I pick 42, therefore 100%.

I pick 41.999... repeating.

curiously, that's the same as picking 42.

No it's not 42, it's infinitely close to 42 the same way that 1/inf isn't zero ;D

41.999... is the same as 42 in the same way that 0.999... is the same as 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

We just love arguing about things we're not fully educated about. ;D

To whom is this directed?

I'm fully educated on the matter I'm discussing. It's one the first oddities that piqued my interest in number theory.

0.999… is 1. It's simply another way of writing it; and a very bad way at that. 12/3 is a bad way of writing 4, and 0.333… is a bad way of writing 1/3. But in the end, they're all equal.

JaFF is so nub. Assuming equal likelihood and all, clearly he was never educated about the world.

OMG

so

but

so

Therefore 1 must be equal to 42

So
If this is true, all numbers must be equal to 42
Which means your chance of picking 42 out of all integers or real numbers is 1/1 or 100%

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Nov 9 2011, 1:47 am by K_A.

Not quite

∞ × 0 is undefined =p

So I herd the multiplication operation works something like a * b = 0 + a + a + a + a.... with the amount of times we add a equals to b. From that we can say a * 0 = not adding a to anything at all. So then......not adding infinity to zero at all is....undefined?

Infinity doesn't work like normal numbers do in every case

That is exactly why 0.999999... is 1.
3x(1/3) = (0.3333333)x3
1 = 0.999999.....

One interesting way to look at it is to use distributivity. a(b+c) = ab + ac.
So for normal numbers, lets take some integer 7, for an easy example.
0*7
=0*(1+1+1+1+1+1+1)
=0*1 + 0*1 + 0*1 + 0*1 + 0*1 + 0*1 + 0*1
= 0+0+0+0+0+0+0
= 0
The operation is finite, terminating after 7 steps.
If we represent infinity as a sum of 1's, the same way we represented 7, it would be a non-finite sequence: 1+1+1+1+ . . . + 1 + . . .
If we try to do the same thing
0*(infinity)
=0*(1+1+1+1+ . . . + 1 + . . .)
=0*1 + 0*1 + 0*1 + 0*1 + . . . + 0*1 + . . . <- and here we run into a problem. The elipses present an unusual problem, because there are infinitely many 1's, we would have to distribute infinitely many 0's to those 1's. You could spend all of eternity distributing the 0's, but there would still be a tail of +1+1+1+1. . . to distribute the 0's to still. So for any non-zero distribution time, we still have an infinite amount of 1's remaining, so the sum would still be infinite. If you could distribute the 0's instantly, in zero time, killing every single "1" at once, the sum would be 0. Neither of these options really make a good realistic definition for the case 0*infinity, especially considering infinity isnt really a number. There are other ways to think about it I'm sure, but this one makes the most sense to me.

I always just liked to think of infinity as "so big" that even multiplying it by zero might not make it zero.

The ideas of infinity and zero I tend to describe mentally not as numbers but ideas with certain constraints (but less so zero) and such. Any number times infinity is still infinity, and any number times zero is still zero. So you'd reach an infinite (like described above with the 1+1+1 thing) non concluding thing.

Hypothetically it's impossible to correlate an integer with it's divisible factor when the square root exceeds 0 therefore it must be rooted to infinity multiple times and be rooted by a decimal 0 which could freeze the integer causing it to become a new formula.

Could you put that in english? Or math notation? I maybe just got math-trolled?

Math trolled, what he said doesn't actually mean anything.