(9) = 0.98 + 0.00(9)
= 0.98 + 0.01
= 0.99
ok...I get it..

yeah I'm a dill

:cheers:

7/9

0.77(7)

which is 0.777777778

Obvious question is why the above and not
say, 0.7777777777778 ?
or 0.77778?
or 0.777777777777777777777777777778

... Either there is 'something' which has non-zero spatial extent occupying the exact central position of that real PIE disc object, OR there is an 'void' there that has non-zero spatial extent.
No your intuition is wrong.

Math is logic, but it must start with some assumed or defined objects. A "point" is one of these that by definition (an axiom) has no size, but has a location. Thus if you have a line segment between point A and B which are only 1 micron apart, there are an infinite number of points, all different from each other by their locations, on that 1 micron long line segment. Even more startling is fact that the number of points between A' & B' is an infinity just as large (and not bigger) as between A & B, even if A' & B' were a trillion light years apart.*

You "common sense" that there must be more points on line segment A'B' than on the 1 micron long AB, is wrong as this can be easily proven. Basically this proof goes like this:
Given any point on AB, P, there is one and only one point, P',on A'B' that correspond exactly to P (and conversely). For a specific example, consider the point x on AB, which is closer to A than to B by the fraction 41/ 333 or 0.123123123123123123.... there is the point x' (the only one) that is also 0.123123123123123123.... closer to A' than to B'.

As far as to which of the 1/3 slices of pie the center point "belongs to" the choice is arbitrary. If initially, when I cut conceptually the pie, it belonged to piece #2 and someone say: "No, it should belong to pieces #1, as that was the first cut." Then I say OK, lets move it to be part of piece #1.

Do you think after the move that the area of piece #2 is smaller and that of piece #1 has increased? If yes, then you are illogical, or forgot the axiom defining what points are.

*likewise, there are no more points inside a cube one light year on an edge than on the 1 micon long line AB. Here is a nearly completed hint for you to proof that:
Consider the point inside the cube with Cartesian coordinates (a,b,c) and note that a, b, & c are expressed as decimal fractions of one light year. I.e a is a string of numbers 0 thru 9 like 0.2640684772456 without end usually but could be exactly 0.2 for the infinity of points in the bc plain with coordinates (0.2, b, c). In general a = a1 a2 a3 a4 etc., where for any point in the cube with a= 0.2640684772456 then for it, a1 =2, the a2 =6, the a3 = 4, the a4 =0 etc. for b & c.

Now on the 1 micron long line corresponding to point in the cube at (a,b,c) the is one, and only one, point with x-axis coordinates = 0.a1 b1 c1 a2 b2 c2 a3 b3 c3, a4 b4 .... etc.

And of course for any point on the 1 micron line there is one and only one corresponding point inside the light cube.

If there is an apple for every orange (one and only one corresponding to it) and an orange for every apple, then there are no more oranges than apples and no more apples than oranges - even your intuition should tell you that. But some infinites are bigger than others, but I won't detour more to prove that.

Last edited by a moderator: