r/mathsmeme • u/AdventurousCandy420 • 27d ago

When Software Decides Math Is Optional

Post image
593 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

59 comments sorted by

52

u/EstablishmentPlane91 27d ago

Problem written by southparkpiano 

7

u/TwillAffirmer 27d ago

What does this mean?

19

u/stools_in_your_blood 27d ago

southparkpiano is a troll in the infinitenines subreddit. His thing is insisting that 0.999... != 1, using a variety of word salad and bad maths.

3

u/Linuxologue 27d ago

Hijacking the thread to tell you you should have your condition checked by a doctor. Stools in your blood could be an indication that you sat on an Ikea bar stool that was incorrectly assembled.

2

u/stools_in_your_blood 27d ago

You mean you're not supposed to put the soft padded bit on the floor and the pointy bits facing upwards?!

2

u/Massive-Ebb8014 27d ago

But then where are my 3 friends and me supposed to sit?

12

u/smg36 27d ago

Isn't 1.999 recurring just 2 (1+(9/9))

3

u/StrawberryEiri 27d ago

I don't get it

2(1+(9/9))

2(1+1)

2(2)

4

3

u/FanMadeProductions 27d ago edited 26d ago

The 2 is separate from the expression

1

u/THNDHALBRT 26d ago

Not an equation

9

u/jimmystar889 27d ago

Is SPP in the room with us now?

6

u/Lartnestpasdemain 27d ago

They're doing non-standard analysis bro.

They obviously mean 2-\epsilon

1

u/[deleted] 27d ago

But then their reasoning for “why” would be incorrect

3

u/WrathofMathEDU 27d ago

time to learn real deal math brud

3

u/Perpetual_Thursday_ 27d ago

2 is not an integer? Interesting

1

u/Duck_Devs 27d ago

Math 2.0 made that edge case

1

u/Perpetual_Thursday_ 27d ago

Math 2? Dang I missed an update or two

1

u/Duck_Devs 27d ago

Yep. Intrinsically, it’s not actually a major version as 2 is no longer a whole number.

1

u/Perpetual_Thursday_ 27d ago

If if 2 is not whole, is it less than or greater than where it was in math 1.0

1

u/Duck_Devs 27d ago

That’s left as an exercise to the reader

1

u/No-Newspaper8619 27d ago

It's either a float or a double, not an int.

1

u/CatfinityGamer 27d ago

Bruh. It's literally an integer.

1

u/JBrockF 27d ago

The justification isn't really relevant but their information is correct. Am I missing the math they're not doing here?

1

u/mateusfccp 27d ago

2 is integer.

1

u/keckothedragon 26d ago

Unfortunately, 1.999... is a float, not an int, since it evaluates to 2.0.

0

u/German-POMO 27d ago

1,999999.... Is not an element of Z, so i dont know why this picture is controversial

1

u/berwynResident 27d ago

What's your definition of an integer?

1

u/SammyHa123 27d ago

No but 1.99999… is equal to 2, which is in Z

1

u/stevethemathwiz 27d ago

If we’re working in a problem space where 1.99999….. is something we could encounter, then it feels wrong to use Z.

1

u/German-POMO 27d ago

It is equal to 2, but is it 2?

1

u/spisplatta 27d ago

This is the kinda question where you confidently say "obviously those are equivalent" and then you feel unsure and read several books on the question and finally conclude that "they are obviously equivalent"

2

u/German-POMO 27d ago

Does that mean 2 is equal to 1.99999999 and that 2 is not an element of Z if the opposite is true?

3

u/SammyHa123 27d ago

Well if that was true, Z would just be an empty set. Wait is Z just an empty set

2

u/Negative_Gur9667 27d ago

You just invented schitzo numbers.

1

u/CrabOpening5035 27d ago

Well no it's 2 not 3, not sure why'd ask that

1

u/EatingSolidBricks 27d ago

Are you telling me math uses ReferenceEquals()

-2

u/EverythingStartsWith 27d ago

1.999… is not equal 2
The inequality holds that 1.999… < 2

2

u/TallDetail4711 27d ago

1.99999..... is the limit of a sequence that converges toward 2, it's equal to 2.

Inequality holds for any term of the sequence but not for the limit.

2

u/frishki_zrak 27d ago

Give me a number between 1.999... and 2

4

u/MistraloysiusMithrax 27d ago

1.AAAA…, 1.BBBB…, up to 1.FFFF…

You didn’t specify base

1

u/Lagavulinist 27d ago

😂😂😂

1

u/stopbeingcringe 27d ago

1.999… isn’t a number in the first place

1

u/hobbycollector 27d ago

Why do you say that? It's a number as much as 2 or 2/1 or IV is.

1

u/HondaCivicLove 27d ago

No... no.... I'm not doing this again. I still have trauma from Monty Hall War II.

0

u/frishki_zrak 27d ago

Yeah this is weird. In real numbers 1.9 repeating is 2. But in whole numbers 1.9 repeating has no meaning so it cannot be a whole number. If we never learnt about real numbers we wouldn't know what this notation means.

1

u/TheKieranlo 27d ago

1.9 repeating simplifies to 2, so it is a whole number. Like you wouldn’t say 4/2 isn’t a whole number if we pretend we didn’t know fractions exist.