this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
783 points (95.2% liked)

Science Memes

11161 readers
3119 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
783
I just cited myself. (mander.xyz)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
225 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

not taught yet

What do you mean not taught yet? There's nothing in the meme to indicate this is a primary school problem. In fact it explicitly has a picture of an adult, so high school Maths is absolutely on the table.

There is no method by which basic arithmetic and decimal notation can turn 0.999… into 1.

In high school we teach that they are the same thing. i.e. limits of accuracy, 1 isn't the same thing as 1.000..., but rather 1+/- some limit of accuracy (usually 1/2). Of course in programming it matters if you're talking about an integer 1 or a floating point 1.

If someone uses these systems as they were taught, they will get told they’re wrong for doing so

The only people I've seen get things wrong is people not using the systems correctly (such as the alleged "proof" in this thread, which broke several rules of Maths and as such didn't prove anything), and it's a teacher's job to point out how to use them correctly.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What do you mean not taught yet?

I mean those more advanced methods are taught after basic arithmetic. There are plenty of adults that operate primarily with 5th grade math, and a scary number of them do finances...

limits of accuracy

This isn't about limits of accuracy, we're working with abstract values and ideal systems. Any inaccuracies must be introduced by those systems.

If you think the system isn't at fault here, please show me how basic arithmetic can make 0.999... into 1. Show me how the carry method deals with Infinity correctly. If every error is just using the system incorrectly, then a correct use of the system must be applicable to everything, right? You shouldn't need a new system like algebra to be correct, right?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This isn’t about limits of accuracy

According to who? Where does it say what it's about? It doesn't.

please show me how basic arithmetic can make 0.999

You still haven't shown why you're limiting yourself to basic arithmetic. There isn't anything at all in the meme to indicate it's about basic arithmetic only. It's just some Maths statements with no context given.

then a correct use of the system must be applicable to everything, right?

Different systems for different applications. Sometimes multiple systems for one problem (e.g. proofs).

You shouldn’t need a new system like algebra to be correct, right?

Limits of accuracy isn't algebra.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This isn’t about limits of accuracy

According to who?

According to me, talking about the origin of the 0.999... issue of the original comment, the "conversion of fractions to decimals", or using basic arithmetic to manipulate values into repeating decimals. This has been my position the entire time. If this was about the limits of accuracy, then it would be impossible to solve the 0.999... = 1 issue. Yet it is possible, our accuracy isn't limited in this fashion.

You still haven't shown why you're limiting yourself to basic arithmetic.

Because that's where the entire 0.999... = 1 originates. You'll never even see 0.999... without using basic addition on each digit individually, especially if you use fractions the entire time. Thus 0.999... is an artifact of basic arithmetic, a flaw of that system.

Different systems for different applications.

Then you agree that not every system is applicable everywhere! Even if you use that system perfectly, you'll still end up with the wrong answer! Thus the issue isn't someone using the system incorrectly, it's a limitation of the system that they used. The correct response to this isn't throwing heaps of other systems at the person, it's communicating the limit of that system.

If someone is trying to hammer a screw, chastising them for their swinging technique then using your personal impact wrench in front of them isn't going to help. They're just going to hit you with the hammer, and continue using the tools they have. Explaining that a hammer can't do the twisting motion needed for screws, then handing them a screwdriver will get you both much farther.

Limits of accuracy isn't algebra.

It never was, and neither is the problem we've been discussing. You can talk about glue, staples, clamps, rivets, and bolts as much as you like, people with hammers are still going to hit screws.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

According to me, talking about the origin of the 0.999…

Right. So not according to the meme, which doesn't tell us where the 0.999... comes from. Nor the 1 - could be an integer, floating point, or an estimation. Thanks for playing.