How much do you trust science?

Trust science. Distrust corporate "science", which is whatever semi-plausible bullshit PR will boost their stock price.

Attached: Untitled.jpg (250x140, 3.46K)

define do

No.

no

arxiv.org/pdf/1007.3018.pdf

Easy proof

0.333... = 1/3
1 = 3/3
0.333... * 3 = 0.9999...
0.3333... * 3 = 1
0.9999... = 1

Define definitions

If you don;t trust it you can fucking learn in yourself and recheck it, lol. That's a science, you know. That's how it works. It's not a fucking preacher telling you about something unreal.
You are going to uni or self-teaching and finding out that something is right or wrong.
If you make a signifant move and can prove that something is crusially wrong you'll get a solid prize afterwards

THE BIBLE SAID SCIENCE IS WRONG

On a sidenote, 0.999999 is just a relic of the fact that some numeric systems (like our base 10) don't divide cleanly with some numbers.

You can't prove the equality without a circular definition.

All the world's greatest scientists have been Christians.

Atheists haven't done shit except make a few minor contributions to what the Christians have done.

Why do atheists hate science?

Math is all definitions anyway. According to our definition it is equal

No, it's a relic of those numbers that DO divide cleanly in a given base.

Thank you for the first real explanation.

Pretty much this. We measure the appearance of what things are, and that's it. The fundamental makeup is just a giant mess of mysteries where we have no idea what the fuck is going on.

If the unit of measure is all the particles in the universe, and you took that number minus one, then had as many 9s in .999... as there particles in the universe minus one, you would still not be one if the unit of measure was all the particles in the universe

Uh, sorry sweetie, Richard Dawkins is the worlds greatest biologist and he’s as atheistic as it gets.

>Comets are snowballs.
>Perfectly round craters are caused by meteorites.
>Humans cause global temperature increase.
>Universe was created in a big bang.
>Gravity is the dominant force in the universe.
>Species evolve linearly into new ones.
Scientists generally aren't retards. Their privileged position allows them to make bigger mistakes.

uhhhhh
bros???

Attached: 1556869825282.jpg (29x34, 912)

x = 0.999...
10x = 9.999...
10x = 9 + 0.999...
10x = 9 + x (because x = 0.999...)
9x = 9
x = 1

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

It's just 0 dumbass

>quantum tunneling is about trespassing an insulator instead of transitioning through potential energy gaps with less energy than needed

Define definitions

I'm, guessing, you, feel, the, same, way, about, grammar?

Define define

I'd say Gregor Mendel is, as everything Dawkins did is ultimately derivative of Mendel's work.

God damn it, first the water thread, now this? What's next, monty hall? gold and silver ball puzzle? the -1/12 meme?

math bait threads belong in

>What are Limits,
>What is approaching the limit of 1.

It's like you never even had basic elementary school calculus?

It's 1, though

It's not just some number systems, but all of them.
In binary, .11111... is also equal to one. For trinary it's .22222... and so forth.
.999... is the infinite summation of 9*(1/10)^n, with n starting at 1 and incrementing by 1.
We can solve it using the infinite sum equation for a geometric series, which is Sum = a1/(1-r), where a1 is the first number and r is the ratio vetween numbers.
So we get .9/(1-.1), which is .9/.9 or 1.

Math is not science.

1/3 = 0.333...
1/3 * 3 = 0.333.. * 3
1 = 0.999...

thats not true
because an infinite amount of digits implies that there is an infinite "space" between those two numbers, thus it will never reach 1

if it predicts it works.

Get a fucking dictionary

define dictionary

1/9 = 0.11111~
2/9 = 0.2222~
...
8/9 = 0.8888~
9/9 = ?

The fact that some things are "ethically wrong" to study, ie. racial studies, shows there's a political bias, which makes all science untrustworthy.

Attached: 0yuzipn0hey21.jpg (1024x683, 88.4K)

The mechanism behind all those proofs is simply constructing a set we call R that adheres to the Archimedean property of no infinitesimals. Other set constructions lead to other outcomes.

Attached: 1577223344529.jpg (764x240, 35.89K)

(((Science))), aka established institutional academics, no. I don't trust them on any occasion.

Pretty much. We have to define change as limits, because change is mathematically impossible yet certain from observation.

Definition of inequality: Let a,b be real numbers. If a =/= b, then there must exist a real number c, such that (a < c < b) or (b < c < a).

If 0.999... =/= 1, then find such number.

0,333 is not 1/3
its just that the difference is so small, it makes no sense to not round up, because this tiny difference does not make any difference in our day to day life, but its wrong

Relies on choice of Archimedean property.
see

This is unironically a good answer.
The OP has nothing to do with science, it's a mathematical identity.

math is a human construct. it can mean whatever mathematicians want it to.

>Fuck it, close enough.
>t. science
Not very much.
bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

Ok faggots, explain to me how you would calculate: 3^1.73

>that your science is not only wrong, but useless.

Science is what is currently allowing you to post in a Jamaican graffiti evaluation bulletin. One thing is saying that it's not perfect and it doesn't answer every question with 100% accuracy and correctness, another is saying that is useless considering what it gave us.

And you know what he will say?

I cant believe you were worshiping a dead kike on a stick.

I've been doing the math and.....well, pic related

Attached: 20200204_133218_0000-01.jpg (555x555, 16.82K)

>Psychology
>science

I've read the proof for this and I still don't believe it

that's actually easy.

1.73 = 173/100

3^(173/100) = (100th root of 3)^173

you should have used an irrational number

Good think he added the dots to mean periodic,so he didn't write 0,333 in the first place then.

Are both these statements true?

4 = 3.99999.....

4 > 3.99999.....

Got any proof?

1-.999 = 0
0 = infinitesimal

Science is the current state of ignorance.

Lightstone's decimal hyperreals, for example.

>mathfags are here
time to hide this thread now

i know that he means periodic

The point I'm getting at is, it's all about our definitions.

We define a fractional exponent as something which preserves the fundamental property of exponents
that is: A^b * A^c = A^(b+c)

We could have defined it any other way we wanted.
Now to actually calculate something like this by hand requires knowledge of derivatives. You need to know about natural logarithms and taylor series.

Our science is based on Axioms. Those are definitions we have set so we can build our mathematical model upon it.
We cannot prove Axioms because we just set them.
However, if they prove true by experimentation, we assume them to be correct.