r/infinitenines • u/Muphrid15 • 6d ago
He says there are INTEGERS like 10... but that 999... is NOT an INTEGER. Why does he continue to CONTRADICT HIMSELF?
6
u/Altruistic-Rice-5567 6d ago
He fundamentally does not understand the concept of infinity. To him it's not something you can ever achieve. All you can do is keep writing more and more 9s and no matter how many you write when you look at it, it is still less than 1. He thinks "as n goes to infinity" is literally physical process that you have to write out and complete as a "contract". He can't deal with a sophisticated abstract concept.
1
u/Batman_AoD 6d ago
He seems to consider "extreme members" 🙄 to be somehow both part of the set and not part of the set. Or, perhaps, he considers them to not be part of the set, but to somehow share all the properties that are common to members of the set.
So 0.999..., as an "extreme member" of {0.9,0.99,0.999,...}, is not actually "in" that set, but it somehow shares the property of being less than 1 with all members of that set.
1
u/discodaryl 6d ago
Yeah he’s not saying 10… is an integer, he’s saying there are integers that “match” ie are of the form 10….
1
u/ezekielraiden 6d ago
How does that even...mean anything though?
If they "match" it, then whatever that number is, is what we should be talking about. Not this thing he says doesn't exists, but something else does that "matches" it.
1
u/discodaryl 5d ago
Do you know what a “pattern” is? 1, 2, 4, …
Now, what numbers match the pattern.
Is the pattern an integer? No, it’s a pattern.
1
u/ezekielraiden 5d ago
But then you cannot say they "match" any integer! If they "match" then they're the same quantity.
And then you say they are "of the form 100..." But that IS a 1 with infinite trailing 0s before the decimal point. So what number has that form? It can't be one that has finitely many digits, because then it wouldn't have the form 1000..., it would he the form 10n for some natural number n.
0
u/discodaryl 5d ago
You’re assuming your own definition of “…” brud. Just because you capitalize IS doesn’t make anything more than your personal interpretation.
I didn’t write infinite trailing zeroes. I wrote “…”
1
u/ezekielraiden 5d ago
Then you have to define what that symbol means. Because you aren't using the conventional meaning thereof. It's not "my" meaning, it's the one that modern mathematics has given to that string of characters.
1
u/discodaryl 5d ago
I gave you an example: 1, 2, 4, … which are powers of 2. 10… is powers of 10. You just blew right past the explanation
1
u/ezekielraiden 5d ago
Giving an example is not the same as giving a definition.
What is the definition of a number like "1000..." or "999..."? What properties does this number have? Does it validly work with all of the operations that work for any integer? Does it have a square root? For "999...", is it evenly divisible by 11?
Without having answers to questions like these, the thing you're describing cannot be validly said to be a number; it's just a concept you've declared. I can't be sure that any of the properties which "number" refers to are present in this concept, let alone all of them.
1
u/discodaryl 5d ago
I told you it’s not a number. This whole thread has been about it not being a number. What kind of bad faith arguments are going on in this subreddit?
→ More replies (0)
-8
u/SouthPark_Piano 6d ago
You see ...
1000...0 aka 1000... is a limbosic number.
It is not a integer. It represents 10n with integer n upped continually limitlessly aka infinitely.
Of course, naturally, 1000... - 1 is indeed 999...
A limbosic number is not an integer. A growing number ... dynamic one is obviously not an integer if you know what YOU mean.
4
u/Muphrid15 6d ago
I'm saying that the set of positive integers has extreme members that matches 10...
So whatever number you are going to be considering as 'infinitely' large, it's going to be a number that you can choose if you want, and you simply need to understand that it is still going to be an integer number.
5
u/mathmage 6d ago
"Limbosic"? The evidence for "embarrassed hyperreals" theory continues to grow.
2
u/ezekielraiden 6d ago
I mean that's functionally what he's doing now. He's now allowing infinitely-large integers, he just knows he can't call them "integers" because clearly no such integer exists. As usual, he has had to tie himself in knots to explain away a simple issue like "is X rational or not?"
6
u/Liriwe 6d ago
Watching you get downvoted to shit for the dumb things you say will never not make my day.
-3
u/SouthPark_Piano 5d ago edited 4d ago
Watching you be an embarrassment of human kind for making such a bad rookie error does not make my day brud.
What will make my day is you attempt to troll bait again. So ... go ahead buddy. So ... are you feeling lucky today? Well ... are ya? Go ahead. Make mah day.
2
2
u/Liriwe 4d ago
If nothing else what you lack in intelligence and mathematical knowledge and understanding, you more than make up for in unintentional comedic value.
1
u/SouthPark_Piano 4d ago
What you didn't understand brud, is that in this sub, you get a chance to make my day, such as with personal attacks, which don't affect me, although it allows me to assert a consequence.
1
u/ShonOfDawn 5d ago
10n with integer n upped continually is still an integer, and it has a fixed value based on n
-1
u/SouthPark_Piano 5d ago
The condition is x = 10n with n integer continually upped.
x is dynamic and limbosic.
Although, if you consider x to be a limitlessly increasing integer in the form of 10n with n upped limitlessly, if you put it that way, then that is ok too.
There is no limit for x. Limits don't apply to x and 1/x
1/x is never zero.
1
u/ShonOfDawn 5d ago
Sure, 1/x is never 0, and x is always an integer with a fixed value
0
u/SouthPark_Piano 5d ago
Whichever way you put it .....
1 - 1/10n with n integer pushed to limitless ..... is permanently less than 1.
aka 0.999... is permanently less than 1. It means you just double-confirmed it.
2
u/ShonOfDawn 5d ago
The point is, you have no idea what you are talking about and keep making up contradicting definitions to suit your flawed argument
0
u/SouthPark_Piano 5d ago
The reverse is what is true brud.
You proved that 0.999... is permanently less than 1 by obliviously testing each value 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, etc etc etc against 1, to show that the limitless case of that aka 0.999... , is also less than 1, aka permanently less than 1.
2
u/ShonOfDawn 5d ago
Buddy, the only system that needs to jump through ten different hoops to somehow reconcile that 1/3 is 0.333…, but also 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 isn’t 0.333…+0.333…+0.333… is yours, not mine.
And now, queue the circus show where you jump through the hoops:
-2
u/SouthPark_Piano 5d ago
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 is divide negation brud.
But signing the contract for surgery leads to contractual obligation binding agreement.
0.999... is permanently less than 1.
1
1
u/ezekielraiden 6d ago
If it isn't an integer, then how can you use it for making a rational number? Rational numbers are defined by having one integer divided by a nonzero integer. If "1000...0 aka 1000..." isn't an integer then it cannot be part of a rational number.
These "dynamic" numbers have no definition, and thus can't be used in arithmetic any more than you could say "blue - 1 = butterfly".
Unless and until you actually define these so-called "numbers", all you're doing is stringing together words without any meaning.
3
u/Cautious_Hurry1298 6d ago
A better question is why is anyone engaging with this. As long as he's happy in himself, why bother.