Total Posts:104|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# Is 1=2?

 Posts: 4,393 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 7:01:59 PMPosted: 2 years agoThis post pertains to mathematics, and math relates to the forum of science the best.I was in Geometry class last week zoning out in my own world thinking about math...and realized. 1 is equal to 2.1) Numbers represent values (such as 3 meaning the value of 3 apples).2) Values are either equal or not equal, there"s no inbetween (X is either equal to Y, or not equal to Y.)3) In order to classify two values as "not equal", there must be something to differentiate between them.4) There is no number between 0.999" and 1. (...=infinite).5) If there is nothing to differentiate the two values, they cannot be classified as "not equal".6) If they cannot be classified as "not equal", they must be classified as equal (it's the only other option).7) 0.999" is equal to 1.8) Using this same process we can classify 1 = 1.0...1, and 1.0...1 = 1.0...2 and so on until we get to 2.9) Using Transitive Property of Equality (if X=Y and X=Z, then Y=Z), we can classify 1=2.Can you prove it wrong?
 Posts: 6,898 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 7:05:57 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 7:01:59 PM, Hayd wrote:This post pertains to mathematics, and math relates to the forum of science the best.I was in Geometry class last week zoning out in my own world thinking about math...and realized. 1 is equal to 2.1) Numbers represent values (such as 3 meaning the value of 3 apples).2) Values are either equal or not equal, there"s no inbetween (X is either equal to Y, or not equal to Y.)3) In order to classify two values as "not equal", there must be something to differentiate between them.4) There is no number between 0.999" and 1. (...=infinite).5) If there is nothing to differentiate the two values, they cannot be classified as "not equal".6) If they cannot be classified as "not equal", they must be classified as equal (it's the only other option).7) 0.999" is equal to 1.8) Using this same process we can classify 1 = 1.0...1, and 1.0...1 = 1.0...2 and so on until we get to 2.9) Using Transitive Property of Equality (if X=Y and X=Z, then Y=Z), we can classify 1=2.Can you prove it wrong?http://ci.memecdn.com...Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator) "The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why." ~Mark Twain "Wow" -Doge "Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it." ~Abraham Lincoln Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
 Posts: 166 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 7:17:18 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 7:01:59 PM, Hayd wrote:This post pertains to mathematics, and math relates to the forum of science the best.I was in Geometry class last week zoning out in my own world thinking about math...and realized. 1 is equal to 2.1) Numbers represent values (such as 3 meaning the value of 3 apples).2) Values are either equal or not equal, there"s no inbetween (X is either equal to Y, or not equal to Y.)3) In order to classify two values as "not equal", there must be something to differentiate between them.4) There is no number between 0.999" and 1. (...=infinite).5) If there is nothing to differentiate the two values, they cannot be classified as "not equal".6) If they cannot be classified as "not equal", they must be classified as equal (it's the only other option).7) 0.999" is equal to 1.8) Using this same process we can classify 1 = 1.0...1, and 1.0...1 = 1.0...2 and so on until we get to 2.9) Using Transitive Property of Equality (if X=Y and X=Z, then Y=Z), we can classify 1=2.Can you prove it wrong?This is really dependant on the fact that 0.999... is really equal to 1. The fact is that it isn't. Just because their isn't a number in between them that doesn't mean that they are equal.If you were asked what 1+1 was in a test would you answer 1.888 ... and then argue that 1 = 0.999... so using that logic 1.8 recurring would be the answer to 1 add 1.Let's take another hypothetical:1+1 does not equal 4. If 1 really equals 2 then that would make sense. 1 sum cannot have two answers and therefore your argument is contradictory.
 Posts: 2,630 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 7:28:17 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 7:01:59 PM, Hayd wrote:This post pertains to mathematics, and math relates to the forum of science the best.I was in Geometry class last week zoning out in my own world thinking about math...and realized. 1 is equal to 2.1) Numbers represent values (such as 3 meaning the value of 3 apples).2) Values are either equal or not equal, there"s no inbetween (X is either equal to Y, or not equal to Y.)3) In order to classify two values as "not equal", there must be something to differentiate between them.4) There is no number between 0.999" and 1. (...=infinite).5) If there is nothing to differentiate the two values, they cannot be classified as "not equal".6) If they cannot be classified as "not equal", they must be classified as equal (it's the only other option).7) 0.999" is equal to 1.8) Using this same process we can classify 1 = 1.0...1, and 1.0...1 = 1.0...2 and so on until we get to 2.9) Using Transitive Property of Equality (if X=Y and X=Z, then Y=Z), we can classify 1=2.Can you prove it wrong?You look like a girl in that picture, just sayin.Harry.
 Posts: 3,981 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 7:31:15 PMPosted: 2 years agoYou look like a girl in that picture, just sayin.Harry.That is a girl. From the new Star Wars movie I believe."Life calls the tune, we dance." John Galsworthy
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 7:55:51 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 7:01:59 PM, Hayd wrote:This post pertains to mathematics, and math relates to the forum of science the best.I was in Geometry class last week zoning out in my own world thinking about math...and realized. 1 is equal to 2.1) Numbers represent values (such as 3 meaning the value of 3 apples).2) Values are either equal or not equal, there"s no inbetween (X is either equal to Y, or not equal to Y.)3) In order to classify two values as "not equal", there must be something to differentiate between them.4) There is no number between 0.999" and 1. (...=infinite).5) If there is nothing to differentiate the two values, they cannot be classified as "not equal".6) If they cannot be classified as "not equal", they must be classified as equal (it's the only other option).7) 0.999" is equal to 1.8) Using this same process we can classify 1 = 1.0...1, and 1.0...1 = 1.0...2 and so on until we get to 2.What are you suggesting here.. that an infinite amount of zeros ends in a 1 or a 2?Just as you said earlier that if there is a difference between 2 numbers then they are not equal. so the difference between 1.0...1 and 1.0...2 is 1.0...1.So no 1 does not equal 2.9) Using Transitive Property of Equality (if X=Y and X=Z, then Y=Z), we can classify 1=2.Can you prove it wrong?
 Posts: 4,393 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 7:57:47 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 7:28:17 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:01:59 PM, Hayd wrote:This post pertains to mathematics, and math relates to the forum of science the best.I was in Geometry class last week zoning out in my own world thinking about math...and realized. 1 is equal to 2.1) Numbers represent values (such as 3 meaning the value of 3 apples).2) Values are either equal or not equal, there"s no inbetween (X is either equal to Y, or not equal to Y.)3) In order to classify two values as "not equal", there must be something to differentiate between them.4) There is no number between 0.999" and 1. (...=infinite).5) If there is nothing to differentiate the two values, they cannot be classified as "not equal".6) If they cannot be classified as "not equal", they must be classified as equal (it's the only other option).7) 0.999" is equal to 1.8) Using this same process we can classify 1 = 1.0...1, and 1.0...1 = 1.0...2 and so on until we get to 2.9) Using Transitive Property of Equality (if X=Y and X=Z, then Y=Z), we can classify 1=2.Can you prove it wrong?You look like a girl in that picture, just sayin.Harry.If you want to talk about my profile pic, PM me or comment on my page, but this thread is not for that.
 Posts: 4,393 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 8:01:38 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 7:55:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:01:59 PM, Hayd wrote:This post pertains to mathematics, and math relates to the forum of science the best.I was in Geometry class last week zoning out in my own world thinking about math...and realized. 1 is equal to 2.1) Numbers represent values (such as 3 meaning the value of 3 apples).2) Values are either equal or not equal, there"s no inbetween (X is either equal to Y, or not equal to Y.)3) In order to classify two values as "not equal", there must be something to differentiate between them.4) There is no number between 0.999" and 1. (...=infinite).5) If there is nothing to differentiate the two values, they cannot be classified as "not equal".6) If they cannot be classified as "not equal", they must be classified as equal (it's the only other option).7) 0.999" is equal to 1.8) Using this same process we can classify 1 = 1.0...1, and 1.0...1 = 1.0...2 and so on until we get to 2.What are you suggesting here.. that an infinite amount of zeros ends in a 1 or a 2?Just as you said earlier that if there is a difference between 2 numbers then they are not equal. so the difference between 1.0...1 and 1.0...2 is 1.0...1.So no 1 does not equal 2.What is the next smallest incremental value after 1 then?
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 8:07:37 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 8:01:38 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:55:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:01:59 PM, Hayd wrote:This post pertains to mathematics, and math relates to the forum of science the best.I was in Geometry class last week zoning out in my own world thinking about math...and realized. 1 is equal to 2.1) Numbers represent values (such as 3 meaning the value of 3 apples).2) Values are either equal or not equal, there"s no inbetween (X is either equal to Y, or not equal to Y.)3) In order to classify two values as "not equal", there must be something to differentiate between them.4) There is no number between 0.999" and 1. (...=infinite).5) If there is nothing to differentiate the two values, they cannot be classified as "not equal".6) If they cannot be classified as "not equal", they must be classified as equal (it's the only other option).7) 0.999" is equal to 1.8) Using this same process we can classify 1 = 1.0...1, and 1.0...1 = 1.0...2 and so on until we get to 2.What are you suggesting here.. that an infinite amount of zeros ends in a 1 or a 2?Just as you said earlier that if there is a difference between 2 numbers then they are not equal. so the difference between 1.0...1 and 1.0...2 is 1.0...1.So no 1 does not equal 2.What is the next smallest incremental value after 1 then?It's an infinitesimal amount of difference between one and the next smallest increment. That still does not prove 1=2..9 repeating is not incrementally different from 1. There is no quantity between them.By asking what is the next smallest incremental value after one, you essentially are asking for a number that is less than one, but by an infinitesimally small amount.Equality from .999 repeating is not because the difference is SOOOOO small. .9 repeating and 1 are equal because there is NO difference.
 Posts: 4,393 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 8:19:04 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 8:07:37 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:01:38 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:55:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:01:59 PM, Hayd wrote:This post pertains to mathematics, and math relates to the forum of science the best.I was in Geometry class last week zoning out in my own world thinking about math...and realized. 1 is equal to 2.1) Numbers represent values (such as 3 meaning the value of 3 apples).2) Values are either equal or not equal, there"s no inbetween (X is either equal to Y, or not equal to Y.)3) In order to classify two values as "not equal", there must be something to differentiate between them.4) There is no number between 0.999" and 1. (...=infinite).5) If there is nothing to differentiate the two values, they cannot be classified as "not equal".6) If they cannot be classified as "not equal", they must be classified as equal (it's the only other option).7) 0.999" is equal to 1.8) Using this same process we can classify 1 = 1.0...1, and 1.0...1 = 1.0...2 and so on until we get to 2.What are you suggesting here.. that an infinite amount of zeros ends in a 1 or a 2?Just as you said earlier that if there is a difference between 2 numbers then they are not equal. so the difference between 1.0...1 and 1.0...2 is 1.0...1.So no 1 does not equal 2.What is the next smallest incremental value after 1 then?It's an infinitesimal amount of difference between one and the next smallest increment. That still does not prove 1=2..9 repeating is not incrementally different from 1. There is no quantity between them.ExactlyBy asking what is the next smallest incremental value after one, you essentially are asking for a number that is less than one, but by an infinitesimally small amount.Not less than one, the next smallest value that is greater than one. Which is 1.0...1Equality from .999 repeating is not because the difference is SOOOOO small. .9 repeating and 1 are equal because there is NO difference.There is no difference because there is no number between them.
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 8:22:29 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 8:19:04 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:07:37 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:01:38 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:55:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:01:59 PM, Hayd wrote:This post pertains to mathematics, and math relates to the forum of science the best.I was in Geometry class last week zoning out in my own world thinking about math...and realized. 1 is equal to 2.1) Numbers represent values (such as 3 meaning the value of 3 apples).2) Values are either equal or not equal, there"s no inbetween (X is either equal to Y, or not equal to Y.)3) In order to classify two values as "not equal", there must be something to differentiate between them.4) There is no number between 0.999" and 1. (...=infinite).5) If there is nothing to differentiate the two values, they cannot be classified as "not equal".6) If they cannot be classified as "not equal", they must be classified as equal (it's the only other option).7) 0.999" is equal to 1.8) Using this same process we can classify 1 = 1.0...1, and 1.0...1 = 1.0...2 and so on until we get to 2.What are you suggesting here.. that an infinite amount of zeros ends in a 1 or a 2?Just as you said earlier that if there is a difference between 2 numbers then they are not equal. so the difference between 1.0...1 and 1.0...2 is 1.0...1.So no 1 does not equal 2.What is the next smallest incremental value after 1 then?It's an infinitesimal amount of difference between one and the next smallest increment. That still does not prove 1=2..9 repeating is not incrementally different from 1. There is no quantity between them.ExactlyBy asking what is the next smallest incremental value after one, you essentially are asking for a number that is less than one, but by an infinitesimally small amount.Not less than one, the next smallest value that is greater than one. Which is 1.0...1right so if 1.0...1 is different from one. then 1.0...2 is 1.0...1 from 1.0...1 and 1.0...2 from 1. Do this continuesly and you arrive at 2 which is 1 away from 1.therefore 1 =/= 2Equality from .999 repeating is not because the difference is SOOOOO small. .9 repeating and 1 are equal because there is NO difference.There is no difference because there is no number between them.
 Posts: 304 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 8:33:51 PMPosted: 2 years agoInfinitesimals are hyperreal numbers. repeating decimals is a notation for real numbers. that is why .999... is equal to one, and there is no such thing as 1.000...1 . the correct notation for an infinitesimal is 1/(1+1+...+1).More info on hyperreal numbers here: https://en.wikipedia.org...
 Posts: 4,236 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 8:36:47 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 7:01:59 PM, Hayd wrote:This post pertains to mathematics, and math relates to the forum of science the best.I was in Geometry class last week zoning out in my own world thinking about math...and realized. 1 is equal to 2.1) Numbers represent values (such as 3 meaning the value of 3 apples).2) Values are either equal or not equal, there"s no inbetween (X is either equal to Y, or not equal to Y.)3) In order to classify two values as "not equal", there must be something to differentiate between them.4) There is no number between 0.999" and 1. (...=infinite).5) If there is nothing to differentiate the two values, they cannot be classified as "not equal".6) If they cannot be classified as "not equal", they must be classified as equal (it's the only other option).7) 0.999" is equal to 1.8) Using this same process we can classify 1 = 1.0...1, and 1.0...1 = 1.0...2 and so on until we get to 2.9) Using Transitive Property of Equality (if X=Y and X=Z, then Y=Z), we can classify 1=2.Can you prove it wrong?The problem is with step 8. The set of real numbers is uncountable. What you're essentially doing is trying to list all the numbers between 1 and 2 in a list (namely, a string of equalities). However, you can't do this.We are not dead. We have never lived. - Varg Vikernes, "Det som en gang var"
 Posts: 989 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 8:38:57 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 8:33:51 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:Infinitesimals are hyperreal numbers. repeating decimals is a notation for real numbers. that is why .999... is equal to one, and there is no such thing as 1.000...1 . the correct notation for an infinitesimal is 1/(1+1+...+1).More info on hyperreal numbers here: https://en.wikipedia.org...It's only "equal" to one because of convenience, and the fact that theoretically an infinite amount of decimal places would occur, and so the question is when does .99999999 become 1, and it never will, which is the reason for .999 = 1, but in a objective sense, it doesn't.
 Posts: 4,393 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 8:42:38 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 8:36:47 PM, Subutai wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:01:59 PM, Hayd wrote:This post pertains to mathematics, and math relates to the forum of science the best.I was in Geometry class last week zoning out in my own world thinking about math...and realized. 1 is equal to 2.1) Numbers represent values (such as 3 meaning the value of 3 apples).2) Values are either equal or not equal, there"s no inbetween (X is either equal to Y, or not equal to Y.)3) In order to classify two values as "not equal", there must be something to differentiate between them.4) There is no number between 0.999" and 1. (...=infinite).5) If there is nothing to differentiate the two values, they cannot be classified as "not equal".6) If they cannot be classified as "not equal", they must be classified as equal (it's the only other option).7) 0.999" is equal to 1.8) Using this same process we can classify 1 = 1.0...1, and 1.0...1 = 1.0...2 and so on until we get to 2.9) Using Transitive Property of Equality (if X=Y and X=Z, then Y=Z), we can classify 1=2.Can you prove it wrong?The problem is with step 8. The set of real numbers is uncountable. What you're essentially doing is trying to list all the numbers between 1 and 2 in a list (namely, a string of equalities). However, you can't do this.)You found it, congrats. Thats the only way I was thinking you could defeat it. Since infinite can never end, the Transitive could never arrive at 2, and thus 1 could not equal 2. I was wondering if anyone would find it, nice job.Could you even do 0.999 to 1 then, or is it the same problem?
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 8:45:27 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 8:19:04 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:07:37 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:01:38 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:55:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:01:59 PM, Hayd wrote:This post pertains to mathematics, and math relates to the forum of science the best.I was in Geometry class last week zoning out in my own world thinking about math...and realized. 1 is equal to 2.1) Numbers represent values (such as 3 meaning the value of 3 apples).2) Values are either equal or not equal, there"s no inbetween (X is either equal to Y, or not equal to Y.)3) In order to classify two values as "not equal", there must be something to differentiate between them.4) There is no number between 0.999" and 1. (...=infinite).5) If there is nothing to differentiate the two values, they cannot be classified as "not equal".6) If they cannot be classified as "not equal", they must be classified as equal (it's the only other option).7) 0.999" is equal to 1.8) Using this same process we can classify 1 = 1.0...1, and 1.0...1 = 1.0...2 and so on until we get to 2.What are you suggesting here.. that an infinite amount of zeros ends in a 1 or a 2?Just as you said earlier that if there is a difference between 2 numbers then they are not equal. so the difference between 1.0...1 and 1.0...2 is 1.0...1.So no 1 does not equal 2.What is the next smallest incremental value after 1 then?It's an infinitesimal amount of difference between one and the next smallest increment. That still does not prove 1=2..9 repeating is not incrementally different from 1. There is no quantity between them.ExactlyBy asking what is the next smallest incremental value after one, you essentially are asking for a number that is less than one, but by an infinitesimally small amount.Not less than one, the next smallest value that is greater than one. Which is 1.0...1Equality from .999 repeating is not because the difference is SOOOOO small. .9 repeating and 1 are equal because there is NO difference.There is no difference because there is no number between them.If there is no difference then there will be no number is not equal to saying there is no number when there is no difference.number applies to measurement while difference applies to quantitative amount.They are not necessarily congruent.
 Posts: 304 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 8:55:44 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 8:38:57 PM, Torton wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:33:51 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:Infinitesimals are hyperreal numbers. repeating decimals is a notation for real numbers. that is why .999... is equal to one, and there is no such thing as 1.000...1 . the correct notation for an infinitesimal is 1/(1+1+...+1).More info on hyperreal numbers here: https://en.wikipedia.org...It's only "equal" to one because of convenience, and the fact that theoretically an infinite amount of decimal places would occur, and so the question is when does .99999999 become 1, and it never will, which is the reason for .999 = 1, but in a objective sense, it doesn't.1/3 is represented as a decimal as .333... ,2/3 is represented as a decimal as .666... ,and 3/3 is represented as a decimal as .999.... .since 3/3 = 1 then .999... = 1
 Posts: 4,393 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 9:02:26 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 8:55:44 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:38:57 PM, Torton wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:33:51 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:Infinitesimals are hyperreal numbers. repeating decimals is a notation for real numbers. that is why .999... is equal to one, and there is no such thing as 1.000...1 . the correct notation for an infinitesimal is 1/(1+1+...+1).More info on hyperreal numbers here: https://en.wikipedia.org...It's only "equal" to one because of convenience, and the fact that theoretically an infinite amount of decimal places would occur, and so the question is when does .99999999 become 1, and it never will, which is the reason for .999 = 1, but in a objective sense, it doesn't.1/3 is represented as a decimal as .333... ,2/3 is represented as a decimal as .666... ,and 3/3 is represented as a decimal as .999.... .since 3/3 = 1 then .999... = 1This is actually really really really really interesting
 Posts: 4,236 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 9:04:14 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 8:42:38 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:36:47 PM, Subutai wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:01:59 PM, Hayd wrote:This post pertains to mathematics, and math relates to the forum of science the best.I was in Geometry class last week zoning out in my own world thinking about math...and realized. 1 is equal to 2.1) Numbers represent values (such as 3 meaning the value of 3 apples).2) Values are either equal or not equal, there"s no inbetween (X is either equal to Y, or not equal to Y.)3) In order to classify two values as "not equal", there must be something to differentiate between them.4) There is no number between 0.999" and 1. (...=infinite).5) If there is nothing to differentiate the two values, they cannot be classified as "not equal".6) If they cannot be classified as "not equal", they must be classified as equal (it's the only other option).7) 0.999" is equal to 1.8) Using this same process we can classify 1 = 1.0...1, and 1.0...1 = 1.0...2 and so on until we get to 2.9) Using Transitive Property of Equality (if X=Y and X=Z, then Y=Z), we can classify 1=2.Can you prove it wrong?The problem is with step 8. The set of real numbers is uncountable. What you're essentially doing is trying to list all the numbers between 1 and 2 in a list (namely, a string of equalities). However, you can't do this.)You found it, congrats. Thats the only way I was thinking you could defeat it. Since infinite can never end, the Transitive could never arrive at 2, and thus 1 could not equal 2. I was wondering if anyone would find it, nice job.Could you even do 0.999 to 1 then, or is it the same problem?Yes, but that's because that's something different entirely. 0.999 repeating and 1 are just different representations of the same number.We are not dead. We have never lived. - Varg Vikernes, "Det som en gang var"
 Posts: 4,393 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 9:07:40 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 9:04:14 PM, Subutai wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:42:38 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:36:47 PM, Subutai wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:01:59 PM, Hayd wrote:This post pertains to mathematics, and math relates to the forum of science the best.I was in Geometry class last week zoning out in my own world thinking about math...and realized. 1 is equal to 2.1) Numbers represent values (such as 3 meaning the value of 3 apples).2) Values are either equal or not equal, there"s no inbetween (X is either equal to Y, or not equal to Y.)3) In order to classify two values as "not equal", there must be something to differentiate between them.4) There is no number between 0.999" and 1. (...=infinite).5) If there is nothing to differentiate the two values, they cannot be classified as "not equal".6) If they cannot be classified as "not equal", they must be classified as equal (it's the only other option).7) 0.999" is equal to 1.8) Using this same process we can classify 1 = 1.0...1, and 1.0...1 = 1.0...2 and so on until we get to 2.9) Using Transitive Property of Equality (if X=Y and X=Z, then Y=Z), we can classify 1=2.Can you prove it wrong?The problem is with step 8. The set of real numbers is uncountable. What you're essentially doing is trying to list all the numbers between 1 and 2 in a list (namely, a string of equalities). However, you can't do this.)You found it, congrats. Thats the only way I was thinking you could defeat it. Since infinite can never end, the Transitive could never arrive at 2, and thus 1 could not equal 2. I was wondering if anyone would find it, nice job.Could you even do 0.999 to 1 then, or is it the same problem?Yes, but that's because that's something different entirely. 0.999 repeating and 1 are just different representations of the same number.That doesn't make sense then, cuz 1 and 1.0...1 would different representations of the same number, and so on. What makes it acceptable for that, but not for the rest?
 Posts: 4,393 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 9:10:39 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 8:45:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:19:04 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:07:37 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:01:38 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:55:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:01:59 PM, Hayd wrote:This post pertains to mathematics, and math relates to the forum of science the best.I was in Geometry class last week zoning out in my own world thinking about math...and realized. 1 is equal to 2.1) Numbers represent values (such as 3 meaning the value of 3 apples).2) Values are either equal or not equal, there"s no inbetween (X is either equal to Y, or not equal to Y.)3) In order to classify two values as "not equal", there must be something to differentiate between them.4) There is no number between 0.999" and 1. (...=infinite).5) If there is nothing to differentiate the two values, they cannot be classified as "not equal".6) If they cannot be classified as "not equal", they must be classified as equal (it's the only other option).7) 0.999" is equal to 1.8) Using this same process we can classify 1 = 1.0...1, and 1.0...1 = 1.0...2 and so on until we get to 2.What are you suggesting here.. that an infinite amount of zeros ends in a 1 or a 2?Just as you said earlier that if there is a difference between 2 numbers then they are not equal. so the difference between 1.0...1 and 1.0...2 is 1.0...1.So no 1 does not equal 2.What is the next smallest incremental value after 1 then?It's an infinitesimal amount of difference between one and the next smallest increment. That still does not prove 1=2..9 repeating is not incrementally different from 1. There is no quantity between them.ExactlyBy asking what is the next smallest incremental value after one, you essentially are asking for a number that is less than one, but by an infinitesimally small amount.Not less than one, the next smallest value that is greater than one. Which is 1.0...1Equality from .999 repeating is not because the difference is SOOOOO small. .9 repeating and 1 are equal because there is NO difference.There is no difference because there is no number between them.If there is no difference then there will be no number is not equal to saying there is no number when there is no difference.number applies to measurement while difference applies to quantitative amount.They are not necessarily congruent.Trying to translate this to english...Number applies to values. Measurement determines the amount of value. Difference applies to quantitative amount of value...sounds like the same thing...
 Posts: 989 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 9:13:25 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 8:55:44 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:38:57 PM, Torton wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:33:51 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:Infinitesimals are hyperreal numbers. repeating decimals is a notation for real numbers. that is why .999... is equal to one, and there is no such thing as 1.000...1 . the correct notation for an infinitesimal is 1/(1+1+...+1).More info on hyperreal numbers here: https://en.wikipedia.org...It's only "equal" to one because of convenience, and the fact that theoretically an infinite amount of decimal places would occur, and so the question is when does .99999999 become 1, and it never will, which is the reason for .999 = 1, but in a objective sense, it doesn't.1/3 is represented as a decimal as .333... ,2/3 is represented as a decimal as .666... ,and 3/3 is represented as a decimal as .999.... .since 3/3 = 1 then .999... = 1What witchery is this! But an infinite amount of repeating .999... etc. would never exactly equal one, so it's not really justified.
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 9:17:02 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 9:10:39 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:45:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:19:04 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:07:37 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:01:38 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:55:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:01:59 PM, Hayd wrote:This post pertains to mathematics, and math relates to the forum of science the best.I was in Geometry class last week zoning out in my own world thinking about math...and realized. 1 is equal to 2.1) Numbers represent values (such as 3 meaning the value of 3 apples).2) Values are either equal or not equal, there"s no inbetween (X is either equal to Y, or not equal to Y.)3) In order to classify two values as "not equal", there must be something to differentiate between them.4) There is no number between 0.999" and 1. (...=infinite).5) If there is nothing to differentiate the two values, they cannot be classified as "not equal".6) If they cannot be classified as "not equal", they must be classified as equal (it's the only other option).7) 0.999" is equal to 1.8) Using this same process we can classify 1 = 1.0...1, and 1.0...1 = 1.0...2 and so on until we get to 2.What are you suggesting here.. that an infinite amount of zeros ends in a 1 or a 2?Just as you said earlier that if there is a difference between 2 numbers then they are not equal. so the difference between 1.0...1 and 1.0...2 is 1.0...1.So no 1 does not equal 2.What is the next smallest incremental value after 1 then?It's an infinitesimal amount of difference between one and the next smallest increment. That still does not prove 1=2..9 repeating is not incrementally different from 1. There is no quantity between them.ExactlyBy asking what is the next smallest incremental value after one, you essentially are asking for a number that is less than one, but by an infinitesimally small amount.Not less than one, the next smallest value that is greater than one. Which is 1.0...1Equality from .999 repeating is not because the difference is SOOOOO small. .9 repeating and 1 are equal because there is NO difference.There is no difference because there is no number between them.If there is no difference then there will be no number is not equal to saying there is no number when there is no difference.number applies to measurement while difference applies to quantitative amount.They are not necessarily congruent.Trying to translate this to english...Number applies to values. Measurement determines the amount of value. Difference applies to quantitative amount of value...sounds like the same thing...that's not what I said. You can take a measurement of something and it indicate no difference. But the measurement is has a tolerance to it. They can indeed be different.If the numbers say that there is no difference that is of more certainty then if a measurement says there is no number between them.I don't blame you. Most Atheist think the Cart before the horse is equal in value as horse before cart. unfortunately semantically reversing things don't maintain equivalent value. That only works in math with addition and multiplication.
 Posts: 4,393 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 9:19:28 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 9:17:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 9:10:39 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:45:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:19:04 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:07:37 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:01:38 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:55:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:01:59 PM, Hayd wrote:This post pertains to mathematics, and math relates to the forum of science the best.I was in Geometry class last week zoning out in my own world thinking about math...and realized. 1 is equal to 2.1) Numbers represent values (such as 3 meaning the value of 3 apples).2) Values are either equal or not equal, there"s no inbetween (X is either equal to Y, or not equal to Y.)3) In order to classify two values as "not equal", there must be something to differentiate between them.4) There is no number between 0.999" and 1. (...=infinite).5) If there is nothing to differentiate the two values, they cannot be classified as "not equal".6) If they cannot be classified as "not equal", they must be classified as equal (it's the only other option).7) 0.999" is equal to 1.8) Using this same process we can classify 1 = 1.0...1, and 1.0...1 = 1.0...2 and so on until we get to 2.What are you suggesting here.. that an infinite amount of zeros ends in a 1 or a 2?Just as you said earlier that if there is a difference between 2 numbers then they are not equal. so the difference between 1.0...1 and 1.0...2 is 1.0...1.So no 1 does not equal 2.What is the next smallest incremental value after 1 then?It's an infinitesimal amount of difference between one and the next smallest increment. That still does not prove 1=2..9 repeating is not incrementally different from 1. There is no quantity between them.ExactlyBy asking what is the next smallest incremental value after one, you essentially are asking for a number that is less than one, but by an infinitesimally small amount.Not less than one, the next smallest value that is greater than one. Which is 1.0...1Equality from .999 repeating is not because the difference is SOOOOO small. .9 repeating and 1 are equal because there is NO difference.There is no difference because there is no number between them.If there is no difference then there will be no number is not equal to saying there is no number when there is no difference.number applies to measurement while difference applies to quantitative amount.They are not necessarily congruent.Trying to translate this to english...Number applies to values. Measurement determines the amount of value. Difference applies to quantitative amount of value...sounds like the same thing...that's not what I said. You can take a measurement of something and it indicate no difference. But the measurement is has a tolerance to it. They can indeed be different.If the numbers say that there is no difference that is of more certainty then if a measurement says there is no number between them.I don't blame you. Most Atheist think the Cart before the horse is equal in value as horse before cart. unfortunately semantically reversing things don't maintain equivalent value. That only works in math with addition and multiplication.So a value is X. The measurement tells us the value of X (3). What do you mean the measurement has a tolerance to it? Like the measurement can be wrong/bias on the value of the value?
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 9:26:59 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 9:19:28 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 9:17:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 9:10:39 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:45:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:19:04 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:07:37 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:01:38 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:55:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:01:59 PM, Hayd wrote:This post pertains to mathematics, and math relates to the forum of science the best.I was in Geometry class last week zoning out in my own world thinking about math...and realized. 1 is equal to 2.1) Numbers represent values (such as 3 meaning the value of 3 apples).2) Values are either equal or not equal, there"s no inbetween (X is either equal to Y, or not equal to Y.)3) In order to classify two values as "not equal", there must be something to differentiate between them.4) There is no number between 0.999" and 1. (...=infinite).5) If there is nothing to differentiate the two values, they cannot be classified as "not equal".6) If they cannot be classified as "not equal", they must be classified as equal (it's the only other option).7) 0.999" is equal to 1.8) Using this same process we can classify 1 = 1.0...1, and 1.0...1 = 1.0...2 and so on until we get to 2.What are you suggesting here.. that an infinite amount of zeros ends in a 1 or a 2?Just as you said earlier that if there is a difference between 2 numbers then they are not equal. so the difference between 1.0...1 and 1.0...2 is 1.0...1.So no 1 does not equal 2.What is the next smallest incremental value after 1 then?It's an infinitesimal amount of difference between one and the next smallest increment. That still does not prove 1=2..9 repeating is not incrementally different from 1. There is no quantity between them.ExactlyBy asking what is the next smallest incremental value after one, you essentially are asking for a number that is less than one, but by an infinitesimally small amount.Not less than one, the next smallest value that is greater than one. Which is 1.0...1Equality from .999 repeating is not because the difference is SOOOOO small. .9 repeating and 1 are equal because there is NO difference.There is no difference because there is no number between them.If there is no difference then there will be no number is not equal to saying there is no number when there is no difference.number applies to measurement while difference applies to quantitative amount.They are not necessarily congruent.Trying to translate this to english...Number applies to values. Measurement determines the amount of value. Difference applies to quantitative amount of value...sounds like the same thing...that's not what I said. You can take a measurement of something and it indicate no difference. But the measurement is has a tolerance to it. They can indeed be different.If the numbers say that there is no difference that is of more certainty then if a measurement says there is no number between them.I don't blame you. Most Atheist think the Cart before the horse is equal in value as horse before cart. unfortunately semantically reversing things don't maintain equivalent value. That only works in math with addition and multiplication.So a value is X. The measurement tells us the value of X (3). What do you mean the measurement has a tolerance to it? Like the measurement can be wrong/bias on the value of the value?you said "There is no difference because there is no number between them."measurement is tool use, and when a caliper says things are the same size, it doesn't imply they are exactly equal. But this is confusing the post my apologize.To your original comment I am saying that there could be no number between 2 things and yet still be a difference. But if there is no quantity between 2 things then they are equal.For instance 2 things could differ by sqrt(-1). There is no number between them but there is a quantity different.Unless of course you meant number as all natural, real, imaginary, complex, ect... type numbers.
 Posts: 4,393 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 9:30:47 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 9:26:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 9:19:28 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 9:17:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 9:10:39 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:45:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:19:04 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:07:37 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:01:38 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:55:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:01:59 PM, Hayd wrote:This post pertains to mathematics, and math relates to the forum of science the best.I was in Geometry class last week zoning out in my own world thinking about math...and realized. 1 is equal to 2.1) Numbers represent values (such as 3 meaning the value of 3 apples).2) Values are either equal or not equal, there"s no inbetween (X is either equal to Y, or not equal to Y.)3) In order to classify two values as "not equal", there must be something to differentiate between them.4) There is no number between 0.999" and 1. (...=infinite).5) If there is nothing to differentiate the two values, they cannot be classified as "not equal".6) If they cannot be classified as "not equal", they must be classified as equal (it's the only other option).7) 0.999" is equal to 1.8) Using this same process we can classify 1 = 1.0...1, and 1.0...1 = 1.0...2 and so on until we get to 2.What are you suggesting here.. that an infinite amount of zeros ends in a 1 or a 2?Just as you said earlier that if there is a difference between 2 numbers then they are not equal. so the difference between 1.0...1 and 1.0...2 is 1.0...1.So no 1 does not equal 2.What is the next smallest incremental value after 1 then?It's an infinitesimal amount of difference between one and the next smallest increment. That still does not prove 1=2..9 repeating is not incrementally different from 1. There is no quantity between them.ExactlyBy asking what is the next smallest incremental value after one, you essentially are asking for a number that is less than one, but by an infinitesimally small amount.Not less than one, the next smallest value that is greater than one. Which is 1.0...1Equality from .999 repeating is not because the difference is SOOOOO small. .9 repeating and 1 are equal because there is NO difference.There is no difference because there is no number between them.If there is no difference then there will be no number is not equal to saying there is no number when there is no difference.number applies to measurement while difference applies to quantitative amount.They are not necessarily congruent.Trying to translate this to english...Number applies to values. Measurement determines the amount of value. Difference applies to quantitative amount of value...sounds like the same thing...that's not what I said. You can take a measurement of something and it indicate no difference. But the measurement is has a tolerance to it. They can indeed be different.If the numbers say that there is no difference that is of more certainty then if a measurement says there is no number between them.I don't blame you. Most Atheist think the Cart before the horse is equal in value as horse before cart. unfortunately semantically reversing things don't maintain equivalent value. That only works in math with addition and multiplication.So a value is X. The measurement tells us the value of X (3). What do you mean the measurement has a tolerance to it? Like the measurement can be wrong/bias on the value of the value?you said "There is no difference because there is no number between them."measurement is tool use, and when a caliper says things are the same size, it doesn't imply they are exactly equal. But this is confusing the post my apologize.To your original comment I am saying that there could be no number between 2 things and yet still be a difference. But if there is no quantity between 2 things then they are equal.For instance 2 things could differ by sqrt(-1). There is no number between them but there is a quantity different.Unless of course you meant number as all natural, real, imaginary, complex, ect... type numbers.You said if there is no number between two things there can still be a difference, how?You said that if there is no quantity between the numbers then they are equal, a number is a quantity, so...
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/31/2016 9:36:26 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 1/31/2016 9:30:47 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 9:26:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 9:19:28 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 9:17:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 9:10:39 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:45:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:19:04 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:07:37 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 8:01:38 PM, Hayd wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:55:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/31/2016 7:01:59 PM, Hayd wrote:This post pertains to mathematics, and math relates to the forum of science the best.I was in Geometry class last week zoning out in my own world thinking about math...and realized. 1 is equal to 2.1) Numbers represent values (such as 3 meaning the value of 3 apples).2) Values are either equal or not equal, there"s no inbetween (X is either equal to Y, or not equal to Y.)3) In order to classify two values as "not equal", there must be something to differentiate between them.4) There is no number between 0.999" and 1. (...=infinite).5) If there is nothing to differentiate the two values, they cannot be classified as "not equal".6) If they cannot be classified as "not equal", they must be classified as equal (it's the only other option).7) 0.999" is equal to 1.8) Using this same process we can classify 1 = 1.0...1, and 1.0...1 = 1.0...2 and so on until we get to 2.What are you suggesting here.. that an infinite amount of zeros ends in a 1 or a 2?Just as you said earlier that if there is a difference between 2 numbers then they are not equal. so the difference between 1.0...1 and 1.0...2 is 1.0...1.So no 1 does not equal 2.What is the next smallest incremental value after 1 then?It's an infinitesimal amount of difference between one and the next smallest increment. That still does not prove 1=2..9 repeating is not incrementally different from 1. There is no quantity between them.ExactlyBy asking what is the next smallest incremental value after one, you essentially are asking for a number that is less than one, but by an infinitesimally small amount.Not less than one, the next smallest value that is greater than one. Which is 1.0...1Equality from .999 repeating is not because the difference is SOOOOO small. .9 repeating and 1 are equal because there is NO difference.There is no difference because there is no number between them.If there is no difference then there will be no number is not equal to saying there is no number when there is no difference.number applies to measurement while difference applies to quantitative amount.They are not necessarily congruent.Trying to translate this to english...Number applies to values. Measurement determines the amount of value. Difference applies to quantitative amount of value...sounds like the same thing...that's not what I said. You can take a measurement of something and it indicate no difference. But the measurement is has a tolerance to it. They can indeed be different.If the numbers say that there is no difference that is of more certainty then if a measurement says there is no number between them.I don't blame you. Most Atheist think the Cart before the horse is equal in value as horse before cart. unfortunately semantically reversing things don't maintain equivalent value. That only works in math with addition and multiplication.So a value is X. The measurement tells us the value of X (3). What do you mean the measurement has a tolerance to it? Like the measurement can be wrong/bias on the value of the value?you said "There is no difference because there is no number between them."measurement is tool use, and when a caliper says things are the same size, it doesn't imply they are exactly equal. But this is confusing the post my apologize.To your original comment I am saying that there could be no number between 2 things and yet still be a difference. But if there is no quantity between 2 things then they are equal.For instance 2 things could differ by sqrt(-1). There is no number between them but there is a quantity different.Unless of course you meant number as all natural, real, imaginary, complex, ect... type numbers.You said if there is no number between two things there can still be a difference, how?I concede. I was thinking what you meant by number was a real number. Do you mean the number in question could also be an imaginary number?You said that if there is no quantity between the numbers then they are equal, a number is a quantity, so...I pointed this out. If the difference between 2 things were square root of -1 (which is an imaginary number) then there would be a difference in quantity ( or shape) that make them NOT-equal. But square root of -1 is not a natural number.But if when you said number you meant any type of number then I'll concede.