impossible statements

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

In the second step when you multiply it by 10, you will get soemthing like 9.9999.....0. There must be a 0 on the end. This is because there are no longer infinity 9s at the end. There are infinity minus 1.

You don't get a zero on the end when you multiply .9999... by ten. The 9s never run out.

Infinity minus one is exactly the same as infinity. You can't do simple arithmetic like subtracting one with inifinities; they are defined as larger than any number. You can't get away from infinity by subtracting finite values unless you subtract an infinite number of them.

[RyanMcE]

I'm going to agree with Alan here... you underestimate the power of infinity, Michael.

Also, take this example:

1/3 = .33333....

and 1/3+1/3+1/3 = 1
and .3333.... + .3333.... + .3333.... = .999999
so......
.99999.... = 1

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

You don't get a zero on the end when you multiply .9999... by ten. The 9s never run out.

Infinity minus one is exactly the same as infinity. You can't do simple arithmetic like subtracting one with inifinities; they are defined as larger than any number. You can't get away from infinity by subtracting finite values unless you subtract an infinite number of them.

[Greg Ross]

Proof by intimidation:

• Horses have an even number of legs.
• Behind they have two legs, and in front they have fore-legs.
• This makes six legs (which is certainly an odd number of legs for a horse.)
• The only number that is both even and odd is infinity.
• Therefore, horses have an infinite number of legs.

Q.E.D.

[Alan Anderson]

In the same spirit:

• If a > b and b > c, then a > c.
• Nothing is better than complete happiness.
• A peanut butter sandwich is certainly better than nothing.
• Therefore, a peanut butter sandwich is better than complete happiness.

Q.E.D.

[nehalita]

not related directly but....

Reading this reminded me of a theorem that I learned in a logics class, i'm sure takers of logic are familiar with this. I forgot what it's called but I personally call it the Law of Contradiction (or The "Anything" Tautology):
[S^~S] => C
This means if you take a statement that is true and its negation (the opposite) is also true, then you can imply anything from this contradiction.

For example, If man can be happy and unhappy at the same time, then the sky is falling. You can literally apply anything since "C" is merely a variable and the statements it can represent is endless.

If anyone wants the proof for this tautology, I can do it. By the way, since this is a tautology, it is always true.

So... I leave with this statement.
If the Ice Breakers liquid ice is ice and not ice, then the secret to hapiness is pi.

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by nehalita

So... I leave with this statement.
If the Ice Breakers liquid ice is ice and not ice, then the secret to hapiness is pi.

I think if you ask Dave Lavery, the secret of happiness is Donuts.

[Denman]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

It's another example of roots gone bad:

There are four 4th roots of 1:
1
-1
i
-i
Raise any of these to the 4th power and you get 1.

The main thing to remember from this is that taking roots is not something you can safely do to both sides of an equation unless you can figure out which root is required in order to satisfy the result.

Aka the fourth roots of unity. You can take roots from any imaginary number. If you think about it geometrically using argand diagrams, the differences between the angle of the roots is the argument of the complex number.
I'll post a better thing tomorrow or when i'm thinking lol

[Dan Zollman]

.333333 is not a perfect representation of 1/3. .9999999 is not a perfect representation of 1. However, this is the best way to express 1/3 and 1 (being 3 * 1/3), and this is what is generally accepted, so .999999 = 1 because that's the way we define such decimals even though it's not perfect.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by worldbringer

.333333 is not a perfect representation of 1/3. .9999999 is not a perfect representation of 1.

However, .333... is a perfect decimal representation of 1/3 ( which equals 3/9), and .999... is a perfect decimal representation of 1 (which equals 9/9). Those three trailing dots ("ellipses") are there for a reason, and that reason is why repeating decimals can be used to represent any rational number.

[phrontist]

Originally Posted by billbo911

I think if you ask Dave Lavery, the secret of happiness is Donuts.

Therefore...

doughnuts = Pi

Since we are operating in dave's universe that means that one of us is greater then Pi, because "if you look closely you will see, something between Pi you and me."

[jdiwnab]

As long as it doesn't have to be math:

This statement is False.

[Greg Ross]

Originally Posted by jdiwnab

This statement is False.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...62&postcount=1

(FYI, the post referenced quotes Jason Rudolph's old signature.... Just in case you were trying to figure out how my post related to the thread. )

[jdiwnab]

Originally Posted by GW (Greg) Ross

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=21862&postcount=1

I saw that on a very old re-run of the original Star Trek series. Kirk and Spock overwelmed the robot by Kirk saying that spock always lies and the Spock says that he is lying. But my version, which I saw elsewhere, is much simpler to set up. One line.

[Dan Zollman]

Originally Posted by jdiwnab

This statement is False.

Don't get me started on Godel...but just for good measure:

All run-of-the-mill mathematical statements are vitally flawed.
4 < 5.
4 = 4

This is a self-referring statement.

This is not a self-referring statement, but it is false.