Three equals zero
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Lexus
Voting Style:  Open  Point System:  7 Point  
Started:  5/13/2015  Category:  Miscellaneous  
Updated:  2 years ago  Status:  Post Voting Period  
Viewed:  1,168 times  Debate No:  75254 
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (2)
First round is acceptance. Resolution in words: Three equals zero. Resolution in math: 3 = 0. No semantics. BoP is shared.
Challenge ACCEPTED 

The following is mathematics, followed by the step applied to the number to achieve the next number. This is confusing so I will give you an explanation below. 1 = 1 (Multiply by 2) 2 = 2 (Add 5) 7 = 7 (Multiply by 2) 14 = 14 The step prior has the equation applied. (This is really hard to explain in words, sorry). 1 = 1 (Divide by 3) 1/3 = 1/3 (Simplify the right side) 1/3 = .33333... (Multiply by three) 3/3 = .99999... (Simplify left side) 1 = .99999... (Double values present) 2(1) = 2(.99999) (Simplify) 2 = 1.999...8 (Minus one) 1 = .999...8 (Double values present) 2 = 1.999...6 (Minus one) 1 = .999...6 (Repeat these steps infinitely, where you will theoretically reach a point where 1 = .25) 1 = .25 (Double these numbers) 2 = .5 (Double again) 4 = 1 (Add one) 5 = 2 (Double numbers) 10 = 4 (Subtract 4 on each side) 6 = 0 (Divide by 2) 3 = 0. Due to this mathematical proof, I have successfully shown that 3 = 0 in at least one instance. I look forward to my opponent's response.
1 = 1 (Divide by 3) 1/3 = 1/3 (Simplify the right side) 1/3 = .33333... (Multiply by three) 3/3 = .99999... (Simplify left side) 1 = .99999... (Double values present) 2(1) = 2(.99999) (Simplify) 2 = 1.999...8 (Minus one) 1 = .999...8 (Double values present) 2 = 1.999...6 (Minus one) 1 = .999...6 (Repeat these steps infinitely, where you will theoretically reach a point where 1 = .25) 1 = .25 (Double these numbers) 2 = .5 (Double again) 4 = 1 (Add one) 5 = 2 (Double numbers) 10 = 4 (Subtract 4 on each side) 6 = 0 (Divide by 2) 3 = 0. "1 = .999...6 (Repeat these steps infinitely, where you will theoretically reach a point where 1 = .25)" Infinitely means neverending. Thus, you can never conclude that you get 1=.25. 

My opponent has not met his BoP, and thus automatically loses R2 for lack of any arguments, except for a rebuttal on mine. Now, my opponent does bring up a great point, which is that infinite means never ending. "Infinitely means neverending. Thus, you can never conclude that you get 1=.25." However, I said that you must perform this step an INFINITE amount of times, or a neverending amount of times, to get the final answer which is .25. Just because it will not happen in your lifetime, or the lifetime of the universe, does not mean that this possibility does not exist. The possibility is literally 1/∞, or one in an infinite chance. That is not to say, however, that the possibility is EVER 0. It is always existing and thus we must note its existence.
I would like to support my con argument with an example. A debater has accepted three different debates. He has not finished any nor are any of the debates inactive. How many debates does he still have? The answer is three and not zero. A girl has picked three apples from a tree. How many apples does she have? The answer again is three and not zero. Thus, this 3=0 statement does not have any logic. Math is built upon logic and facts. If 3=0 cannot be supported by logic, then it is known as a False Statement, or a solution that does not fulfill the requirements of an accurate answer. 

"A debater has accepted three different debates. He has not finished any nor are any of the debates inactive. How many debates does he still have?" Yeah, he has 3. So what? That doesn't dismiss the logic of my argument above, where it was proven mathematically that 3 can equal 0 under special circumstances. I can say that I have 3i (i is sqrt(1)) debates, how many do I have? Well... I have 0. Not because the math for 3i doesn't exist, but just because it cannot be thought into the physical world. "A girl has picked three apples from a tree. How many apples does she have?" AHA, trick question! Perhaps she had apples from before she picked the tree, which would result in a number higher than three. "Thus, this 3=0 statement does not have any logic. " The statement has tons of logic. Mathematically, 3 can be equal to 0 in certain conditions, due to the nature of rational numbers and how they are added and whatnot. I already put the response of "I have 3i debates", which is basically that I can have debates in a number system that cannot be thought of into the physical world. That does not mean, however, that 3i does not exist or anything like that. "Math is built upon logic and facts. If 3=0 cannot be supported by logic, then it is known as a False Statement" Math is built upon logic and facts, I totally agree. 3 = 0 is based upon logic, just cannot be thought of in terms of the physical world. I did not make a false statement, I mathematically proved that 3 = 0. My opponent has made no real arguments that fulfill the BoP that I gave him, he just used physical examples that cannot be reliable enough to have an answer. I used mathematical proof that 3 = 0, whereas my opponent has made baseless claims in a world that cannot fathom true numbers. Vote pro. PS final round is this round. I look forward to your response. 1 = 1 (Multiply by 2) 2 = 2 (Add 5) 7 = 7 (Multiply by 2) 14 = 14 The step prior has the equation applied. (This is really hard to explain in words, sorry). 1 = 1 (Divide by 3) 1/3 = 1/3 (Simplify the right side) 1/3 = .33333... (Multiply by three) 3/3 = .99999... (Simplify left side) 1 = .99999... (Double values present) 2(1) = 2(.99999) (Simplify) 2 = 1.999...8 (Minus one) 1 = .999...8 (Double values present) 2 = 1.999...6 (Minus one) 1 = .999...6 (Repeat these steps infinitely, where you will theoretically reach a point where 1 = .25) 1 = .25 (Double these numbers) 2 = .5 (Double again) 4 = 1 (Add one) 5 = 2 (Double numbers) 10 = 4 (Subtract 4 on each side) 6 = 0 (Divide by 2) 3 = 0. In "1 = 1 (Divide by 3)," the number will result in an infinitely repeating value. unless you divide it by itself or multiply it by 0, it is impossible to convert it to a whole number.Thus, the following steps when you supposebly convert it to a whole number, are invalid. 
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 2 years ago
Lexus  CommunistDog  Tied  

Agreed with before the debate:      0 points  
Agreed with after the debate:      0 points  
Who had better conduct:      1 point  
Had better spelling and grammar:      1 point  
Made more convincing arguments:      3 points  
Used the most reliable sources:      2 points  
Total points awarded:  3  0 
Reasons for voting decision: I can't believe that I've voting for Pro, and that's purely due to the very poor job that Con did. I have a math degree and can easily refute Pro's argument, but this is not my debate, and it's Con's responsibility to convince the reader. As a reader, I have to assume that 3=0 is possible.
Pro presents an argument in R2, Con didn't. Con's only rebuttal was to challenge the never ending. Pro's defense of never ending was weak, but since it wasn't challenged by Con, that part of the argument is not refuted.
Con then argues with the apples example (Terrible approach). Pro explains why that Con's argument can still be valid, but still doesn't refute Pro. Con must show how it directly applies to Pro's argument which he didn't.
Con argues that 3=0 is not logical. Pro argues that it can be logical in certain situations. Why should I disagree? Con doesn't explain.
I can't believe Pro is winning...!!!!
FYI... Pro's logic is incorrect. Do you know where?
Vote Placed by daem0n 2 years ago
Lexus  CommunistDog  Tied  

Agreed with before the debate:      0 points  
Agreed with after the debate:      0 points  
Who had better conduct:      1 point  
Had better spelling and grammar:      1 point  
Made more convincing arguments:      3 points  
Used the most reliable sources:      2 points  
Total points awarded:  3  0 
Reasons for voting decision: I cannot believe I am voting for "3=0", but Con fails to identify the fallacy in Pro's attempt at a mathematical proof. (See my comment for how to do this.) Con's examples of counting debates and apples are simply illustrations of Con's intuitive understanding of mathematics; they do show how any of the derivations in Pro's attempt at a proof break the rules of mathematics. Con comes very close to identifying Pro's fallacy when Con says "Infinitely means neverending", but this is not worded precisely enough for me to know exactly what Con is referring to without giving Con the benefit of the doubt. And I am not going to give Con the benefit of the doubt. I demand a high standard of mathematical reasoning. Intuition does not suffice.
4 = 4
4  4 = 4  4
since (a^2  b^2) = (ab)(a+b)
also (a*b  a*c) = a (bc)
(2+2)(22) = 2 (22)
cancel out the right sides
(2+2) = 2
Therefore 4 = 2
2 = 1 (divide by 2)
3 = 2 (add 1 to each side)
1 = 0 (minus 2 to each side)
Since 0 = 1, 1 = 2 and 2 = 3, then 0 = 3.
Enjoy :)
2(.99999...)
= 2(9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + ...)
= 2(9/10) + 2(9/100) + 2(9/1000) + ...
= 18/10 + 18/100 + 18/1000 + ...
= (10/10 + 8/10) + (10/100 + 8/100) + (10/1000 + 8/1000) + ...
= (1/1 + 8/10) + (1/10 + 8/100) + (1/100 + 8/1000) + ...
= 1/1 + (8/10 + 1/10) + (8/100 + 1/100) + ...
= 1/1 + 9/10 + 9/100 + ...
= 1/1 + (9/10 + 9/100 + ...)
= 1/1 + .99999...
= 1 + 1
= 2
Line 5 in Pro"s argument:
1 = .99999...
Good so far. Line 6:
2(1) = 2(.99999)
Pro forgot the ellipsis. Pro should have written "2(1) = 2(.99999...)". But otherwise, good so far.
The derivation Pro uses to turn the right hand side of line 6 into the RHS of line 7:
2(.99999...) = 1.999...8
is incorrect. Pro does not know the meaning of ".99999..." It is shorthand for:
9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + ...
Therefore, two things:
First: "1.999...8" is meaningless. There is no way to translate that shorthand into a sum. (What is 8 supposed to be divided by?) No mathematical proof can be derived from a meaningless statement.
Second, when the expression "2(.99999...)" is validly expanded and simplified, 2 is derived.
2(.99999...)
= 2(9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + ...)
= 2(9/10) + 2(9/100) + 2(9/1000) + ...
= (9/10 + 9/10) + (9/100 + 9/100) + (9/1000 + 9/1000) + ...
= (9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + ...) + (9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + ...)
= .99999... + .99999...
= 1 + 1
= 2
All this tells us is that 2 = 2, which tells us nothing. No mathematical proof can be derived from a statement that tells us nothing.
I meant simplify the right side into a decimal, not a fraction. This is alowed in mathematics.
1/3 = .33333... (Multiply by three)
3/3 = .99999... (Simplify left side)
1 = .99999... (Double values present)"
This doesn't work, you have to simplify both sides before moving on, you can't simplify one side then do something to both, THEN simplify the other, it doesn't equate.