It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Originally posted by 00Einstein
To ALLisONE
It is infinitely continuous as continuity implies infinity if there is no say of otherwise.
Infinity is immeasurable. A circle can be measured. A circle exists of the true nature of infinity but is not infinity itself. A circle is a limited line that is wrapped around to have its start and end conjoined and its "parts" amalgamed.
The definition of continuous is "without intermission or recurring regularly after minute interruptions" according to Merriam-Webster. So, the circle was continuous, but still finite, because, as you said, the "limited line that is wrapped around" is recurring regularly. That's what I was getting at, maybe poor word choice though. I was just saying that it wasn't infinite in that it could be measured, whereas infinity cannnot.
[edit on 4/2/08 by 00Einstein]
[edit on 4/3/08 by 00Einstein]
[edit on 4/3/08 by 00Einstein]
[edit on 4/3/08 by 00Einstein]
Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
reply to post by 00Einstein
Oh, we're cohesive. I agreed with what you said I just also wanted to say it in another way in the case for ALLisONE so that, and in the prospect of one of the definitions may fit his mind better. There are many different hues of blue, but they're all considered to be blue. Sort of like that I suppose.
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
So you all are telling me i need to change my name to "ALLis.9..."
Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
There's really no such thing as infinite small or infinite large. Infinity is undefinable. It simple is immeasurable. You may think you have measured it, but it is only a part. Never ending and never beginning.
Originally posted by ALLis0NESo when you people say .9... is equal to 0ne you are putting faith in a belief that is not provable.
It's just a fact that all things come from 0NE so, .9... will always be less than 0ne.
Originally posted by ALLis0NEPlease prove to me that .0...1 does not exist.
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Numbers are infinite, there is infinite possibilities. Just because in your reality you can not imagine .0...1 doesn't mean you have to force your ignorance on others...
1. Well, for this one, there really isn't much you can do but memorize the definition, just like you have to memorize a lot of other formulas in math.
lim [g(x+h)-g(x)]/h
h->0
g(x)=5x^2-7x-14
All the definition means is that take the equation, plug x+h into anywhere there's an x, subtract the entire original equation from it, and then divide it by h. Then you just try to simplify it down to a point where all the h is no longer in the denominator so that it won't be undefined when you divide by zero.
lim ([5(x+h)^2-7(x+h)-14]-[5x^2-7x-14])/h
h->0
lim ([5(x^2+2xh+h^2)-7x-7h-14]-5x^2+7x+14)/h
h->0
lim ([5x^2+10xh+5h^2-7x-7h-14]-5x^2+7x+14)/h
h->0
lim (5x^2+10xh+5h^2-7x-7h-14-5x^2+7x+14)/h
h->0
lim (5x^2-5x^2-7x+7x-14+14+10xh+5h^2-7h)/h
h->0
lim (10xh+5h^2-7h)/h
h->0
lim (h)(10x+5h-7)/h
h->0
lim (10x+5h-7) = 10x+5(0)-7
h->0
= 10x-7
Originally posted by The Vagabond
I'm not really into math, but a friend brought something up to me today that really seemed very strange. (For the duration of this post, .999 will mean .9 repeating unless otherwise specified- just for the sake of ease)
.999=x
10x=9.999
10x - x = 9x
9x=9
1x=1.
.999 = 1.
And 1/3=.333
.333 x 3= .999
The first one didn't phase me too much, because the obvious conclusion in my mind is that you can't substract an infinite number. If you ask what happens when you do the impossible, you're bound to get a strange number.
The second one however involves a more interesting flawed assumption it would seem. 1/3 does not equal .333 repeating. You check an equation by reversing it- if the reverse doesn't work, how can it be true? It would seem, that we don't have the numbers to accurately express the answer.
As far as I can tell, we can't have a perfect system of maths unless there is a "lowest number" which can not be divided, subtracted from, or inverted to a negative.
I was wondering if anybody else had any insight on the matter.
[edit on 24-3-2005 by The Vagabond]