The Instigator
shakuntala
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Mathematics ends in meaninglessness

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
ConservativePolitico
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 995 times Debate No: 35239
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

shakuntala

Pro

This author points out Mathematics ends in meaninglessness for five reasons
http://www.scribd.com....

reason 1)

mathematics proves a finite number = a non-finite number

1 is a finite number and .9999... [ie to infinity] is a non-finite number

mathematics proves 1=.9999... [ie to infinity]
thus mathematics ends in meaninglessness

proof
x=.999... [ie to infinity]

10x=9.99...

10x -(x)= 9.99... - (.999...)

9x=9

x=1
thus x=1 and x=.999...
thus 1=.999....
simply
0.9999... = 1 means mathematics ends in contradiction
0.9999.... is a non-finite number/
1 is a finite number
thus we have
a finite number = non-finite number
thus a contradiction in terms
thus
mathematics ends in contradiction
thus maths ends in meaninglessness
ConservativePolitico

Con

The idea that 1=.99999... [to infinity] is one put forth simply for ease of use and is indeed, a form of rounding.

In reality, 1 =/= .9999 [to infinity] because we can comprehend .00001 [to infinity potentially] and deduct that from one thus giving us a number infinitesimally different from 1 yet still different from one.

However, for the sake of the argument, even if we accept this idea to be true that 1=.9999 [to infinity] this does not mean math ends in meaninglessness.

Math has near infinite meaning from engineering, to simple addition and subtraction to advanced calculus applied to physics. I don't feel I need to go into the usefulness of math because we all use it in our daily basis. In fact, we are using it right now as we keep an eye on our character limit for this debate.

This insanely simple and mundane idea that Pro puts forth does nothing to deduct any real meaning from mathematics as a whole.

Debate Round No. 1
shakuntala

Pro

you say

"The idea that 1=.99999... [to infinity] is one put forth simply for ease of use and is indeed, a form of rounding.

In reality, 1 =/= .9999 [to infinity] because we can comprehend .00001 [to infinity potentially] and deduct that from one thus giving us a number infinitesimally different from 1 yet still different from one."

please tell us what a finite number is with example
then
please tell us what a non-finite number is with example

you say
"However, for the sake of the argument, even if we accept this idea to be true that 1=.9999 [to infinity] this does not mean math ends in meaninglessness.

it is not for the sake of argument that 1=.9999 [to infinity]
dean gives a mathematical proof that
1=.9999 [to infinity]

can you tell us if the proof it correct or wrong
if correct then
1=.9999 [to infinity]
thus we have
a finite number = non-finite number
thus a contradiction in terms
thus
mathematics ends in contradiction
thus maths ends in meaninglessness
ConservativePolitico

Con

Opponents Argument

My opponent simply reiterates his original points with literally no rebuttal at all.

They do not respond to my point about how Math is still useful even if I concede his point about his theorem.

My Argument cont.

My opponent asks for an example.

Well if we take .999 [with 1000 9s] it equals .999 [with 1000 9s] not 1.

We use the idea that .999 [to infinity] = 1, again, for ease of use. It's simple rounding.

Again, even if this were true, let's say it is. It has no true bearing on math.

A contradiction does not mean meaninglessness. What it really shows is that comparing .999 [to infinity] and 1 is meaningless. You can't honestly throw the entire field of mathematics out because of this.

Theorems, equations, applications, calculus, addition, multiplication, all still work and have function and therefore are meaningful in the world.

You have yet to prove that math is meaningless.

Please don't regurgitate the same points in Round 3, they simple don't hold u.
Debate Round No. 2
shakuntala

Pro

you say
"They do not respond to my point about how Math is still useful even if I concede his point about his theorem. "

just because it works has nothing to do with mathematics ending in meaninglessness

dean notes

"mathematics EVEN THOUGH IT WORKS- it is philosophically absurd and ends in meaninglessness. It becomes a mystery-that needs to be solved- as to why maths works in the practical world when it ends in meaninglessness ie self-contradiction"

con does not tell us
the answer to my question
is the mathematical proof correct or wrong
if correct
them mathematics proves a finite number =a non-finite number
ie 1= .999..
this is a contradiction
thus mathematics ends in meaninglessness
ConservativePolitico

Con

My opponent...

Parrots the same arguments with no added substance. Then he uses the work of a "dean", unsourced, that really adds nothing to the debate.

In response to the dean's quote, I will say that just because we do not comprehend everything about math does not mean that it is meaningless. Just because we cannot comprehend a number .999 [to infinity] and distinguish it from 1 does not mean that it is indistinguishable from 1.

I tried to show this, how the numbers are in actuality not equal and just because some professor (an appeal to authority) says that it does in fact equal 1, doesn't mean that it is actually so in the real world.

Again, a contradiction does not beget meaninglessness in a field as broad as math.

A contradiction in math usually means a lack of understanding or outdated comprehension.

And math could not work and still be meaningless. That is a contradiction in itself.

In conclusion...

Besides parroting a vague theorem that may or may not be true, one that really has no bearing on actual mathematics and can be easily comprehended as false, my opponent has failed to meet the Burden of Proof for this debate and show that the entire field of mathematics ends in meaninglessness and has therefore lost the debate.


Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
.999.... Can't equal 1 because of the infinitely small .001. And the mathematical equation in the begining is far from sound, as you can't subtract x from one side and 0.999... On the other. That doesn't follow algebrsic rules
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
TheHitchslap
shakuntalaConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped several critical arguments, and used kettle logic. Indeed, as Con pointed out Pro has to round to justify his answer.
Vote Placed by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
shakuntalaConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is wrong that .9r is not equal to 1, however this was not the resolution; Pro does not show that all of mathematics is meaningless and Con argues that mathematics has meaning regardless of whether or not .9r is equal to 1. Arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
shakuntalaConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The entirety of PRO's reasoning is based on a fallacious premise. CON noted this, and explained why. Therefore, CON wins.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
shakuntalaConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Argument: Con's was stronger, doing a better job at refutation plus getting in valid insults of parrot comparisons (risking conduct, but not tipping it). Sources: Pro this is the area you could have easily cleaned up in. A second source for the same theory (ideally with different wording), a link for your round3 quote (at least say who this dean was, make it a proper appeal to authority). I personally could only view the first couple pages of your source, which really makes it less useful.
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
shakuntalaConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It seems that Pro doesn't actually have an understanding of the case he is making. He doesn't elaborate on his points, and doesn't refute Con's, so arguments go to Con