Utopianflame

Laura it is a result in number theory that any infinite recurring decimal is a rational number. EDIT : http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~fleck/ratnote.pdf its explained and proved here. In the case of 0.3... that rational number is 1/3. Rocco, x= infinity is invalid notation, its against the rules of mathematics.

How about instead of joining just to be an annoyance and a jerk you could actually pitch in the conversation? And in my honest opinion, I think 1/3 =/= .333.... Mathematics is a crazy subject that no one knows the right answers in. Crazy subject maybe, however mathematics isnt subjective(with few exceptions such as the continuum hypothesis), your opinion is wrong and thats a fact.

As right now I dont feel like typesetting the no number between 0.9... and 1 proof i'm going to stick with saying Cambridge University says 0.9... = 1 and leave it at that. EDIT: apparently the censor doesnt like Nrich, which is part of Cambridges universities milenium mathematics project. http://nrich.maths.org/askedNRICH/edited/ 1347 .html Or you can just go find it (or the many many forums discussions on the same subject there).

Your classifications of what you consider to be a number are wrong. Number sets starting with the smallest and moving from there, each set is a subset of the one that follows it. N - The set of natural numbers 1,2,3,4,.... Z - The set of integers ...-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3... Q - The set of the rational numbers - that is any number that can be expressed as an element of Z divided by an element of N. R - The set of reals, all non-complex numbers (this includes irrational numbers). C - The set of complex numbers , any number that can be expressed as a+ib where a and b are elements of R. Just because something isnt nice doesnt make it not a number. Pi is still a number, just because you cant write it down exactly on a sheet of paper doesnt make it non existant. Just because a number is the limit of a function doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

Jaziek as you have a finite number of decimals the positions change when you divide by 10, as such your wrong. Compfreak, infinity can not be used in equations as a number and that has been the case since GH Hardy. However infinity is perfect correct used in the context of a limit of a function as a variable tends to infinity. While algebraic demonstrations of 0.9...=1 are invaraibly sloppy Fastortoise's proof is perfectly correct as are a number of analysis (which is what you would call the foundations of calculus really) based methods.

Soma, your terminology is wrong as is your conclusion. 0.9... isnt an approximation of anything, it is a representation. The elipsis simply means that the preceding characters are repeated forever. In particular 0.9... is a representation of the sum , (-1)^2 and -e^(i*pi), they are all exactly the same number. Just because they look different doesnt mean that they are. Also Pi, and e are numbers, transcendant numbers, yes, but numbers nethertheless.

The square root of -1 can not really exist either, but you would be amazed at the vast number of things its used in and the mathematics thats built up around it.

1.00000000-> -0.99999999-> -------------- 0.<-00000001 The infinity goes in the direction of the decimal point forever, but there is still always going to be that 1 on the far right. Infinity does not end, there is no far right for that 1 to be on, as such it doest exist. 99.999 isnt equal to 100, 99.9... is. The difference is that in the latter case the 9's after the decimal point go on forever

Courtesy of the queen we avoided having 'president' Tony as head of state, so she is quite fine by me.

I think there is an error in your math. When you move the 4/2n^2 to the outside of the sigma notation, you dropped the 2 in the denominator, using 4/n^2 rather than 2/n^2 . Well spotted but just a typo, there shouldnt be a two in the denominator in the first place, I will fix it in a moment. And fixed one typo that got copy-pasted.

"What did I do to make death reject me?" - PST

Well I will show you how to do the first one, its simple enough although I wont do any of the required convergence tests as judging by the level you appear to be at you wont have been taught them and thus wont be expected to use them. I'm not going to coment on the second one as I will almost certainly vastly over complicate what you are being asked to do (as i'm not quite certain which limit process your

Sorry HOW is this different to cook-x? Its not, just a different skill that gets the complete 1 step automation treatment.

RSN: Utopianflame House Location: Yanille Timeframe: Now for the next hour or two (and whenever i'm on while i'm working through 3.5k bones( Server(s): 9 currently. Construction Level: 69 - Gilded alter but thats about it How to Contact: PM me or just turn up Additional info:

I'd assumed that it was a company that Constant Tedder set up, but it has never been explained. I am unfamiliar with the practice you refer to. Its a service accountants and some specialised companies offer sometimes, basically they register Private limited companies with companies house (the registrar) and sell them onto people wishing to set up a private limited company for a fee to save them the hassle of the paper work.

I assume they bought a pre-registered off the shelf company and changed the name to Jagex.

Well I was an idiot earlier on and clicked on the link (not having noticed this thread at the time and not paying much attention) but did not entered any details(forum link wouldnt ask for it, and I dont have Java installed on FF) it appears it is only a social engineering scam. Virus scanner showed nothing and my HJT log is clear.

Reportedly the neelde only works when you use a different needle and have the new needle in your inventory :| That was one of the first things I tried after seeing the needle wouldnt work, doing so gave me normal exp for blue hide (70), this is with the choose tool type version, volatile may be different.

It is by implication in the first amendment, namely the establishment clause and free exercise clause which together give you 'seperation of church and state'.

Actually its dire Saruman. This on the otherhand is a good deal better - http://lordibelieve.org/time/AgeEarthTC.htm , for one thing the author has intellectual honesty (the flood is covered during it).

NVM being stupid, I used the one where you can choose it. That gives 80 exp for a mith bar.

The needle doesnt work at all :(

The generally accepted esitmate for the age of the earth is ~4.5 billion years, although there is a solid lower bound of 3.8 billion years dated from earth rocks (this may actually be higher now, in september they found earth rocks that are currently dated to ~4.2-4.3 billion years) establishing the upper bound is the hard bit and is generally done with isochron dating on lead isotopes with assumptions on the formation of the solar system. So while it is possible the universe is older than we think, it is certainly not much younger and Saruman44's age of the earth being 1 million years or younger is unequivocally wrong.

And if it were two girls would you find it sick?

Welcome to the runesmith club.