HUGE Arguement At School About...

[bbson john]

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

Weird.

/EDIT Or stupid, come to think about it.

Since there is infinite 0 in .000...1 and infinite*10 = infinite
.000...1/10 = .000...1
What number over ten is equal to itself?
0
0/10 = 0
QED

 

[Kula Meenur]

wtf happened to cats?

The cats were eaten by a Grue. :O

 

[tehsolace]

I think mythbusters need to solve this myth by throwing kittens off buildings.

 

[Steven]

Who ya ganna call?

 

[bbson john]

I think mythbusters need to solve this myth by throwing kittens off buildings.

 

[Ravioli]

how does a cat actually land on their feets all the time? Is it a reflex or do they do it intentinally.

 

[Steven]

how does a cat actually land on their feets all the time? Is it a reflex or do they do it intentinally.

heaviest things will land first unless you drop something from a very low height with the light side of something faceing the ground. I think they teach you that in grade three.

 

[Operational]

How heavy something is has almost nothing to do with how fast it falls.

 

[Solaris]

You're both wrong.

On earth, all objects when dropped accelerate downwards at a speed of 9.81ms^-2, now they don't keep accelerating forever because of air resistance. On earth, the bigger the mass of the object the greater its terminal velocity.

So heavier objects have a greater 'terminal velocity' or 'maximum speed' if you will, but they all accelerate at the same rate.

 

[Darkwolf]

I don't see how that is possible. I have 4 apples, I add 4 more. I have 8.

Unless you ate three in the process of counting! D:

God help the sort of bloke that wants to throw kittens off the eiffel tower though.

So I better start praying?

>.>

So heavier objects have a greater 'terminal velocity' or 'maximum speed' if you will, but they all accelerate at the same rate.

They don't accelerate at the same rate. They have the same force pulling them down, but again, wind resistance affects the rate of acceleration. I mean, which picks up speed toward the ground faster. A brick? Or a feather?

 

[The Monkey]

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?

But 0.999... and 1 are both real numbers. "A number approaching 0" isn't a real number, therefore it cannot be applied.

 

[15357]

Yeah, a number approaching 0 would be a function (?).


On topic: This doesn't seem to apply the psychological horror and shock that being thrown from the eiffel tower would entail; the cat would probably die, due to a heart attack.

 

[Solaris]

They don't accelerate at the same rate. They have the same force pulling them down, but again, wind resistance affects the rate of acceleration. I mean, which picks up speed toward the ground faster. A brick? Or a feather?

Both the same. Just the feather has a very low terminal velocity.

 

[Darkwolf]

Hmm... I must of interprated your earlier post wrong. I thought you meant that, although something may be heavier, it would accelerate at the same rate...

Or something...

Ma' bad.

 

[Solaris]

It would.

All objects fall on earth at an acceleration of 9.81 ms.

 

[[RnL]Stefan]

It would.

All objects fall on earth at an acceleration of 9.81 ms.

9.81ms^2 please :-P

means it will be DAMN fast when it hits the ground.

 

[Solaris]

No because it has a terminal velocity.

 

[Idonno >_<]

It would.

All objects fall on earth at an acceleration of 9.81 ms.

Most of the times things won't accelerate that fast
acceleration = 9.81 - (upward force)/mass

So unless air resistance is 0, it will have a slower acceleration

 

[Solaris]

Most of the times things won't accelerate that fast
acceleration = 9.81 - (upward force)/mass

So unless air resistance is 0, it will have a slower acceleration

Hi ikerous

 

[bbson john]

But 0.999... and 1 are both real numbers. "A number approaching 0" isn't a real number, therefore it cannot be applied.

It is a real number.

All objects fall on earth at an acceleration of 9.81 ms.

Why? I don't understand.

F=ma
Since the two objects are of the same sizes. They sustain the same magnitude of air resistance. But apparently, the mg of the heavier object is greater then that of the lighter object. So a=(mg-R)/m, the heavier object must be falling with a greater acceleration.

 

[Darkwolf]

It would.

All objects fall on earth at an acceleration of 9.81 ms.

Aha! That's what I thought you said.

All objects do not fall to earth with an acceleration of 9.81 ms. They have a force applied to them (1g, or however many newtons) which WOULD pull them down at 9.81 ms if it wasn't for wind resistance!

 

[Operational]

Hopefully that helps with your question bbson john :cheers:

 

[Jintor]

MY BRAIN! I'MA LEARNING ON THE INTERNET!

...No, seriously, I think I understood that.

 

[Uriel]

WHO CARES?!
Epic Win
GG
Thread Closed

 

[Cole]

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

All decimals can be put into a fraction form and vice versa.
What is the fraction for
0.000.....1

0.999.... is equal to the fraction of 1.
0.333.... is equal to the fraction of 1/3.
Pi has the fraction of A/r^2

Give me a fraction that represents 0.000....1. Better yet I will, 0.

 

[bigburpco]

Lo! I have come up with a theory on why 0.999 isn't 1!

1) It doesn't look like 1.
2) It doesn't sound like 1.
3) You don't press a button labeled 0.999 when you've got to take some potions in Diablo 2. Same for any other game using it.
4) 1+1 is 2, nor 3, 4, or 1.999.
5) Simple math kicks needlessly complicated math in the nads. BAM!

I'll go back to hiding now.

EDIT: If a feather and an elephant are released from a 24 storey building with completely identical variables, they'd hit the ground at the same time.

Um, as for the elephant surviving... :|

 

[mortiz]

I only found this out recently but 0.999... + 0.000...1 does NOT equal 1, it'd equal 1.000...1. 0.000...1 indicates a finite end to the number. 0.999... + 0.000... equals 1, which is equivelent to 0.999... + 0. So I guess I was slightly inaccurate before.

 

[Stickyboy]

To Cole, the fractional form for 0.000...1 is possible.

It is called an infintecimal. It is equal to 1/infinity, thus making the smallest number possible. This infintecimal is the difference between 1 and 0.999...

To mortiz, your equations there are only true if you ALREADY count the fact that 0.999... is equal to 1. You are not actually proving anything, only using your prior knowledge in order to solve an equation. the 0.000...1 does not actually indicate a finite end to the decimal, you only think that because you can see the end and cannot comprehend that the number can actually go on forever, just like the 0.999...

But as for infinite numbers, they cannot be correctly represented using a decimal figure. If this is done (like it has already) out own brains and/or the computers cannot handle the complexity of an infinite number. This ... does not make up for the lack of this ability, only tries to do it. Because decimals cannot do it, words are next to try, but as said before, which I agree with, you can't use literary logic to disprove math. This renders both ways of solving this debate almost uselss, leaving one path left to choose. This path is physical differences. Unless a machine can actually zoom in on the infinity, and understand what it sees, this does not work either. This argument cannot be solved.

As for the shit immitaion of Ronny the Ruler, if a machine can actually zoom in so that its scale degrees are in infintecimals, then it would see a difference between 0.999... and 1, but this is still flawed.

 

[bbson john]

[/URL]

Thank you. I am first-ranked in Physics so it is not so necessary to explain it for me. You helped other netmates as well so your efford is not in vain. What I am saying in the previous post is that it is incorrect to say all objects fall on Earth at the same speed. If you account air resistance, rather than gavity only, you'll found that the object with larger mass accelerates faster. Two object falls at the same speed only works when there is no air resistance. The different massed, same sized objects fall at a different speed on Earth. (Not terminal velocity)

 

[Operational]

Ahh ok, I just misinterpreted your post - I thought it was strange as your pretty knowledgeable.


I'm not going to argue with the 0.999...=1 deniers anymore unless they come up with a reason for why this isn't proof

1/3 = 0.333...
3 * 1/3 = 1
3* 0.333... = 0.999...

0.999... = 1: Skepticism in education





__________________
"Tugboats and arson. That's all I ever get from you guys."

- The Janitor, Scrubs​

 

[Steven]

WHO CARES?!
Epic Win
GG
Thread Closed

.