Whatever it is it should be infinitesimal.
I just want to thank Stealth Potato for starting this pit thread and calling my attention to that other thread. Yep, the question was answered by post 5 at the latest, at which point I stopped reading. But it brings me back to my math student days… I’d forgotten what the proof for this was. Thanks!
(and yes, .999… =1. Really!)
We’ve reached a particularly delicious turn of events in the main thread. In an effort to get **777777 **to understand the relationship between 1 and 0.999… I’ve been trying for days to get him to point out what he imagines to be the error in a simple proof that 1/3 = 0.333…
Today he finally responded by inverting the steps in the proof so that the conclusion comes at the beginning, and then claiming that all I’ve done is assert what I’m trying to prove!
Yes, if you invert a proof so that the conclusions comes at the beginning instead of the end, the proof is not longer valid.
Looking at the subsequent posts (which certainly may be nothing more than attempts to backpedal), I think Lots of 7s’ complaint is actually that you said at one point that x = 0.333… and then said at another point that x = 1/3. In other words, he thinks it’s invalid to prove the thing you were trying to prove, because it’s just the same as blindly asserting it.
In any sort of discussion of a crackpot theory in science, the crackpot starts by claiming that the math (which he can’t do) would totally support his crackpot theory, and the only thing keeping him back from being properly recognized as a brilliant, revolutionary scientist is his lack of familiarity with the trivial mathematical details. He groks the true science beyond the math, and he just needs someone to put his amazing theory in mathematical form so that the fools in the establishment can grasp it. When shown that the math in fact disagrees with him, the crackpot then inevitably claims that math is just invalid and can be used to prove anything. This routine always happens with science crackpots, but I’ve never seen it happen in math itself before. Well done, A Bunch of 7s, you magnificent bastard.
Researches comparing how different professions react used 2 + 2 as a baseline measurement. The lawyer states that it is 4 based on the precedent of English common law. The physicist stated that it is 4 based on the axiom structure of addition. However the accounted needed to know how much the researchers needed it to be.
I have enjoyed the presence of bunch of 7s. I think the thread is interesting not so much for any conclusion that it has come to – for me, that was resolved long before the thread started and if it wasn’t it was certainly settled by the time the first decent proof came around.
Rather the thread’s value lies in the fact that is has explored the various ways of resolving the issue and spawned some interesting mathematical spin-offs that have considerable merit. It has also been illustrative of the nature and level of confusion that exists in the minds of many and the difficulty encountered in trying to assimilate mathematical ideas. It is worth remembering that Math can be counter-intuitive and the particular struggles that individuals encounter can vary. They have certainly been different for each of the string of dissenters that have emerged during the course of the thread.
That said, our heptadigital friend has been particularly obtuse. He once stated that he is willing to admit his mistakes. I am yet to see any actual evidence for this. He seems to carry a reasonable amount of mathematical knowledge and have no comprehension of how those thoughts are connected. Don’t give the man a bulldozer. he knows how to drive it but doesn’t know what it is for.
HA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Wow.
No. He puts up a fight and a brave front, but I’d put the level of knowledge at above average for high school. Nothing especially noteworthy. My own guess is he’s a bright high school student who’s a big fish in a small pond. The lack of rigor and woeful lack of knowledge in analysis means he almost certainly isn’t familiar with lower level math major classes or even some advanced classes at the better high schools.
Going to college and having his academic ass handed to him by dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of more talented classmates should disabuse him of any notions of special talent or insight. That or make him turn insufferable in a doomed attempt to salvage his pride.
By which I meant that he is able to give the formula for the sum of an infinite geometric series and other things of that level. But yeah, I probably overstated it.
He does know enough that if he was open, it would be possible to teach him.
Accounting is the highest form of mathematical thought … for truly … money is the only thing worth counting.
7777777 and Cognitive Tide, separated at birth?
I think so.
Probability question:
What is the probability that two posters each have:
Their entire posting history in the same thread
Take a position contrary to received wisdom
Seem unperturbed when their cod mathematics is demoslished (when some simple error is pointed out)
Make no concessions or apologies for said errors
Are never seen at the same time
Think that copying and pasting their previous posts when they didn’t ellicit the “OMG you’re right, here’s your Nobel Prize” response expected first time around
Think that it is on others to disprove their theories (I mean half-assery)
Know just enough maths to make idiots of themselves
?
Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe you have been trolled – tag-team or sock-puppets, or, crazy coincidence, it doesn’t matter – neither on them can be for real.
While Hooray for 7s’ schtick seems to be focused entirely on 0.999… = 1, Cognitive Tide’s current rambling nonsense is about how recursion is some scary thing only he’s smart enough to understand, and how the NSA is suppressing discussions of recursion to avoid frightening the sheep. Or something like that.
There’s a fine line between a troll and a fucking idiot, and it’s really not worth making the distinction at all.
I’ve notice there’s no overlap too. But there’s too much no overlap!
Imagine you and me, the only two sane posters in a thread (okay, just run with it), arguing against a mass of closed-minded idiots: do you not think we’d occasionally say something along the lines of “yeah, what Itself/TGU just said”?
And if 7s doesn’t agree with Cognitive Dissonance (or vice versa) how come they’ve never said?
But when all is said and done, there’s a fine line between one troll and two trolls, and it’s really not worth making the distinction at all.
“Cognitive Dissonance”
Hehe, not a troll guys I assure you, that was a good one and got a chuckle out of it.
“NSA is suppressing discussions of recursion to avoid frightening the sheep”
Hmmm, where to go with this one.
If something is conceptually and practically doable…and what we know to be true typically
lags what is being done by something like 30 years… would it not be rational to deduce that
if it was doable 30 years ago (and likely years before that)…it is currently being done?
And yeah, it wasnt 30 minutes…but whooaaa that was some major lag there in the pattern recognition followup.
[Double-post. Would one of the mods please delete this post?]
That’s a fair point. It’s still possible that 777777 has wandered off and Cognitive Tide has superseded him in the thread as the token crackpot, but I can’t rule out either possibility definitively.
It’s “if he were open.” Like .9999… = 1 it may not make sense. It just is. 
This fella Cognitive Tide smells familiar … I’ve seen him post here before under yet another username. I’d like to take a bite out of him and see if he tastes like sock puppet troll.