case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2018-01-07 03:34 pm

[ SECRET POST #4022 ]


⌈ Secret Post #4022 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 45 secrets from Secret Submission Post #576.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Re: Things you straight up do not get.

(Anonymous) 2018-01-07 09:19 pm (UTC)(link)
How 3.3(repeating) times 3 equals 1 and not 9.9(repeating). Or rather, why 9.9(repeating) = 1 and not the closest possible number to 1.

Yes, it's been explained to me. Yes, I get that the only way to write 1/3 in numerals has to be 3.3(repeating), and so it has to by definition equal 1 when tripled. But I can't wrap my brain around why it doesn't ALSO indicate something that is not quite 1.

Re: Things you straight up do not get.

(Anonymous) 2018-01-07 09:55 pm (UTC)(link)
not the closest possible number to 1.

But there's no such thing as the closest possible number to 1

I mean, conceptually, what exactly would that mean

Re: Things you straight up do not get.

(Anonymous) 2018-01-07 10:01 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't get how it's conceptually weird. We write "infinity", and we recognize you can express an infinite number of differences between any two numbers. So why couldn't we express 9.9(repeating) as the number that is the closest possible to 1 without being 1? Whether or not it's mathematically useful, I have no idea. But there are numbers we use, like pi, that have infinite decimals that are useful.

Re: Things you straight up do not get.

(Anonymous) 2018-01-07 10:16 pm (UTC)(link)
as the number that is the closest possible to 1 without being 1

So the problem is that such a number would have to be infinitely small. For any finite number, there's always another finite number that's closer to 1. The only finite number for which there is not another number closer to 1 is 1 itself. So the idea of "the closest number possible to 1 without being 1" has to be smaller than any finite number.

Re: Things you straight up do not get.

[personal profile] cbrachyrhynchos 2018-01-07 10:24 pm (UTC)(link)
We have the concept of a "limit approaching" in calculus, but 1/3 * 3 doesn't qualify. And I believe that you can prove that limit wouldn't be a rational number, so it wouldn't be a repeating decimal.
Edited 2018-01-07 22:28 (UTC)
thewakokid: (Default)

Re: Things you straight up do not get.

[personal profile] thewakokid 2018-01-07 10:13 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh, I KNOW. It took me about a week of arguing with the math guy at work before it hit me. think I mentioned it here on FS when I found out.
Edited 2018-01-07 22:14 (UTC)

Re: Things you straight up do not get.

(Anonymous) 2018-01-07 10:25 pm (UTC)(link)
SA

Lol just to demonstrate how much I suck at math, I accidentally wrote 3.3 and 9.9 instead of... 0.3 and 0.9. That's probably indicative of a bigger problem hah.

Re: Things you straight up do not get.

(Anonymous) 2018-01-08 09:57 am (UTC)(link)
Holy shit I get what you'r all talking about now *felt dumb as fuck trying to read everything with the 3.3 and 9.9 numbers*
soldatsasha: (Default)

Re: Things you straight up do not get.

[personal profile] soldatsasha 2018-01-07 11:19 pm (UTC)(link)
This is one of those few abstract math concepts that actually does make sense to me. Or rather, most explanations don't make sense, but the idea that if I have infinite 0.9s they just equal a 1 does.

My answer to the OPs question would be, almost any kind of complicated math stuff. I'm good at basic geometry, but anything more than that and I'm lost. I took algebra 1+2 in high school and I'm really not sure how I passed at all because once we hit square roots and graphs and shit I had no idea what was going on at all. But in my defense I'm pretty sure I have dyscalculia.

Re: Things you straight up do not get.

(Anonymous) 2018-01-08 03:19 am (UTC)(link)
I took algebra 1+2 in high school and I'm really not sure how I passed at all because once we hit square roots and graphs and shit I had no idea what was going on at all

I so feel you on this. I actually manage to pull an...86% I think? But it was just a constant, never ending war with my homework, and I studied like twice as much for that one class as I studied for all my other classes combined, and ultimately I never felt like I genuinely understood any of it. I always felt like I was basically guessing.