well, if you would say that 0*something is always 0, you assume 0 is nothing, but I think it isn't.
I think it is an infinite small number which is opposite to an infinite number.
0 can't be nothing, but it's neglectable very very often.

So yes, I do think there are multiple infinities and zeroes.

I don't look upon 0 as 0, but I see it as a 1/ the infinite number of something.

Hi Ian *waves*

Forgive me i've no [sucessful] formal education and everything I know is self taught (i've come on in leaps and bounds since the internet!), I dont understand a word of that wiki page.

its simple really and quite sad how late in ones educational career (if at all) one learns the very basics of the maths ones been doing all juans life

basically a group is a finite or infinite set (bunch) of symbols (numbers)
also you need some opperation/combination which turns 2 symbols into 1
and it has to fullfil 4 simple rules
1) any combination of symbols from the set has to result in a symbol that is part of the set... ie if you add 1 and 2 the result cannot be a mouse
2) you can shift parenthesises around so it doesnt really matter all that much in which order you evaluate the combinations... ie 1+2+5=3+5=1+7
3) you need some neutral element that you can combine any other element with and the result is that youve wasted your time... ie 9+0 = 9
4) every single element of the group has one (and as the link proves exactly one) inverse element which in combination results in the neutral element... ie 5 + (-5) = 0

the important bit is the one and exactly one inverse element so if you have a bunch of infinities and assign a single 0 as the inverse to all of them the fact that 0 can only have exactly one infinty as its inverse yields a contradiction

what do these groups do, and do any meet on a Wednesday night?

well if you combine 2 of them built from the same set with 2 different opperations (+ and *) into a field you get the basic framework for all math which also means that becuase anything youve ever learned in math which works because its built on top of fields will work on any other field you can come up with ie anything that works on real numbers will also work just fine on a binary field with just 2 symbols
also the german word for field which is body makes the meeting on wednesday night thing sound a lot more appealing

I guess as I live next a field you should have come over and stayed the night afterall hun.

I still dont really get it though, but then it's not suprising as despite how intelligent I may appear to be on an internet forum, i'm actually not that bright and a little bit brain damaged.

Quote from Bob Smith :

Woz - Yes but 0.9 recurring is only infinitely smaller than 1.0, so there is no calculation in which using 1.0 would not give, to all intents and purposes, the same answer.

This is the point I was trying to make there is actually a difference, it might be so infinitely small that it is ultimatly pointless but if you do not accept a difference you do not accept that every dp is 10 times smaller than the one before you do not accept the base 10 system.

Quote from speedway :

x = 0.999999999....
=> 10x = 9.999999...

10x - x = 9.99999...-0.9999....
9x = 9
x = 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wasnt that hard, was it?

edit: crap, got beaten by 2 minutes

yes I have seen the proof many many times and it breaks down because you are dealing with numbers that are not actually possible to represent.

Its a bit like dealing with equations where one value is infinity, maths start to break down. Such as

infinity -x = infinity

So using the "logic" in your "proof" any value of x = 0

10 = 0
7623786 = 0

Once you get to maths based around infinity and infinitely small numbers things break down and fall apart.

Isn't infinity the reciprocal of zero? If infinity is infinitely large, then zero is infinitely small.

Quote from wheel4hummer :

Isn't infinity the reciprocal of zero? If infinity is infinitely large, then zero is infinitely small.

I can't understand that 1/infinite would get you nothing.
Am I the only one who thinks 0 isn't nothing?

Heeh have you lot lost the plot the answer is simple, reduce your rear anti-roll bar a few notches, that should do the trick.
Pure maths does ma heed in. Maths only means something to me when it's used in engineering and science.
sqrt (-1) = j or i if your an electrical engineer where i/j is an imaginary number. I like this it is actually useful . Chuck in some Laplace transforms and fourier analysis and me heed is minced these days.

If 0 has a numerically small infinite value then how is the absense of a value expressed?

I think any theory where 0 is expressed as holding a value is fundamentally missing 0 as a concept.

Whilst 0 and infinity may be opposites, they are not mathematical opposites - but conceptual opposites.

The opposite of infinity is minus infinity.

Quote from AlienT. :

sqrt (-1) = j or i if your an electrical engineer where i/j is an imaginary number. I like this it is actually useful . Chuck in some Laplace transforms and fourier analysis and me heed is minced these days.

Woot you can help me with my maths homework then

'Given that 1+2j is a root of the equation z^4+pz^3+qz^2-6z+65=0, find values for p and q'

Nah I'm joking, I think I can do it! :P

Quote from Woz :

This is the point I was trying to make there is actually a difference, it might be so infinitely small that it is ultimatly pointless

There is no difference. You are still thinking (subconsciously?) that the 9s stop at some point. They don't.
Zero, point and a huge amount of 9s is not the same as zero, point and infinite number of 9s.

This is my favourite paradox: Zeno's Paradox

aha, the dichotomy and tortoise paradoxes are solved by giving numbers a mass as I raised earlier! whahaha I is the uber scientish oh yeah!

the arrow paradox touches on dimensional theory and i'm not going to drag another thread down that route, but save to say, he's right.

Quote from Becky Rose :

If 0 has a numerically small infinite value then how is the absense of a value expressed?

Roman Numerals have the answer for that.

I'm not sure we should be using Roman science in this day and age, I mean, what did the Romans ever do for us?

Quote from Becky Rose :

I'm not sure we should be using Roman science in this day and age, I mean, what did the Romans ever do for us?

couldnt resist


what a dik he is

how many people have missed basic arithmetic classes, yet have the balls to deal with matters clearly parsecs away from their grasp.

0.333(recurring) is not approximately 1/3. it is 1/3, just written out. there is no loss in "accuracy".

for those who are toying with the concept of infinity (it is not a number, you can't do arithmetic with it) ... go learn basic arithmetic first, you numbnuts.

mad props to turbodyIMEANBECKY for being selftaught yet knowledgable

/troll

i wonder is this thread due to my unbitching personality, am i changing this froum for good

Quote from geeman1 :

There is no difference. You are still thinking (subconsciously?) that the 9s stop at some point. They don't.
Zero, point and a huge amount of 9s is not the same as zero, point and infinite number of 9s.

no I am not. I am just using the base 10 number system to its logical conclusion.

0.9~ is actually 1 - 0.1*10^(-infinity) therefore 0.9~ < 1

The thing is that when you get to these sorts of numbers like 1/3 they actually fall outside what can be represented by base 10.

Do you dispute that in a base 10 system every dp is 10 times smaller than the one before? No... Good otherwise you would be wrong.

I accept that 1 / 3 * 3 = 1 it is impossible to be otherwise. It is a given.

The "notion' of 1/3 = 0.3~ is that, a notion. It is a value that is accepted to be 1/3 because it is so close as to make no difference. It is about the only representation that is possible in base 10.

In base 3 you can represent 1/3 = 0.1 and 0.1 * 3 = 1. Fine.

Someone here said not all maths is a calculator, the trouble is that the base 10 number system is what a calculator is. That is the missmatch. Do not confuse number manipulation with its representation

No, no you're not lerts. Just shut up until you have something useful/interesting/REAL to say.

I don't get it why some people still try to prove that 0.999recurring equals 1.

0.9999.... tends to 1 (which is its limit) but will NEVER REACH 1, thus 0.999... cannot be equal to 1.

Quote from george_tsiros :

for those who are toying with the concept of infinity (it is not a number, you can't do arithmetic with it)

Yes, you can.

Quote from Woz :

0.9~ is actually 1 - 0.1*10^(-infinity) therefore 0.9~ < 1

... and 10^(-infinity) will be zero