the nvidia killer SSE2 and winME

[Guest]

I love that signature line and it has sparked quite an interesting discussion here as well I am far from being a math expert but I will put in my 2 cents worth anyway.

DeSilentio's proof that 2.99999... = 3 hinges on this assumption:

29.99999... - 2.99999... = 27

But is this true? The 9s in this example repeat FOREVER, and we as humans have no accurate way of expressing infinity. Every time you add another 9 to the number, you change it's value slightly. Only if you could literally do this forever would you find out the exact value for this number, but of course you can't. Consider the following:

2.99999... = 2.99999...

Well this seems like it should be true doesn't it? But since we can't follow those 9s out forever, we can't place an exact value on either side of that equal sign. The best we can say is that it MIGHT be true. But we can't prove it.

Therefor 29.99999... - 2.99999... may or may not = 27. Bad assumption. In reality we can't determine an exact value for 2.99999... any better than we can determine one for the square root of 1. Just because 2.99999... is predictable doesn't mean that it's definable.

Well, I will leave it at that for now and see what you all have to say... (-:

Cheers,
Warden

 

[HolyGrenade]

Its cool to see i'm generating such interest. And thanks DiSilento. I'll Keep my Signature.

And thanks, Warden, for supporting my side. see, I was never too good at the theoratical stuff, so I changed my Mathematics units to Mechananics instead of pure maths. It was more practical and also complemented my physics class.

So sorry I couldn't add anything to your bit.


<i><b><font color=red>"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2"</font color=red></b></i>

 

[Guest]

Actually, you can't prove whether I support your side or not.....



Cheers,
Warden

(I sure hope I am not the only one who sees the humor in that remark....)

 

[Guest]

OK my wife just told me that I am the only one in the world that will understand the (supposed) humor behind the above pun... Oh well.

Warden

 

[HolyGrenade]

I did get it. and yes it was a pun and i suppose it was kinda funny.


<i><b><font color=red>"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2"</font color=red></b></i>

 

[Guest]

you can't prove it was funny... but i kinda chuckled too.

 

[Guest]

Hey.... there ARE more freaks like me in the world!

 

[JustPlainJef]

OK. First of all, 2.999999.... does equal 3. I have seen the 10x - x proof, but here is the easiest one I have seen.
1/3 = .3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
1/3 x 3 = 1
so .33333333333333333333333...... x 3 = .9999...... = 1.

With this being said, 2.9999999..... is not a large value of 2, but is a value of 3. =o) Very enjoyable arguement whem no one mentions Pentium/Athlon or ATI/Nvidia!

What's a signature? Oh, those words that show up after all my comments? I don't need one of those!

 

[HolyGrenade]

1/3 = .3 (recuring) is more of a oneway function.
so you need to prove that .3 (recuring) = 1/3.


<i><b><font color=red>"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2"</font color=red></b></i>

 

[Guest]

Exactly. You haven't proved that 1/3 = .3333... because you still can't, in my opinion, define exactly what .3333... is.

Hehe, can you say "off topic"? And yes, it is very enjoyable

Cheers,
Warden