If you don’t mind me trying to correct you… Anything we cannot see the end of is infinite, and logically, should be considered as such… If we try to to conceive of a set of infinites, which is to say, an bounded infinity, we find that we cannot conceive of such an animal…There is always an infinity plus one…
I disagree. If you can have infinity plus one, then it can have a plus two, plus three,…,plus infinity. Infinity plus infinity is not logical, thus neither is infinity plus one. You would have simliar luck dividing by zero.
I disagree. If you can have infinity plus one, then it can have a plus two, plus three,…,plus infinity. Infinity plus infinity is not logical, thus neither is infinity plus one. You would have simliar luck dividing by zero.
[/quote]
Infinity is not logical… All of reality that we cannot hold objectively, as an object is an infinite… Is there finite justice, finite love, or finite liberty??? No… Life is finite at some point, but it cannot be conceived of as an object, or as being only a single point in time… We take for granted in most respects that all of existence is an infinite; but not because it is logical…If it is logical it must also be true, and we look for logic for truth…If we cannot demonstrate it as true, it cannot possibly be considered as true, but only possible at best…Now, to see what infinity is, it is a projection of the present intact to a future time, even when we know from reality, the ultimate logic, that all things change with time…
You can stack infinities… They are not real…You can stack unrealities too…The only problem is that two infinities is not one bit more infinite, or unreal…
In the world of math, calculus demands the need for infinity due to hyperreals. This is where infinity exists as a number, but like you point out, it’s not a actual number. It is illogical it the sense that you can’t put a finger on it. It is in fact a placeholder in order to complete the formula which requires it’s existence. But are you suggesting that infinity is not true because it can’t be proven? It is a projection, but projections are not necessarily the truth.
Exactly my point.
The part I’ve made bold is already nonsense.
Wrong: anything we cannot see the end of seems infinite (to us). All we can infer from p is p.
So it’s inconceivable to us, and therefore non-sensical to us (we cannot see, hear, feel, taste, or smell such an animal, nor imagine how it looks, sounds, feels, tastes, or smells).
Infinity is not a number, so no.
In the world of math, calculus demands the need for infinity due to hyperreals. This is where infinity exists as a number, but like you point out, it’s not a actual number. It is illogical it the sense that you can’t put a finger on it. It is in fact a placeholder in order to complete the formula which requires it’s existence. But are you suggesting that infinity is not true because it can’t be proven? It is a projection, but projections are not necessarily the truth.
[/quote]
To try to determine a particular cause of an effect out of a seemingly infinite number of possible causes is what Aristotle called the fallacy of affirming the consequent… I think this fallacy can be turned onto the future when any one tries to project a train of events going forward into infinity… Logic has a certain object, to explain an observed reality, such as one and one being two, or two and two being four, and if this line of equasions were long, say of four and two being six, and six and two being eight, with each step standing as though a link in a chain leading back to a starting point… But as General Patton said; you can’t push a string…You cannot push a chain of logic beyond the finite with any hope of having it illustrate any truth…I think we push logic into the future to give us new ideas, or new theories to work out, rather than giving us any particular truth…
0.9999… = 1
Thus x = 0.9999…
10x = 9.9999…
10x - x = 9.9999… - 0.9999…
9x = 9
x = 1.
This may be a rediculous question, i suck at math…
But this proof ‘transforms’ .999 into 1, is there a reverse proof, one where X would beggin as 1 and then equal .999, like could you reverse this proof in a way… it seems impossible to me, but i am allways amazed with what theoretical mathamatics can come up with!
[/quote]
There is nothing theoretical about it…It is obvious that one as an abstraction never equals one in reality just as no abstraction, or form equals the reality it represents…I would prefer to think that since no unit is the equal of any other, that when one is found, nothing can be less than one, so all other ones are one plus… But if the next person wants to conceive of his ones as being infinitely one, then more power to them… In any event, one has to be in a certain ratio to two, and that is the measure of one, just as one is the measure of two, and if that ratio must wait on infinity to be show true, then it is not much use… The value of numbers is in their utility, because math is easier to work with than reality…If that process is gummed up because of some nonsense configuration of one, even if it is possibly true, it is not useful, and so is beside the point of math…
This problem if it can be called that simply illustrates peoples inability to conceive of an infinite number of decimals. It literally never ends until infinity is reached, thus as .999… Approaches infinity it becomes closer and closer to 1 and is equal to one at the infinite limit.
in the same way 1/3, in decimal form is infinitely followed by 3s so .333 approaches 1/3 at the limit of infinity. If you can grasp that it’s really that simple, you have just grasped at least a trace of the infinite.
the problem is that when i visualize it it actually doesn’t equal 1 at the “infinith” decimal place, it equals “infinitely close to but less than 1”
in reality numbers don;t function with an infinite amount of decimal places.
pragmatically we forget about teh imprecision that comes along with .333 because we can simply add another 3 to make it more precise.
but no matter how many 3’s we add, even an infinite number of them, the precision is still there
Oh well I tried. 
Your inability to comprehend infinity is of course, the problem (all our problems). How can you. One has to accept though if we look at a graph as it draws itself as far as we can before we die of old age that it is approaching 1, we have to assume given infinity that “eventually” - as infinity is unbound by considerations such as time - it will be 1. That’s an axiom of maths, and a problem with encompassing infinity without our brains leaking out of our ears.
Infinity is extremely useful as it provides key proofs to the value of numbers by suggesting what happens at the infinite limit.
Of course the good thing is that if you add enough digits it’s close enough not to matter, so we just tell our calculators to either throw out 0 or E (undefined usually), or 1.
haha, why don’t you teach me?
what?
if the pattern keeps getting closer to 1, but never reaches 1, why would you assume it reaches 1 eventually?
either that or infinitesimally small numbers don’t affect theoretical numbers in reality.
believe it or not i find it incredibly easy to understand this problem. i understand the way everyone else perceives it, and then i also understand it on a level i seem to be unable to communicate.
let’s put it this way, in our reality, infinity isn;t good enough. if you added infinite 3’s, you still need to add more. (infinity has a way of being imprecise)
what is infinity minus infinity?
what is 1 + infinity - infinity?
1/3 simply cannot exist as a decimal value without losing precision. i can understand what the number approaches, just don;t go assuming it will achieve a round value because we can see what it approaches.
you might as well say pie terminates.
I said “eventually” there is no time frame to infinity. It is all time, everything, all there can be. Forever +1 is a contradiction in definition.
It doesn’t exist as a terminated decimal value, that is the point. It has a limit of infinity.
You might as well not try and say it terminates because it doesn’t by definition except at infinity. You might as well if you ever want to study maths beyond 18 accept that the axioms are true, in as much as we can conceive of something which cannot be exceeded.
It’s of course up to you what you want to say about maths axioms. But that doesn’t mean .999… is not equal to 1.
.999… does not terminate except at infinity, and neither seemingly does pis decimal places, even if we want it to.
and it doesn’t mean it is.
I am more than satisfied with my understanding of math.
maybe you’re getting me wrong and think I’m saying that .333 cannot or should not be used as being equal to 1/3. Pragmatically .333 bar does equal 1/3, it’s just an error in logic to look at the pattern and say it equals one. looking at the pattern it’s obvious beyond argument that the number approaches 1/3 but never reaches one third. this means that with infinite 3’s it will simply be infinitely close to 1/3, making it pragmatically equal to 1/3.
people simply need to make that extra bit of effort to think the problem out
You mean mathematicians need to accept that their axioms are wrong and yours are right because you say so. You can try convincing them but I don’t think you’ll get anywhere, set theory and thus all maths depends on them. Without them you might as well bin it and start with something you like that doesn’t apply to any number system we know. Your choice, I sincerely hope that it works for you, and have no problem with you saying that. Just don’t study maths at degree level you’ll be lost.
It takes no effort for me to say I cannot conceive of infinity.
Maths is about assigning values in an axiomatic self consistent manner, if you can’t do that it is junk.
so basically it’s impossible for it to equal 1/3. right?
pie does?
pie most certainly does not, though there is likely an infinite amount of place values possible.
You might as well not try and say it terminates because it doesn’t by definition except at infinity. You might as well if you ever want to study maths beyond 18 accept that the axioms are true, in as much as we can conceive of something which cannot be exceeded.
It’s of course up to you what you want to say about maths axioms. But that doesn’t mean .999… is not equal to 1.
.999… does not terminate except at infinity, and neither seemingly does pis decimal places, even if we want it to.
[/quote]
then at infinity, when there are more 9’s to behold, it does not equal 1/3. the case is closed is it not?
Only in your head yes. Which is fine by me, as I’ve seen to many of these threads to try and convince anyone of a firmly held belief.
mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/55748.html
Try asking your question here there are much more rigid proofs of this than you know.
physicsforums.com/forumdispl … 26875&f=80
Make sure you say can I see a proof of .999…=1 or they may just bin the topic through mathematical ennui.
look I’m not trying to dictate “axioms”. i’m just pointing out an inconsequential logical inconsistency.
what I’m saying is that an infinite amount of digits after a decimal place does not allow us to “round up” the number without losing some theoretical precision, even if it is infinitesimally small.
i don’t know how i can say this in terms i havn’t already. Imagine chopping down a tree. let’s say with each chop you take down half of what is left on the tree.
how many chops will it take to get rid of the tree? infinite?
with such a chopping strategy there will always be a remainder, regardless of infinity or not.
the idea is to make the remainder so small it doesn’t matter.
i appreciate that but i won’t be needing any other opinions. i have been told the same thing about 50 000 times.
you see my head as being screwy, i see all you guys as being unable to see the logical error.