[ SECRET POST #4022 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

Re: Things you straight up do not get.

[(Anonymous)]

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)]

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.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

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.