not this crap again. You do know this proves nothing other than how easy it is to start an internet fight.

I didn't know this topic caused fights. This is my first time seeing it on the internet. I happened to figure it out by myself a few months ago, and ran it by a nerdy friend who said they are synonymous. So hopefully others haven't seen it either and will enjoy yet another one of Vi Hart's amazing videos.

Besides, this is the Sift. People here are a bit more open-minded to new concepts and changing their understanding of things than in the average internet joint. I predict a 9.999...sion-free sift (your comment excepted). >> ^VoodooV:

not this crap again. You do know this proves nothing other than how easy it is to start an internet fight.

Does that mean we can dispense with > and < completely and simply use >= and <= for any inequality? That would make my life easier. After all, infinitely close is close enough.

do a google search. It's been argued forever. Only thing it proves is how far we'll go to argue ridiculous things and the fucked up priorities of humanity.

we'll argue .999... for forever (or infinitely...zing!) but try and solve things like why kids like Trayvonn Martin still get senselessly shot or try and solve how we can take care all of our citizens regardless of income level. Ehh, we'll get around to it sometime.

It reveals just how truly absurd this shit is.

<sigh> It appears I'm wrong about intelligence on the Sift.

0.999... isn't infinitely close to 1. It is an identity of 1. It IS 1. They are exactly the same thing, not just really close, but exactly the same.

@VoodooV: You should have bet me a Sift mug or something. I would have paid out.>> ^entr0py:

Does that mean we can dispense with > and < completely and simply use >= and <= for any inequality? That would make my life easier. After all, infinitely close is close enough.

FWIW, I was the one who sifted the Trayvon martin videos here, so at least I'm contributing to both sides. I guess I'm surprised that Sifters would be disinclined to accept a mathematical fact about a number. That's like just "disagreeing" with relativity because you can't picture it in your mind even though it's been proven to hold on all but the tiniest microscopic levels. [edit: I mean relativity, not 0.999..., which holds perfectly always.]>> ^VoodooV:

do a google search. It's been argued forever. Only thing it proves is how far we'll go to argue ridiculous things and the fucked up priorities of humanity.
we'll argue .999... for forever (or infinitely...zing!) but try and solve things like why kids like Trayvonn Martin still get senselessly shot or try and solve how we can take care all of our citizens regardless of income level. Ehh, we'll get around to it sometime.
It reveals just how truly absurd this shit is.

I'm not going to argue with anyone here about this, but I will add an 10.999.th reason:

1/9 = 0.111...
2/9 = 0.222...
3/9 = 0.333...
4/9 = 0.444...
5/9 = 0.555...
6/9 = 0.666...
7/9 = 0.777...
8/9 = 0.888...
9/9 = 0.999... = 1

If there's a difference between 0.999... and 1, that implies more than 1/9 is added to 0.888... to get 1.

Because it truly doesn't matter to anyone other than a mathematician or a physicist.....or people who like to argue on internet message boards.

.999... either equals one, or it equals a number absurdly close to one. It just does not matter in our practical lives.

Don't get me wrong, the scientist in me loves stuff like this. But the argument just seems selfish in the perspective of larger concerns. I kinda feel the same way about the Hadron Collider. Like income inequality, there is a HUGE gap between the smartest of us, and the average citizen. I feel we should be closing that gap, instead of indulging the intellectual 1 percent.

>> ^messenger:

FWIW, I was the one who sifted the Trayvon martin videos here, so at least I'm contributing to both sides. I guess I'm surprised that Sifters would be disinclined to accept a mathematical fact about a number. That's like just "disagreeing" with relativity because you can't picture it in your mind even though it's been proven to hold on all but the tiniest microscopic levels.>> ^VoodooV:
do a google search. It's been argued forever. Only thing it proves is how far we'll go to argue ridiculous things and the fucked up priorities of humanity.
we'll argue .999... for forever (or infinitely...zing!) but try and solve things like why kids like Trayvonn Martin still get senselessly shot or try and solve how we can take care all of our citizens regardless of income level. Ehh, we'll get around to it sometime.
It reveals just how truly absurd this shit is.

But on a mildly serious note, the hand of the artist moving does not count as animation.

*nochannel *art *happy *talks *education

This video has been removed from all channels (Art, Animation, Happy, Talks, Education) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by xxovercastxx. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Art, Education, Happy, Talks) - requested by xxovercastxx.

Good sift.
Didn't know this, probably due to never having thought about it. Your example points out the mathematical logic quicker and simpler than Vi Hart's vid, which was still enjoyed due to other things i didn't know, the clarity and the pretty pictures.

>> ^messenger:

I'm not going to argue with anyone here about this, but I will add an 10.999.th reason:
1/9 = 0.111...
2/9 = 0.222...
3/9 = 0.333...
4/9 = 0.444...
5/9 = 0.555...
6/9 = 0.666...
7/9 = 0.777...
8/9 = 0.888...
9/9 = 0.999... = 1
If there's a difference between 0.999... and 1, that implies more than 1/9 is added to 0.888... to get 1.



Seems to me the only reason this maths could be argued is 1 of 2 reasons, either the logic isn't understood or people like to argue.

In regards to solving the society problems you mention: wouldn't society stopping work to focus wholly on the latest bandwagon occurrence of 1 of the 7 billion free-thinking subjective experience driven humans having a difference of opinion/preference to 1 of the remaining 7 billion blah blah humans, be more problematic?

Think it's best if the scientists focus on their job of advancing our understanding of everything, the governments do their job of controlling their masses in reasonable ways and sifters do their job of finding great videos.. might need someone to help the cops do their job though, think some of them have missed a point somewhere along the line re 'serve and protect'.

>> ^VoodooV:

do a google search. It's been argued forever. Only thing it proves is how far we'll go to argue ridiculous things and the fucked up priorities of humanity.
we'll argue .999... for forever (or infinitely...zing!) but try and solve things like why kids like Trayvonn Martin still get senselessly shot or try and solve how we can take care all of our citizens regardless of income level. Ehh, we'll get around to it sometime.
It reveals just how truly absurd this shit is.

There was a lot more real math in this video than I usually see in these arguments, so upvote for that.

If this debate is inconsequential to 99.999...% of the worlds population, is it completely pointless?


No srsly, jokes aside, any frontier science is going to be the indulgence of the smartest 1%. I don't think thats a reason to stop. The deal with exploration is you don't know what you'll find over the horizon.

Messenger, there's no reason to be quite that much of a jerk about it. Not everyone has had as much college level math as you. And presumably her videos are about teaching people who don't already know everything she does.

But if you thought I was making an argument against the idea, you're wrong. Vihart presents it very convincingly. I was just trying to think of the implications.

Honestly after watching that video late at night I could no longer wrap my head around inequalities like X < 1. I used to think that meant X could be a number infinitely close to one, but that doesn't work because infinitely close to one is one (most of the video is about explaining why this is true). So, what is the highest possible number that satisfies X < 1? It seems there might be no sensible way of expressing that boundary, and thinking about it just puts you into a spiral of non-working logic exactly like Zeno's paradoxes. Looking back, at 1:23 she mentions what I'm talking about, but doesn't go into it.


Ultimately, she finds this interesting enough to talk about for 10 minutes, and we find it interesting enough to watch. So why should it evoke rage and insults when there's a chance we might talk about it amongst ourselves?

Really? If you weren't watching this video or following this thread you'd be out solving the world's problems? C'mon. You think this argument takes some resources away from the Trayvon Martin case? You're here for entertainment, either for engagement or for distraction, and not to advance any world cause, just like the rest of us. Arguing is intellectual exercise. That's why I would do it, if I hadn't just learned the history this problem has of never getting resolved on the internet.>> ^VoodooV:
Don't get me wrong, the scientist in me loves stuff like this. But the argument just seems selfish in the perspective of larger concerns. I kinda feel the same way about the Hadron Collider. Like income inequality, there is a HUGE gap between the smartest of us, and the average citizen. I feel we should be closing that gap, instead of indulging the intellectual 1 percent.

You're right on two counts: first, I did think you were arguing against the point made; and second I shouldn't have insulted you. Sorry 'bout that.

FWIW, I dropped out of high school after grade 11, I have no college math except what I've been teaching myself recently, and I used none of it when I figured this out for myself. Everything Vi uses in her vids is high school or even grade school math, and if you trust yourself to do arithmetic, then this proof is accessible. She doesn't even hint that the idea of "limits" from calculus gives a quick solution to her 9th reason, the sum of an infinite series.

Anyway, I'm happy to see then that my original prediction has held so far, and nobody here is starting a stupid argument about their feelings about whether this is true.>> ^entr0py:

No reason to be quite that much of a jerk about it. Not everyone has had as much college level math as you. And presumably her videos are about teaching people who don't already know everything she does.
But if you thought I was making an argument against the idea, you're wrong. Vihart presents it very convincingly. I was just trying to think of the implications.
Honestly after watching that video late at night I could no longer wrap my head around inequalities like X < 1. I used to think that meant X could be a number infinitely close to one, but that doesn't work because infinitely close to one is one (most of the video is about explaining why this is true). So, what is the highest possible number that satisfies X < 1? It seems there might be no sensible way of expressing that boundary, and thinking about it just puts you into a spiral of non-working logic exactly like Zeno's paradoxes. Looking back, at 1:23 she mentions what I'm talking about, but doesn't go into it.
Ultimately, she finds this interesting enough to talk about for 10 minutes, and we find it interesting enough to watch. So why should it evoke rage and insults when there's a chance we might talk about it amongst ourselves?

We are capable of processing more than one thing at a time, also people are not obligated to only consider "serious" issues every waking moment of their life. We'd all commit suicide.

>> ^VoodooV:

...But the argument just seems selfish in the perspective of larger concerns...
>> ^messenger:
FWIW, I was the one who sifted the Trayvon martin videos here, so at least I'm contributing to both sides. I guess I'm surprised that Sifters would be disinclined to accept a mathematical fact about a number. That's like just "disagreeing" with relativity because you can't picture it in your mind even though it's been proven to hold on all but the tiniest microscopic levels.>> ^VoodooV:
do a google search. It's been argued forever. Only thing it proves is how far we'll go to argue ridiculous things and the fucked up priorities of humanity.
we'll argue .999... for forever (or infinitely...zing!) but try and solve things like why kids like Trayvonn Martin still get senselessly shot or try and solve how we can take care all of our citizens regardless of income level. Ehh, we'll get around to it sometime.
It reveals just how truly absurd this shit is.

So enlighten me, o' wise ones. What is the point of this other than troll-bait and/or ego masturbation?

This topic is the intellectual equivalent of QM coming in here and making ad-homs about "His Earness" or waxing egocentric about why he is virtuous and true and the rest of us are all immoral entitlement whores.

You saw how quickly messenger called into question the entire sift's intelligence over Entropy's post.

This sort of thing does not lend itself well to civil discourse. Admit it, the only purpose of a topic such as this is to entice someone to come in here and to argue that .999... is not 1 so you can have a grand ole time stroking your ego and patting yourself on the back over how smart you are and how the other person is dumb.

I don't know why messenger sifted this, but as someone who gets paid to think about math, there are several features of this video that struck me as unusually worthwhile. Here are the two unusual points that I saw here:

1) Math is whatever we define it to be. The test of a new idea is whether it is self-consistent and whether it solves a problem that someone else is interested in. This is a good message for anyone who comes up against difficult abstract problems in their life.

2) To argue about a certain set of objects, you need to work within the framework of a theory that defines those objects. Specifically, to argue about infinite decimals, you need to work within the machinery of calculus. Hidden assumptions often make a true argument incomplete, or a plausible argument vacuous. We waste so many hours in heated arguments that are just a disagreement on definitions or assumptions.

Education. It's good.
>> ^VoodooV:

So enlighten me, o' wise ones. What is the point of this other than troll-bait and/or ego masturbation?
This topic is the intellectual equivalent of QM coming in here and making ad-homs about "His Earness" or waxing egocentric about why he is virtuous and true and the rest of us are all immoral entitlement whores.
You saw how quickly messenger called into question the entire sift's intelligence over Entropy's post.
This sort of thing does not lend itself well to civil discourse. Admit it, the only purpose of a topic such as this is to entice someone to come in here and to argue that .999... is not 1 so you can have a grand ole time stroking your ego and patting yourself on the back over how smart you are and how the other person is dumb.

>> ^VoodooV:

So enlighten me, o' wise ones. What is the point of this other than troll-bait and/or ego masturbation?
This topic is the intellectual equivalent of QM coming in here and making ad-homs about "His Earness" or waxing egocentric about why he is virtuous and true and the rest of us are all immoral entitlement whores.
You saw how quickly messenger called into question the entire sift's intelligence over Entropy's post.
This sort of thing does not lend itself well to civil discourse. Admit it, the only purpose of a topic such as this is to entice someone to come in here and to argue that .999... is not 1 so you can have a grand ole time stroking your ego and patting yourself on the back over how smart you are and how the other person is dumb.


This simple concept is one of the fundamental principles of calculus. Without it you don't have engineering, physics, or a million other things known as the modern world. It's not some obscure irrelevant math trivia only used by math geeks. It is a fundamental first year mathematics principle used by every scientist, engineer, and pharmacist in the work they do every day to make all the things you take for granted.

But yeah, just because your not educated enough to appreciate that you should rag all over it and insist it's unimportant. We should burn all the books you don't care for too, right?

LOL!!! you're comparing this topic to the actual work that engineers and physicists do? That is hilarious. Yes, I'm sure the engineering world has much to thank the awesome ability of arguing on a message board over what .999... is equal to.

This has nothing to do with calculus. This has nothing to do with actual practical work. This has nothing to do with solving actual problems. This is about going onto a internet message board and browbeating others which has already happened as I predicted.

Before you start insulting the education of someone else, make sure YOU'RE not making any mistakes of YOUR own, eh?

Sorry I can't stay and "debate" with you on this truly fascinating topic. I have to go to my job tomorrow and do REAL work and solve ACTUAL problems. Sure it's not as grand and as thought-provoking as comparing .999... to 1, nor do I get to beat up on some hapless internet newb who happens to take the troll-bait. But hey, we have to get our satisfaction somehow.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^VoodooV:
So enlighten me, o' wise ones. What is the point of this other than troll-bait and/or ego masturbation?
This topic is the intellectual equivalent of QM coming in here and making ad-homs about "His Earness" or waxing egocentric about why he is virtuous and true and the rest of us are all immoral entitlement whores.
You saw how quickly messenger called into question the entire sift's intelligence over Entropy's post.
This sort of thing does not lend itself well to civil discourse. Admit it, the only purpose of a topic such as this is to entice someone to come in here and to argue that .999... is not 1 so you can have a grand ole time stroking your ego and patting yourself on the back over how smart you are and how the other person is dumb.

This simple concept is one of the fundamental principles of calculus. Without it you don't have engineering, physics, or a million other things known as the modern world. It's not some obscure irrelevant math trivia only used by math geeks. It is a fundamental first year mathematics principle used by every scientist, engineer, and pharmacist in the work they do every day to make all the things you take for granted.
But yeah, just because your not educated enough to appreciate that you should rag all over it and insist it's unimportant. We should burn all the books you don't care for too, right?

>> ^VoodooV:

do a google search. It's been argued forever. Only thing it proves is how far we'll go to argue ridiculous things and the fucked up priorities of humanity.
we'll argue .999... for forever (or infinitely...zing!) but try and solve things like why kids like Trayvonn Martin still get senselessly shot or try and solve how we can take care all of our citizens regardless of income level. Ehh, we'll get around to it sometime.
It reveals just how truly absurd this shit is.


Trayvon Martin got shot because of racial stereotypes and a trigger happy moron.

You could solve how you take care of all your citizens if everyone in the US wanted to solve the problem, ie. put aside their differences and self concerns and worked together.

Incidentally, perhaps you'd like to stop causing friction with your fellow human beings because they aren't living up to your expectation/pre conceived notion of what they should be doing... = P

So we're only supposed to work on the single problem that some guy on the internet deems the Most Important Problem In The World? And the MIPITW is that somebody might have gotten away with a single, racially motivated killing? There are many problems that are more important out there. People are getting the living shit slaughtered out of themselves all over the world. People are starving to death, dying of disease, and killing children accused of being witches.

And while we're attempting to solve those, should we just put everything else on hold? Nobody gets to talk about math or science until those problems are fixed? And just what are we supposed to use to fix those problems? Math and science are worth learning just to learn, but even the parts that end up being useful are not always developed just because they're useful. We have no idea where technology will go in the future, so saying that attempting to answer any particular question is a waste of time is just a wild guess.

>> ^messenger:

I'm not going to argue with anyone here about this, but I will add an 10.999.th reason:

That's just about the same as #8 in the video - that 0.9999.. = 0.1111.. * 9, like 0.333.. * 3 is.

It's also the same one I discovered one day in school, and concluded that 0.9999.. had to be one.


As well - upvote for the reference "If you're having math problems, I feel bad for you son (..)"

This seems like a strange thing to get upset over.

I haven't checked, but I expect you've made this comment on every video that doesn't deal with a tough social issue?>> ^VoodooV:

do a google search. It's been argued forever. Only thing it proves is how far we'll go to argue ridiculous things and the fucked up priorities of humanity.
we'll argue .999... for forever (or infinitely...zing!) but try and solve things like why kids like Trayvonn Martin still get senselessly shot or try and solve how we can take care all of our citizens regardless of income level. Ehh, we'll get around to it sometime.
It reveals just how truly absurd this shit is.

>> ^VoodooV:

LOL!!! you're comparing this topic to the actual work that engineers and physicists do? That is hilarious. Yes, I'm sure the engineering world has much to thank the awesome ability of arguing on a message board over what .999... is equal to.
This has nothing to do with calculus. This has nothing to do with actual practical work. This has nothing to do with solving actual problems. This is about going onto a internet message board and browbeating others which has already happened as I predicted.
Before you start insulting the education of someone else, make sure YOU'RE not making any mistakes of YOUR own, eh?
Sorry I can't stay and "debate" with you on this truly fascinating topic. I have to go to my job tomorrow and do REAL work and solve ACTUAL problems. Sure it's not as grand and as thought-provoking as comparing .999... to 1, nor do I get to beat up on some hapless internet newb who happens to take the troll-bait. But hey, we have to get our satisfaction somehow.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^VoodooV:
So enlighten me, o' wise ones. What is the point of this other than troll-bait and/or ego masturbation?
This topic is the intellectual equivalent of QM coming in here and making ad-homs about "His Earness" or waxing egocentric about why he is virtuous and true and the rest of us are all immoral entitlement whores.
You saw how quickly messenger called into question the entire sift's intelligence over Entropy's post.
This sort of thing does not lend itself well to civil discourse. Admit it, the only purpose of a topic such as this is to entice someone to come in here and to argue that .999... is not 1 so you can have a grand ole time stroking your ego and patting yourself on the back over how smart you are and how the other person is dumb.

This simple concept is one of the fundamental principles of calculus. Without it you don't have engineering, physics, or a million other things known as the modern world. It's not some obscure irrelevant math trivia only used by math geeks. It is a fundamental first year mathematics principle used by every scientist, engineer, and pharmacist in the work they do every day to make all the things you take for granted.
But yeah, just because your not educated enough to appreciate that you should rag all over it and insist it's unimportant. We should burn all the books you don't care for too, right?



Get over yourself. The video isn't supposed to start any kind of fight or internet debate. It's a simply instructive video about basic math.

If you want to be upset with anyone for starting an internet fight over something you consider unimportant blame the first poster in the thread that tried to turn it that way...

Oh, I see, it was you...

Read from the top. YOU are the only person here who is encouraging a fight. Admit it. The only reason you posted that comment was to pick a fight with me.

You don't know me. I don't pick fights. I had no idea such a stupid debate even existed on the internet. The point made in this video is interesting in spite of how it usually seems to go down out there in the rest of the net. Vi Hart's videos are usually about cool facts that can be derived from math, often ones that seem counterintuitive. Your comparison of Vi Hart to QM is vacuous.>> ^VoodooV:

So enlighten me, o' wise ones. What is the point of this other than troll-bait and/or ego masturbation?
This topic is the intellectual equivalent of QM coming in here and making ad-homs about "His Earness" or waxing egocentric about why he is virtuous and true and the rest of us are all immoral entitlement whores.
You saw how quickly messenger called into question the entire sift's intelligence over Entropy's post.
This sort of thing does not lend itself well to civil discourse. Admit it, the only purpose of a topic such as this is to entice someone to come in here and to argue that .999... is not 1 so you can have a grand ole time stroking your ego and patting yourself on the back over how smart you are and how the other person is dumb.

@VoodooV

This vid has made it to #7.999... in the top 14.999... in less than 1.333... days, and is #1.999... in votes/age without 0.999... argument made against the conclusion. Just sayin'.

Yep, very similar. That extra one I gave appeals to people who relate well to patterns. No arithmetic is required at all, as long as you accept the fraction to decimal conversions.

And thanks for pointing out the quote. I didn't know what she was talking about there. Might have known it was a meme.>> ^Zawash:

>> ^messenger:
I'm not going to argue with anyone here about this, but I will add an 10.999.th reason:

That's just about the same as #8 in the video - that 0.9999.. = 0.1111.. 9, like 0.333.. 3 is.
It's also the same one I discovered one day in school, and concluded that 0.9999.. had to be one.

As well - upvote for the reference "If you're having math problems, I feel bad for you son (..)"

To add more fuel to this fire, here's what my computer thinks:

Code:
double troll = 0.9999999999999999999999999;
printf("Integer of %d is %i", troll, (int) troll);

Result:
Integer of 0.9999999999999999999999999 is 0

I didn't know computers knew what infinity was.

Anyway, here is my VoodooV impression.
"I PREDICT THIS WILL END IN AN ARGUMENT"
*precedes to outline some outrageous troll opinions*
*argument ensues*
"SEE???!"

This may scare some to hear, but realistically speaking you may actually be able to make the opposite case. The case that in fact there are really no true "full numbers" as she is stating, that in fact these numbers are merely representations of fractions and other such logical pantomime... Exactly as @Mikus_Aurelius says Math is a very large framework of logical conclusions and determinations about numbers and their nature. It's up to us no matter the argument to decide and resolve the issue--maybe it changes how we use Math, but that TRULY is doubtful.

I could destroy her whole concept by reducing the entire mathematical world to a structure scheme that can ONLY be ever displayed as a fractional environment, except for 0 or infinity, as they are special forces unto Math. Why not also bring our ever lingering doubts about structure in the small scale into the mix? You can only know one of two facts (at the electron scale for example) leaving you with a permanent variable in every problem. Then we could bring in Quantum Mechanics to make it even more fun...

So I would ask her this question concerning .9999~ not equaling one. If we take two pinballs and start to count all the electrons--but, midway through we strip ONE electron from one pin; essentially making this our .9999~ pinball. By the time we get done counting the electrons which pinball will have less and which will have more? Well the problem is that IN FACT the pinball that had one taken off could actually NOW have more than the other pinball. So do either actually equal one?

This is why Mathematics are very specific, but in use--in the field--they will have LARGE caveats where the majority of the mental masturbation falls completely apart. Because, many of these discussions DO OCCUR at the EXTREMES of Math (if you know what I mean) and fundamentally the only places that use these parts are in extreme measurements; measurements where chance can become a powerful player.

Another way to look at this is to realize that the number missing--that doesn't equalize .999999~ to 1--is SO SMALL that it LITERALLY escapes anyway we have in our own Universe to describe it as energy, dimensions, vectors, scalars, or entropy. It is so small that it is essentially "virtual" to us, literally. Hopefully, this helps others understand why .9999~=1 (other than ALL OF THE PROOFS), it just has too.

>> ^kceaton1:

So I would ask her this question concerning .9999~ not equaling one. If we take two pinballs and start to count all the electrons--but, midway through we strip ONE electron from one pin; essentially making this our .9999~ pinball.
Too late, MonkeySpank already tried that one.

The number "missing", the number between .9999~ and 1, could be stated as x, where x -> 0 (x goes towards zero).

>> ^Zawash:

>> ^kceaton1:
So I would ask her this question concerning .9999~ not equaling one. If we take two pinballs and start to count all the electrons--but, midway through we strip ONE electron from one pin; essentially making this our .9999~ pinball.
Too late, MonkeySpank already tried that one.
The number "missing", the number between .9999~ and 1, could be stated as x, where x -> 0 (x goes towards zero).


I know, but sometimes it helps people to hear the SAME explanation in none mathematical terms. That was the only reason I made it. Essentially, the number that is the difference between .999~ and 1 equaling each other eventually becomes SO SMALL that it essentially doesn't exist anymore--for all intent and purposes.

I could have have 100 pinballs and it's unlikely that they all have the same amount of atoms, let alone electrons. BUT, the point is that to me each one of those objects are still pinballs (unless we change the definition of what a pinball is, which would require superhuman measurement...).

BTW - You might think me on the wrong side of the street, maybe. To me .999~ does indeed equal 1 in every-way; how we've defined the very principles that describe so many of its different definitions are agreed upon by the very nature of the laws and mechanics that Math is built upon. I just thought it would be fun to play around with the definitions a bit and see that we still end up at the same place. Math describes something intrinsic about the nature of the Universe and reality.

Her math and explanations for case 1 were sloppy at best, incorrect at worst. This video is more clear.

The more I watch her, the more I think she's...well I don't think she's a hack, she is quite intelligent, but I think her method for speeding up the video/talking fast makes for a very haphazard way to educate people. It tells me that she's either A) trying to show off how fancy she is with her math skills, but do it so quickly nobody notices she's cutting corners, or B) she doesn't have a full understanding of the topic.



She first bugged me when she did that video about abolishing pi for tau.

Her explanations were correct, but less clear than in the vid you posted. I think her video style is designed to appeal to school kids mostly, but it appeals to me to. She works with children in her offline life.>> ^rottenseed:

Her math and explanations for case 1 were sloppy at best, incorrect at worst. This video is more clear.

>> ^kceaton1:

I could destroy her whole concept by reducing the entire mathematical world to a structure scheme that can ONLY be ever displayed as a fractional environment, except for 0 or infinity, as they are special forces unto Math.

Vi actually covers this briefly when she talks about Hyperreals. Also, you wouldn't be destroying her whole concept by reducing the mathematical world to a fractional environment, as this already exists: What you describe is the set of Rational Numbers, where all numbers can be expressed as a fraction of two integers. .999... is still describable as the series 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000... so the concept is still sound, and still sums to 1 (or 1/1). As an aside, 0 is a rational number and can be expressed as a fraction as well. Infinity is not a number.

Finally, in before "Now you're just nitpicking" or "You don't have to be a dick." At this level, nitpicking and checking for consistency is what Mathematics is all about, so please expect it.

>> ^kceaton1:

So I would ask her this question concerning .9999~ not equaling one. If we take two pinballs and start to count all the electrons--but, midway through we strip ONE electron from one pin; essentially making this our .9999~ pinball. By the time we get done counting the electrons which pinball will have less and which will have more? Well the problem is that IN FACT the pinball that had one taken off could actually NOW have more than the other pinball. So do either actually equal one?

There is a fundamental flaw in this reasoning, which is that the number of electrons in both pinballs is finite. You will eventually stop counting, and when you divide (electrons in Pinball A) by (electrons in Pinball B) you end up with a rational number which is not 1, but also not equal to .999..., so the test is inconclusive. Assuming both pinballs had an infinite number of electrons in them also does not help, as then the answer to "what is ePA/ePB" is "I will never stop counting" (implying correctly that Infinity - 1 = Infinity).

>> ^kceaton1:
This is why Mathematics are very specific, but in use--in the field--they will have LARGE caveats where the majority of the mental masturbation falls completely apart. Because, many of these discussions DO OCCUR at the EXTREMES of Math (if you know what I mean) and fundamentally the only places that use these parts are in extreme measurements; measurements where chance can become a powerful player.

I actually disagree with you here, though I think in practice we both have the same respect for Mathematics, so you can take or leave that disagreement as you please. In my mind Mathematics is "absolute" because it has been proven to be consistent, so the mental exercises are valid even in extreme cases. In those extreme cases sometimes things need to be added to what is already known to correctly describe what is going on or how something works, but the math that has come before is still sound. In fact, the soundness of Mathematics is the whole reason we can add onto it -- Because we know that it will not break. If it does, then we have done something wrong.

*learn