I really must know the answer to this important mathematical question

Discussion in 'The Spam Zone' started by What?, Aug 8, 2012.

  1. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    Because no number in the series added to any number in the series equals one, either. It isn't that kind of series.

    .9 + .99, for example, equals 1.89. That is far more than one.

    .9999 + .99999 = 1.99989

    .999999999999 + .9999999999999 = 1.9999999999989
     
  2. Mixt The dude that does the thing

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Gender:
    Male
    826
    Wrong series. You want

    .9 + .09 + .009 + .0009...

    Which as Kubo said is the just the correct way to write .9999...

    My proof that I've been building to is just solving that series.
     
  3. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    Aaah, you're right.

    But still, it will never equal one. Though I concede my logic wasn't sound in itself. I didn't understand the nature of a series before this.

    Is there anything else I should know?
     
  4. Mixt The dude that does the thing

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Gender:
    Male
    826
    Actually I just noticed a way to do this without limits. I was stuck on n starting at 1 but I can easily change that to 0.

    Σ(0.9*(0.1)^n) where n starts at 0 and goes to infinity. This is a slightly different way to write the same series as above.

    This is a geometric series since any term after the first is a constant factor (1/10) of the previous term. And it converges because our r of 0.1 has an absolute value less than 1.

    So we can use the formula s=a/(1-r) where a=0.9 and r=.1
    Thus s=.9/.9
    So s=1
     
  5. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    Okay, I follow you up to here.

    But I don't understand why that formula exists or what it means, and thus why I should accept it. Please explain in more detail. Also what the r is.

    Because it seems to me that you're saying n = n / n = 1

    But then why couldn't I argue that .3333... / .3333... = 1?

    It feels like a nonsense equation.
     
  6. Kubo Kingdom Keeper

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Penalty area, ready to shoot
    108
    983
    When I say you lack basic calclulus knowledge, you think that I say it because I don't know what to tell you. This formula is used in geometric series that converge and has a proof.
    r is the common ratio; 1/10.
    If you want to see what 0.333 does then you need to go to the formula and see what happens. Not every series =1. In fact this series converge to 3/7, if I did the calculations correctly.
     
  7. Mixt The dude that does the thing

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Gender:
    Male
    826
    We'll there is an algebraic proof of the geometric formula.
    The formula applies to a series of the form

    Σ(a*r^n) where n starts at 0 and goes to infinity.

    So s = a + ar + ar^2 + ar^3....
    s = a * (1 + r + r^2 + r^3....)

    Now lets break that apart for a moment.
    s = a*u
    u = 1 + r + r^2 + r^3....

    u*r = r + r^2 + r^3 + r^4....
    u - u*r = 1
    u(1-r) = 1
    u = 1/(1 - r)

    Then substitute u back in
    s = a (1/(1 -r))
    s = a/(1 - r)
     
  8. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    I don't assume that. I am however trying to provoke you into telling me by pretending as if I assume that.

    Okay, so can you explain to me the reason for the geometric formula (what it's output is supposed to be) and why I should accept it? My fundamental questions were not about the proof, but about why said proof discounts my logic.

    Oh, and I don't get this:

    u - u*r = 1

    Where did the 1 come from? Or rather, back here:

    u*r = r + r^2 + r^3 + r^4....

    Where did it go and why did it come back?
     
  9. Kubo Kingdom Keeper

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Penalty area, ready to shoot
    108
    983
    u = 1 + r + r^2 + r^3.... (1)
    u*r = r + r^2 + r^3 + r^4.... (2)

    (1)-(2)=u-u*r= (1 + r + r^2 + r^3....) - ( r + r^2 + r^3 + r^4....) = 1
     
  10. Nate_River Hollow Bastion Committee

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    Gender:
    sneakynandossexual
    Location:
    1942
    2,020
    704
    What?, I hope you're happy. This is entirely your fault.
     
  11. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    ... But aren't you already assuming that the series 1 + 1 + r + r^2 + r^3... is equal to one? Why does it equal one?

    And you didn't explain where the 1 went to, or how it suddenly gained a number even thought it lost the number 1. As far as I can tell, you are saying:

    u = 1 + r + r^2 + r^3....

    But that:

    u * r = u - 1
     
  12. Kubo Kingdom Keeper

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Penalty area, ready to shoot
    108
    983
    I suggest you let it go because no matter what me or someone else tells you it will take a long time before you understand it without experience. I don't really have the urge to explain to you anything else.
     
  13. Judge Sunrose Destiny Islands Resident

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    Location:
    Come alone
    105
    78
    I think this is something even I am capable of elucidating.

    The 1 didn't go anywhere, it was multiplied by r. In detail:

    u = 1 + r + r^2 + r^3 +r^4...

    u * r = r(1) + r(r) + r(r^2) + r(r^3) + r(r^4)... = r + r^2 + r^3 + r^4 + r^5...

    Now, about the sequences' difference, do you agree that every power of r in u is also present in u * r? More clearly:

    u = 1 + (powers of r); u * r = (powers of r)

    In the end, subracting u * r from u results in 1.
     
  14. Mixt The dude that does the thing

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Gender:
    Male
    826
    Bingo.

    You have to put the series out of phase, but addition is commutative so it doesn't matter. This phase offset would distort the end result slightly when you run out of "r"s in a limited summation, but in an endless summation saying that one summation ends one term before the other doesn't make sense, neither has an end and thus one can't end before the other.