http://www.blizzard.com/press/040401.shtml

Wow...

Idiot.

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=36;threadid=6707;start=0#msg59157 date=1084106260]
Idiot.
[/quote]

Why must you constantly take it upon yourself to insult other forum users? Not everyone was aware of that April Fool's Joke. Misinterpretting its intentions doesn't make one an "idiot". Every other post that you've been making lately had something to do with insulting another user on this forum, and it's getting to be quite annoying. You should reconsider making such posts. :)

If I don't say something, that user will go on making stupid posts about things that are outdated and/or fake (what kind of an idiot takes news seriously that was posted on april 1st anyways? And it's in the damn URL). It's people like me who make users think twice before posting.

There is no way to accidently misinterperate that, you have to be an idiot not to realize what's going on. What sort of a company would make a statement on that sort of thing anyways?

Regardless of the meaning, it's still an interesting math problem. And this is a math forum. If he had used a different site that proves the same thing, would he still be an idiot?

This is my math forum and everything I say here is right.

0.999 (9's repeating forever) = 1

If you wish to argue:

1. If you didn't learn calculus (or tried but failed), don't even bother.
2. If you passed calculus, and still wish to argue, you'll have to pass through me.

Part of the reason that was posted, though, I think was because there was a big debate actually going on at the Blizzard Bnet forums, about whether or not this was the case.

But yes, 0.9999~ = 1. :)

well, if by 0.9999 ~= 1, you mean is approximately equal to, then yes :)

[quote author=Myndfyre link=board=36;threadid=6707;start=0#msg59231 date=1084141094]
Part of the reason that was posted, though, I think was because there was a big debate actually going on at the Blizzard Bnet forums, about whether or not this was the case.

But yes, 0.9999~ = 1. :)
[/quote]
There's a big debate about it on the bnet forums roughly every two weeks.

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=36;threadid=6707;start=0#msg59196 date=1084130156]
If I don't say something, that user will go on making stupid posts about things that are outdated and/or fake (what kind of an idiot takes news seriously that was posted on april 1st anyways? And it's in the damn URL). It's people like me who make users think twice before posting.

There is no way to accidently misinterperate that, you have to be an idiot not to realize what's going on. What sort of a company would make a statement on that sort of thing anyways?
[/quote]

You can make such comments without directly insulting the user.

I remember those debates on the forums; I was on the .999 != 1 side. Those there's some interesting proof otherwise, I'm sticking to that conclusion. I'll totally believe .999 ~= 1, but they are not equal. :)

Yeah I remember the "0.999_ = 1" debates on bnet forums, and I was on the "0.999_ != 1" side. The one time I bothered to jump in I argued that if you had 99.999_% of a file that you were downloading when your computer crashed, the file would not complete the download and you would have to redownload it (this was a big deal on 56k).

Oh, no. I'm not going to be trolled on my own forum. Prove that you've passed Calculus (1 and 2 if possible) before arguing.

*tries to remember formula for a derivative and fails miserably*

Btw, if you have 99.999~% of a file (assuming you have an infinite number of 9's), then you do have the whole thing.

The limit as the number of nine's approaches infinite, the number approaches 1. Although it never gets there, it will when you get to infinity 9's. So there.

[quote author=Hitmen link=board=36;threadid=6707;start=0#msg59240 date=1084144876]
[quote author=Myndfyre link=board=36;threadid=6707;start=0#msg59231 date=1084141094]
Part of the reason that was posted, though, I think was because there was a big debate actually going on at the Blizzard Bnet forums, about whether or not this was the case.

But yes, 0.9999~ = 1. :)
[/quote]
There's a big debate about it on the bnet forums roughly every two weeks.
[/quote]

That's the longest running troll on bnet forums. Been going on 6 years now?

The % of a file argument is an awful argument.

The smallest unit that can be used to measure the size of a file is the bit. And it always has a whole number of them. A whole number. Meaning there is no infinitesimal size. Infinitesimal deviation from 100% is not even possible.

[quote author=Yoni link=board=36;threadid=6707;start=0#msg59340 date=1084201155]
Infinitesimal deviation from 100% is not even possible.
[/quote]
So you're saying that since it's not 100% it's nothing?

No, I'm saying you can't deviate from 100% infinitesimally.
You can have 100% minus one bits, and you can have 100% bits, but you can't have anything between the two.
For 99.999% repeating to be possible, you need to have 100% minus one infinitesimal size (commonly noted in calculus as "epsilon") bits, which is as I said not possible.

[quote author=Yoni link=board=36;threadid=6707;start=15#msg59358 date=1084206826]
No, I'm saying you can't deviate from 100% infinitesimally.
You can have 100% minus one bits, and you can have 100% bits, but you can't have anything between the two.
For 99.999% repeating to be possible, you need to have 100% minus one infinitesimal size (commonly noted in calculus as "epsilon") bits, which is as I said not possible.
[/quote]

Hmm, nothing special about 100%. Seems to me you cannot infinitesimally deviate from any X.

[quote author=iago link=board=36;threadid=6707;start=0#msg59235 date=1084143736]
well, if by 0.9999 ~= 1, you mean is approximately equal to, then yes :)
[/quote]

I didn't say that, iago -- note where the tilde operator was. It was at the end of the 0.9999, with whitespace between it and the =.

[quote author=Grok link=board=36;threadid=6707;start=15#msg59367 date=1084210425]
[quote author=Yoni link=board=36;threadid=6707;start=15#msg59358 date=1084206826]
No, I'm saying you can't deviate from 100% infinitesimally.
You can have 100% minus one bits, and you can have 100% bits, but you can't have anything between the two.
For 99.999% repeating to be possible, you need to have 100% minus one infinitesimal size (commonly noted in calculus as "epsilon") bits, which is as I said not possible.
[/quote]

Hmm, nothing special about 100%. Seems to me you cannot infinitesimally deviate from any X.
[/quote]

No, nothing special about 100%, so you can't have 49.9999999.... % of a file either. And that's all because a file has a smallest indivisible unit, an atom... ;)

The main reason I posted this Joker was to see if The Great mathmagician yoni would go on the =1 side or not. I truely do not understand it other then it looks like it doesn't work out..


And As my title states, I am a newbie.

It's simply a limit problem. The limit as the number of nines approaches infinity is 1.

An explanation of both sides of the argument from an actual maths person would be very interesting. I really like (1/3)*3 != 1 as an example of this (it's just neat), so some more background would be nice. I might read up on it when I get home.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=36;threadid=6707;start=15#msg59512 date=1084272858]
I really like (1/3)*3 != 1 as an example of this (it's just neat)...[/quote]
Yes it does, (1/3)*3 = 3/3 = 1, 0.333_ * 3 != 1.
This is a problem when doing math, and my teacher has always taught us to leave it in fraction form because you lose valuable data when you convert to decimal and you're answer is sometimes off.
1/3 = 1/3, not .333_ because you lose information if you try to write down the decimal form.
(1/3)*(3/1) = 3/3 = 1 (try it, divide 3 by 3).

I wasn't thinking in fractions - add .0 to all my integers :)

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=36;threadid=6707;start=15#msg59515 date=1084274323]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=36;threadid=6707;start=15#msg59512 date=1084272858]
I really like (1/3)*3 != 1 as an example of this (it's just neat)...[/quote]
Yes it does, (1/3)*3 = 3/3 = 1, 0.333_ * 3 != 1.
This is a problem when doing math, and my teacher has always taught us to leave it in fraction form because you lose valuable data when you convert to decimal and you're answer is sometimes off.
1/3 = 1/3, not .333_ because you lose information if you try to write down the decimal form.
(1/3)*(3/1) = 3/3 = 1 (try it, divide 3 by 3).
[/quote]
Everything you said is wrong.

If you wish to know more, please study calculus. It'll be fun, I promise!

[quote author=iago link=board=36;threadid=6707;start=15#msg59472 date=1084245563]
It's simply a limit problem. The limit as the number of nines approaches infinity is 1.
[/quote]

Actually the solution posted by Blizzard was pretty neat. The limit was only used to set up the summation to show that 9s went forever. They then used that concept:

x = 0.999999999999~
so 10x = 9.99999999999~
10x - x = 9x = 9.999999999999~ - 0.9999999999999
9x = 9
x = 1

The limit only came into play when defining x as 0.999999999999~.

[quote author=Myndfyre link=board=36;threadid=6707;start=15#msg59810 date=1084385931]
[quote author=iago link=board=36;threadid=6707;start=15#msg59472 date=1084245563]
It's simply a limit problem. The limit as the number of nines approaches infinity is 1.
[/quote]

Actually the solution posted by Blizzard was pretty neat. The limit was only used to set up the summation to show that 9s went forever. They then used that concept:

x = 0.999999999999~
so 10x = 9.99999999999~
10x - x = 9x = 9.999999999999~ - 0.9999999999999
9x = 9
x = 1

The limit only came into play when defining x as 0.999999999999~.
[/quote]

Yoink. [/endtroll]

[quote author=Adron link=board=36;threadid=6707;start=15#msg59380 date=1084217458]




No, nothing special about 100%, so you can't have 49.9999999.... % of a file either. And that's all because a file has a smallest indivisible unit, an atom... ;)
[/quote]

But can't an atom also be divided? ;)

[quote author=Raven link=board=36;threadid=6707;start=15#msg59903 date=1084410723]
But can't an atom also be divided? ;)
[/quote]

Actually, a real atom is indivisible. They picked that as a label for combinations of neutrons and protons and electrons before they realized that those were divisible. See definition #3 at www.webster.com.

I don't understand definition #4 at all btw...

Neutrons were invented in the 20th century, protons and electrons in the 19th (IIRC). "Atom" was the name for the atom until then because everyone thought they were really the smallest type of particle. And from then till now for historical reasons.

Definition #4 looks like the dictionary-style dumbification of E=mc^2.

[quote author=Yoni link=board=36;threadid=6707;start=30#msg59945 date=1084426494]
Definition #4 looks like the dictionary-style dumbification of E=mc^2.
[/quote]

If that's it, they're going too far. Besides, a dictionary definition should cover the use of the words, not random information. I can't think of any way to use atom to mean energysource, that isn't more accurately covered by the other definitions?

This brings up an argument I had with my friend. I truly believe that .999~ = 1. Now, without any idiocy intended (I am just a geometry student, albeit I know some Algebra II and Trig), since there is no distance that can be added or subtracted from or to either number to achieve the other without exceeding or preceeding it, they must be the same. Also, 1-.999~ = .00000~. Now, you may say, "what about the 1 at the end?" Well, you can never achieve the one at the end, because if you do find a digit that it will go in, the 0 must go there. So, when any number is subtracted from another, and the difference is 0, the numbers are equal. Another proof: 3(1/3) = 3(.333~) Therefore: 1 = .999~

I'll be happy to argue it ^_^

Maybe we should argue that .9999¯ is equal to - (e[sup]i*pi[/sup]).

[quote author=K link=board=36;threadid=6707;start=30#msg61320 date=1085290430]
Maybe we should argue that .9999¯ is equal to - (e[sup]i*pi[/sup]).
[/quote]
I'm sure you can come up with less elegant formulas for 1 ;)

[quote author=Yoni link=board=36;threadid=6707;start=30#msg61323 date=1085295260]
[quote author=K link=board=36;threadid=6707;start=30#msg61320 date=1085290430]
Maybe we should argue that .9999¯ is equal to - (e[sup]i*pi[/sup]).
[/quote]
I'm sure you can come up with less elegant formulas for 1 ;)
[/quote]

.5 * 2. ;)