HUGE Arguement At School About...

Vegeta897 said:
Ok if you didn't understand that then... Nevermind, all the ignorance in this thread is just making me angry, but 15357's statement makes perfect sense.

Anyway, this is all Raziaar's fault for questioning it in the first place and setting of this god damn chain reaction.

WE SHALL HAVE A HANGING!
Click to expand...

Go **** a cow Vegeta.
 
200px-Tour_eiffel_at_sunrise_from_the_trocadero.jpg


Kitty lands in water. Kitty is safe.
 
Doesn't water become very, very hard after you hit it with a certain speed?
 
Hitting water from a great height is equal to hitting cement.
 
Besides that pool of water is like two feet shallow and it's about 500m away from the base of the tower.
 
heh, I love this thread.

Fatal feline terminal velocity topics and 1 != .999 arguments will derail any thread. On topic: bad form on your teacher's part, letting an irrelevant question derail the class. He/she should have given it a moment of discussion at most and chaired it to get back to curriculum.
 
i know of a cat that fell out of 5th storey and did NOT survive. so much for the eiffeltower.

usually cats that fall out of the first or second storey at least break their jaw since they can compensate their body speed, but not their heads. it would probably just smash on the ground under the tower and die immidiately.
 
The argument is that if a cat can survive its terminal velocity, after a certain height it will make no difference how high it is. What helps it more is that the cat will have more time to control its shock after being dropped.

You could compare this concept to swimming, if you can swim in water that is too deep to touch the bottom, it doesn't matter how deep it is.

Rough analogy but it works.
 
Vegeta897 said:
The argument is that if a cat can survive its terminal velocity, after a certain height it will make no difference how high it is. What helps it more is that the cat will have more time to control its shock after being dropped.

You could compare this concept to swimming, if you can swim in water that is too deep to touch the bottom, it doesn't matter how deep it is.

Rough analogy but it works.
Click to expand...

thats a pretty good analogy.....
 
hungryduck said:
thats a pretty good analogy.....
Click to expand...
Why thankyou, I actually draw it from something I remember long ago, my younger cousin was asking me in how deep of water I could swim in "How about a thousand feet? A million!?" Heheh.
 
Ok so some of you guys say that because no number can be placed between 0.999(repeating) and 1, they are equal. How do asymptotes have any relevance in math then? They are infinitely close to 0, but never touch it. That is an accepted concept. Aren't you rejecting that concept by saying that at some kind of "finite" infinity, they will touch?
 
By definition, they are different. In practice, they are the same, no?
 
Moto-x_Pat said:
Ok so some of you guys say that because no number can be placed between 0.999(repeating) and 1, they are equal. How do asymptotes have any relevance in math then? They are infinitely close to 0, but never touch it. That is an accepted concept. Aren't you rejecting that concept by saying that at some kind of "finite" infinity, they will touch?
Click to expand...
I've been working with asymptotes in further maths class recently. That's actually got me thinking, but you really need to deal with the proofs rather than ask questions.
 
bbson john said:
So... 0.99999 = 0.9 + 0.9(1/10) + 0.9(1/10)^2 + 0.9(1/10)^3...
By Geomatric series
0.9(1/10)^n be P(n)

S(infinite) = a/(1-R)
= 0.9(1-1/10)
= 0.9(9/10)
= 1


Alternatively, let S(infinite) be y:

y = 0.9+(0.1)y
y(1-0.1) = 0.9
y(0.9) = 0.9
y = 1
Click to expand...
This is pretty much the answer to your questions. If you have a sum which is 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 + 0.00009 + 0.000009 + etc, you get "0.99..." . You then take the number by which each, umm, "thingy" (forgot :p) is multiplied by, in this case one tenth (1/10). You then use the mathematic formula " first part of the sum (=0.9) / 1 - multiplier " to get the limit for infinity.

When we fill this in, we get :
= 0.9 / 1 - 1/10
= 0.9 / 10/10 - 1/10
= 0.9 / 9/10
= 0.9 / 0.9
= 1

IMPORTANT: This formula is only valid when the multiplier is between 0 and 1.
 
Humans have survived falls at speeds of their terminal velocity, and survived with only a broken bone or two. Cat's can do the same, I'm sure, but the extent of injury would be just as unpredictable as it is with a human.
 
A subject with a low mass and a high drag would probably survive ... For instance, a furry kitten.

A fat short-haired cat would have no chance, and would probably just splatter.

God help the sort of bloke that wants to throw kittens off the eiffel tower though.
 
Every time you think about math, a small kitten gets thrown off the effiel tower. Every time you think about that ugly girl who has no friends, a small kitten gets thrown in the ocean with a piece of butter attached to it's back, which, in turn, has a brick attached to it. Every time you smack a girl, a mall kitten is raped while falling of the effiel tower during the rainy season in russia after the polar ice caps melted so they are all underwater.

^PWND
 
Acepilotf14 said:
Every time you think about math, a small kitten gets thrown off the effiel tower. Every time you think about that ugly girl who has no friends, a small kitten gets thrown in the ocean with a piece of butter attached to it's back, which, in turn, has a brick attached to it. Every time you smack a girl, a mall kitten is raped while falling of the effiel tower during the rainy season in russia after the polar ice caps melted so they are all underwater.

^PWND
Click to expand...

Oh ****.

I missed these forums so damn much. :D
 
No one can provide "0.999... =/= 1" mathematically. They just keep saying that it is common sense. They prove by "sense". Like thousands years ago, people defied that when two sides of a right-angled triangle are 1 in length then the lenght of the hypothenuse is a irrational number. 0.999...=1 is a fact. I don't feel like you are stupid if your common sense can't accept it. But when all proofs are shown and you are unable to make a correct one for your own, then you'd better stfu and believe it. "Common senses" are not always correct but they are just common. Common senses can be wrong, greatly. Since none can show 1 =/= 0.999... and people, I inclusive, can show that 1= 0.999..., you'd better accept 1 = 0.999... and obey your rational, logical mind, instead of the sensuous, reactionary one.




p.s. The terminal velocity of the falling cat beneath the Eiffel Tower is 54.605936 m/s, i.e. 196.58137 km/hr. Nothing can survive in this velocity. Even if you are in a car with full shock absorber and air bag, you and the cat are dead.
 
Vegeta897 said:
Ok if you didn't understand that then... Nevermind, all the ignorance in this thread is just making me angry, but 15357's statement makes perfect sense.

Anyway, this is all Raziaar's fault for questioning it in the first place and setting of this god damn chain reaction.

WE SHALL HAVE A HANGING!
Click to expand...

I actually did understand it, but I couldn't be bothered responding to it because it just further proves the point that an infinitely small number is 0, therefore .9999... MUST equal 1.

Anything that is infinitely close to something, cannot have anything that is a true number be put between the something and the anything.
Click to expand...

What he's saying is that 0.00...1 can't exist because an infinite number couldn't have a number tagged on the end because it'd mean there'd have to be an end where there isn't an end, so in reality we'd just have 0.000000.... going on for infinity, that just offers more proof that .9999...(recurring) equals 1 because the difference between 0.999(repeating) and 1 for all intensive purposes is 0. Which ever way you look at it it comes down to 0.9999... equaling 1.
 
I have taken air resistance into account. Without air resistance, the velocity should be 77.45966692 m/s, i.e. 278.8548 km/hr.

With air resistance, the velocity is 54.6 m/s. (Though it is possibe that I made a calcution mistake) lol
 
I wonder if the same works for the hipopotamus
 
*Enters thread*

*Mumbles to self and ponders intelligently*

*Exits thread*
 
Unfocused said:
Hm... what's the number closest to 1?
Click to expand...

there is no number which is closest to 1, except 1. However, mathematicians have constructed another system where there is a smallest number. That is an entirely different number system. All limits, integration have been redefined, and they are well defined as well. But all we are discussing now is the number system we are using in everyday life.



p.s. I found some problem in calculating the weigh of a cat. So the velocity should be lower.

p.p.s. Only with speed is not enought. You must put the cat's weigh, momentum and impact duration into account. 60 km/hr can be fatal.


http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?cls=0&cat=2032&articleid=3409
 
mortiz said:
I actually did understand it, but I couldn't be bothered responding to it because it just further proves the point that an infinitely small number is 0, therefore .9999... MUST equal 1.
Click to expand...

I can accept that .999... = 1... but not that .000...1 = 0.

Weird.

/EDIT Or stupid, come to think about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Barking Dog Studios' work for Valve
Replies
0
Views
11K
Barnz
B
B
Community Interviews: Final Exchange development team
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
Omnomnick
Erik Wolpaw Still At Valve: Retracting Our Round-Up
Replies
5
Views
10K
MFL
MFL
Back
Top