greeney2 wrote:You are a math major, I'm sure there must be rules about rounding numbers, that make these kind of odd situations appear logical. By that logic Pi carried out in decimals never ends either, so does than mean we can never determain the circumference of a circle? Does it mean any circumference is not an exact length, if the multiplier never has an ending decimal. How does that affect the rule, the shortest distance between 2 points is a staight line, if you unwrap a circumference into a straight line, but have already determained that circumference is not accuate to begin with, because of Pi? Does that mean we also can not measure the exact length of any straight line?
at1with0 wrote:0, 1, and infinity (aleph null, say) are my favorite numbers.
at1with0 wrote:You know how 1/3 = 0.33333......(repeating).
I can notate a repeating decimal for the purposes of this venue as 1/3 = .(3) .
Parentheses (x) denote x is repeated incessantly.
Now multiply both sides of the equation by 3:
3 times 1/3 = 3 times .(3)
1 = .(9)
Or: One is zero point nine, nine, nine, nine, nine, repeated incessantly.
There have been TONS of debates across the internet with people trying to disprove this equation, 1 = .(9). They seem unequal, and the guess people make is that .(9) is less than 1.
Pages and pages of debate.
Next time we'll take a look at the Banach Tarski theorem which states that you can take a solid sphere of volume 1, cut it into 5 discrete pieces, and rearrange those pieces into two solid spheres of volume 1.