I really must know the answer to this important mathematical question

Makaze doesn't like people having opinions that differ from his.

 

Offense? God forbid. Why, look at this perfect example of an inoffensive post:

Apparently you need to read it, too.

 

the answer



alternative formulas





where p is my penis

(pokemon is so useful)

 

Is that the catch rate of a pokemon on full health using a pokeball?

 

What my third statement was trying to portray was this in more drawn out terms

10^x > y

if y =1 x>0
if y =10 x>1
if y=10^50 x>50
if y=t x>log(t)for t>0; x is all real numbers for t<=0

Since all real values of t are accounted for there is no value you could declare y to be that x cannot meet it and make the original statement true.

 

I'm afraid I don't follow. More specifically, how you got <= at the end.

But other than that I don't have any specific problems. It's not an equation without equivalence.

 

Apparently my jokes don't translate well over text.

 

Does it count as a joke if you believe it is true?

 

HTML:

2

duh guys​

 

The range of 10^x never reaches 0, so if t (and thus y) are declared to be 0 I can pick whatever the hell real number I want and it has to be greater than 0. so if t<=0 there is no way for the original statement to be false actually. It is just a note I had to add because for the same reason that 10^x can't be <=0 you can't take the log of any number <=0 thus not making it universally true.

Assuming you accept that we go back to the previous point.

For any unimaginably huge number that anyone comes up with, 10^x can be bigger just by making x larger than a related number.
So we've now proven that 10^x does not ever become finite as you keep moving x farther and farther in the positive direction.
Furthermore you could say that as x increases endlessly 10^x is approaching a "number" that is greater than any other number.

It is just like if you were standing on a plane you would be able to see a horizon, we can't tell you how many steps it takes to get to that horizon (we deem it impossible to get there) but we still see a horizon that endlessly far way. It is something that we can think about and use even if we can't actually get there.

 

But it can't be used in mathematical proofs. I mean we can work it, sure, but only so far as it doesn't create a paradox. Hence n = n everytime. Not n = almost n.

 

So you are denying this simply because I'm going to use it in a proof that you haven't seen but don't like the result of?

That basically comes out to "the logic has to be wrong because I don't like the answer," and that is really unlike you Makaze.

 

Just becaue you think I think it, doesn't make it true.

 

Oh, no. I'm saying that 2 = 1.999999... is incorrect because 1.9999999999 will never actually reach 2, and you seem to have agreed with me.

Nor does it make it untrue. Thus, we rely on you to reveal the truth. Am I right or not?

 

1.99999... is 2 because it goes endlessly. By stopping it at any point like you have been, it fails. But is because it wasn't the original statement.

 

But it goes on endlessly and never reaches 2. If it went on endlessly and it supposedly reaches 2, then it would keep going after it got to 2. Otherwise it would stop at 2 and would no longer go on endlessly.

​

 

You know, the funny thing is that you're both right.

 

It is a common misconception. The logic is reasonable, but flawed. I can show you the proof but you have yet to accept one of the axioms. Does 10^x approach infinity when x approaches infinity, or not?

 

a good 'ole serving of geometrical, algebraic infused PI = 3.14. ;) glad i could help.

 

it actually uses a variable which describes the rate based on percentage.

or not, im too lazy to fact check. ;)