I cant belevie ppl cant put this through their heads

[pianistimo]

read the thread again and u'll see mathematicians get very testy.  religion thinks the 1% will be found again.  but, i get what u are talking about.  in almost every subject someone think they're right and everyone else is wrong.  i'm learning if u think u know the answer - still be open to others suggestions because u might not have the whole answer.  i think this is a connundrum in life.  u can't be too perfect, and u can't be too lax.  sort of inbetween.

[prometheus]

religion thinks the 1% will be found again.

Which 1%?

[pianistimo]

well, some believe that things are either black or white.  then, others believe grey is good.
but, we all are grey when it comes down to it - so it doesn't really make a difference what u say --more what u do.  if u give 100% of urself - then even if it's measured at 50% compared to others - it's 100% for u.  (speaking to myself).

there's so many philosophies to life.  i tend to be one of those black/white people.  my husband likes to leave things open (so he doesn't mind grey areas).  it gets tricky when u are dealing with children - but - i think it gives them choices they have to decide.

tax time would be an interesting time to see who is truly the 100% and who is the .99.  i would have to say - an interesting turn around.  for my husband, he's down to exact dollars and cents.  i, on the other hand, tend to think in $10. increments and get frustrated when he wants to spend twenty minutes on a certain field.

[pianolearner]

read the thread again and u'll see mathematicians get very testy.  religion thinks the 1% will be found again.  but, i get what u are talking about.  in almost every subject someone think they're right and everyone else is wrong.  i'm learning if u think u know the answer - still be open to others suggestions because u might not have the whole answer.  i think this is a connundrum in life.  u can't be too perfect, and u can't be too lax.  sort of inbetween.

Not at all correct. Unlike religion, mathematics, like many other subjects, requires proof.

[pianistimo]

then how did u get here?  imagine it had something to do with God.  my beliefs are just that, beliefs.  proofs in mathematics are 'proofs' that someone came up with to prove it.  that's theology, too.  mathematics doesn't have an 'in' on logic any more than any other field.  it all works together, imo.  even though u can't see spirit - just like the wind and the way water moves - u can't say it doesn't exist.  it is in a form that we can't see sometimes and can see other times. infinity is a concept mathematicians can't explain, either.  to them, the universe HAS to be finite.  what if it wasn't?  how would u prove it? i think our concept of finite is eclipsed by God's concept.  to me, his finite is infinite.  how should we reach the ends of the creation?

the scholarly research on the heavens usually says - well, our universe is finite and there might be other universes, etc. etc.  but can they PROVE this?  they had to use the bible to know any of that.  only God can reveal that this heaven and earth are going to be replaced.  it is a spiritual concept. (the one in revelations about a new heavens and a new earth - because the old are 'passed away.')  so - maybe the scientists rely on the bible a little?

[pianolearner]

then how did u get here?  imagine it had something to do with God.  my beliefs are just that, beliefs.  proofs in mathematics are 'proofs' that someone came up with to prove it.  that's theology, too.  mathematics doesn't have an 'in' on logic any more than any other field.  it all works together, imo.  even though u can't see spirit - just like the wind and the way water moves - u can't say it doesn't exist.  it is in a form that we can't see sometimes and can see other times. infinity is a concept mathematicians can't explain, either.  to them, the universe HAS to be finite.  what if it isn't?  how would u prove it?

the scholarly research on the heavens usually says - well, our universe is finite and there might be other universes, etc. etc.  but can they PROVE this?  they had to use the bible to know any of that.  only God can reveal that this heaven and earth are going to be replaced.  it is a spiritual concept. (the one in revelations about a new heavens and a new earth - because the old are 'passed away.')  so - maybe the scientists rely on the bible a little?

In mathematics you have proof by contradiction. If you ask how I got here then I must ask how God got here.

[pianistimo]

we're back to the .99  -  i'd say there's more proof for God than not.  that is because the piece that is missing is faith in what the bible says (and that it is the word of God).  if we have faith like a mustard seed (1%) we can move mountains (huge problems).  that's how the saints got through some very difficult spots in their lives.  God can do anything, solve any problem, etc.

just as we say 'well, my Dad can...'  - i say 'well, my God can...' 

you can't live by mathematics.  only by the Spirit of God is there an element of spiritual understanding.  people try to 'divine' this by other means - but it's really a concept of simplicity.  people look for complex solutions when often it's a simple matter that is being discussed.

[tds]

our annointed pianonut!

[prometheus]

I wonder if she has any idea at all what she is talking about.

[tompilk]

we're back to the .99  -  i'd say there's more proof for God than not.  that is because the piece that is missing is faith in what the bible says (and that it is the word of God).  if we have faith like a mustard seed (1%) we can move mountains (huge problems).  that's how the saints got through some very difficult spots in their lives.  God can do anything, solve any problem, etc.

just as we say 'well, my Dad can...'  - i say 'well, my God can...' 

you can't live by mathematics.  only by the Spirit of God is there an element of spiritual understanding.  people try to 'divine' this by other means - but it's really a concept of simplicity.  people look for complex solutions when often it's a simple matter that is being discussed.

How is there more proof for God than not? I don't mean to be offensive but I think that he is getting his "proof" rather quickly wiped away by science... every time something that was to believed to be God is proved, that does show that some monks who wrote the bible were wrong... if they are wrong in one area, it increases the chances of them being wrong and storymakers in other areas... I think they used it to explain stuff they didnt understand. And I don't believe that God wrote a single world of the bible. He can't if he is transcendant because he is out of this world. Nor can he be the "thing" he is described as in the Bible because if he was directly involved (personal) he is limited because he is immanent... and that IS NOT how the Bible describes him...
Tom

[pianistimo]

if u went to a piano lesson and doubted the authenticity and qualifications of ur teacher, u wouldn't have a very good lesson.

[tompilk]

if u went to a piano lesson and doubted the authenticity and qualifications of ur teacher, u wouldn't have a very good lesson.

 

[donjuan]

what the hell happened to this thread??  cmon pianistimo, do your preaching somewhere else 

[johnny-boy]

It's been hijacked by "Him".

[prometheus]

I guess pianistimo felt insecure about something that happened to her today or yesterday. And now she has to show god she has faith or something.

[pianistimo]

ok.  forget i said anything.  but, i'm still looking for the 1% whether it's faith, or finances.  99% means that 1% is missing.

[monsieurrenard]

the scholarly research on the heavens usually says - well, our universe is finite and there might be other universes, etc. etc.  but can they PROVE this?  they had to use the bible to know any of that.  only God can reveal that this heaven and earth are going to be replaced.  it is a spiritual concept. (the one in revelations about a new heavens and a new earth - because the old are 'passed away.')  so - maybe the scientists rely on the bible a little?

Hi Pianistimo,

I do not know where you have this idea from, as the overwhelming majority of scientific research is positive that the universe is infinite, and that if any other universes do exist they are in another dimension, and have all their own room to be infinite . There are many scientific explanations for why it is infinite, but you would not understand them unless you studied quantum physics.

Also, I don't mean to be rude but you have completely missed the point of the topic. Emmdoubleew was talking about the number 0.99999... with an infinity of 9s after the decimal point. Not 99%, but 99.999999....%

They are very different numbers .

-Monsieur le Renard.

[prometheus]

Quantum physics is the physics on the small scale, the atomic scale. One the universal scale we have relativity. The two theories describe reality fairly accurate but they do 'contradict' each other.

The universe cannot be infite because it had a beginning. The universe started to expand out of a singularity. So it cannot be infinite. It would take an infinite amount of time for the universe to expand to infinite dimensions. Also, the universe will have expanded into nothingness before infinite time has passed.

But yes, Pianistimo missed almost every point other people make because she doesn't see, to care about other peoples opinions. That's fine, but why then is she posting replies on those subjects?

[pianistimo]

admittedly, i'm more on the religion/philosphy side.  i shall sit by and eat brownies and watch people fight over numbers.

ps i am of the opinion that if u want to have a good fight - u have to have a better strategy than this.  it's like u guys are picking ur fingernails.

[cziffra]

admittedly, i'm more on the religion/philosphy side.  i shall sit by and eat brownies and watch people fight over numbers.

ps i am of the opinion that if u want to have a good fight - u have to have a better strategy than this.  it's like u guys are picking ur fingernails.

what?

stop *** posting, please.

[pianistimo]

posing?  as what?  i tell it as i see it and my perspective may be different than the others - but i never tell others who post on my threads to get lost.

if u can - tell me how .99999999999999 works into real life.  it usually stops at dollars and cents - that's all i'm saying.  patterns are interesting like puzzles, though, so i'm not saying that it can't keep a person occupied for a decade or so.

for instance, these cosmic numbers (omega, epsilon, etc.)

www.firstscience.com/site/articles/rees.asp

to me, the concept of the 'big bang' was the creation and that our 'heavens' and stars are relatively young.  but, i don't know all the in's and out's of all the mathematics that goes into these kinds of calculations - so i am curious what it is that mathemticians find to be in numbers that somehow 'proves' this or that.  these are hypothetical numbers to me - but, yet - they seem also to be somehow valid because so many people have studied the universe and found consistents in physics that relate to the other stars and planets (as they mention albert einstein saying).  if it is consistent - then we CAN measure certain things and wonder how this all could be made within a six thousand year time span.  according to biblical story - perhaps the stars elements were spoken into being and contained an appearance of age - as our earth - which may have pre-existed since God was "hovering over the waters" in genesis (implying a worldwide flood - and re-creation of earth).  was this the first ice-age - or one of many?

christians have many questions, too...and i think we all search for answers as to why we exist and why the universe exists and how old it is.  if our sun was created 6,000 years ago - then there must have been another sun - if another universe kept our earth going.  that is the conundrum for an earlier earth (sustaining life). 

[monsieurrenard]

Quantum physics is the physics on the small scale, the atomic scale. One the universal scale we have relativity. The two theories describe reality fairly accurate but they do 'contradict' each other.

The universe cannot be infite because it had a beginning. The universe started to expand out of a singularity. So it cannot be infinite. It would take an infinite amount of time for the universe to expand to infinite dimensions. Also, the universe will have expanded into nothingness before infinite time has passed.

But yes, Pianistimo missed almost every point other people make because she doesn't see, to care about other peoples opinions. That's fine, but why then is she posting replies on those subjects?

Prometheus,

Yes, the "universe" is expanding. The momentum from the big-bang is projecting galaxies outwards, but that doesn't mean you will hit a wall if you get passed the galaxies on the edge of the universe.

Because infinity is such a difficult concept, scientists haves suggested the shape of the universe is actually a klein bottle.

And quantum physics does have things to say about the universe .

-Monsieur le Renard

[prometheus]

Outside the universe there is no space and no time. So nothing exists. There cannot be a wall that stops the universe from expanding. Nothingness cannot be infinite. At least that seems the most reasonable hypothesis to me. Nothing is really nothing.

About the edge of the universe, the universe may have one but that depends on the shape and geometry of the universe. There will be no wall. If you are at the egde of the universe and trying to move over the egde you will move along the edge. Just like the surface of the earth does not have an edge while not being infinite either. But the universe doesn't need to have a totally spherical shape to accomplish this.

Quantum physics has something to do with the universe, yes. But it's not as important as relativity.

[pianistimo]

i googled 'klein bottle.'  now those are interesting.

[pianolearner]

Prometheus,

Yes, the "universe" is expanding. The momentum from the big-bang is projecting galaxies outwards, but that doesn't mean you will hit a wall if you get passed the galaxies on the edge of the universe.

This is just one theory though. Some scientist think that dark matter and all the galaxies in the universe may have enough gravity to eventually stop the expansion and possibly reverse it. A sort of "big crunch". This expansion/collapse process goes on an infinite number of times.

[steve jones]

Hey, come of fellas, everyones entitled to their opinion. No need to get harsh about it.

Personally, I think its HIGHLY arogant to profess to know anything significant about the universe. Its kind of like an ant trying to tell you how best to install Sky TV. We (as humans) dont and probably CAN'T get it.

Ofcourse, that doesnt stop people from trying  And good on them too. Whether they be scientists, philosophers or preachers, they are all trying to explain the same thing. If I had to put my faith anywhere though, it would have to be in the scientists - atleast they use reason in their thinking. Religion, for better or for worse, is at the end of the is utter fantasy.

SJ

[monsieurrenard]

Prometheus,

Some very interesting stuff you said, but could you direct me to peer reviewed articles/books on the matter? I don't mean to be skeptic, just want to see the primary sources for myself.

This is just one theory though. Some scientist think that dark matter and all the galaxies in the universe may have enough gravity to eventually stop the expansion and possibly reverse it. A sort of "big crunch". This expansion/collapse process goes on an infinite number of times.

Pianolearner,

I simply left that part out because it wasnt necessary, but the theory of dark matter necessitates the theory I presented. It isn't an other theory , just layered on top.

-Monsieur le Renard

[prometheus]

This is just one theory though. Some scientist think that dark matter and all the galaxies in the universe may have enough gravity to eventually stop the expansion and possibly reverse it. A sort of "big crunch". This expansion/collapse process goes on an infinite number of times.

Actually, if this theory is the correct one than the galaxies themselves make up only a very small part of the mass of the universe. Most of the mass will be 'dark matter'. The same theory also has a version that claims that dark matter and dark energy has negative energy and thus the energy needed to create a universe is 0. So then the only 'free lunch' is the universe itself.

Dark matter is speculative since there is only indirect evidence for it. There are some anomalies in the movements of galaxies that do not fit with out current theory of gravity. I think that the hypothesis of dark matter is a really far fetched one. I don't like it. I rather use Occam's razor. Gravity must work differently than we think it does. Gravity is actually not understood at all. We don't know what gravity is. The problem is that no one has been able to modify the theory of gravity for it to work on the galactic scale. But this has not been possible to achive.
Because of this the words 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' don't really refer to something that is surely matter or surely energy but rather to something, whatever it is, that does what it is supposed to do; explain the anomalies.

Fine tuning our theory to match the galaxy by introducing new forms of matter and energy, that are unobservable, is kind of strange to me. It may very well be true, but it requires more evidence.

As for the big crunch turning into a big bang. This is pure speculations since we have no idea what caused the big bang. It is just because people find this elegant that it is mentioned.

Also, dark matter and dark energy are often attributed to cause the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Not the other way around. It will be negative energy/matter, thus repelling positive energy/matter.

Do realise that negative energy and matter are different from anti-matter. Anti-matter is positive.

[prometheus]

Monsieurrenard, it is understood by most that the expansion of the universe and the big bang isn't just matter being launched, like an explosing, into the void of space around it. No, the universe itself expanded, like a balloon. The 'big bang' is no explosion. The expansion of the universe means that the spaces betwene all points in the universe is getting bigger. Space-time itself is expanding. Matter isn't launced through space-time, away from the point of the big bang.

The shape of the universe is often thought to be a saddle. But like I said, the nature of the geometry of the universe is not know. So the shape is also unknown.

As for peer-reviewed sources, actually I did read something about the shape of the universe in Scientific American. But that is a popular science magazine. Since I am not a cosmologist I don't really know peer reviewed sources or other academic sources. But as far as I know the views I presented are some of the mainstream ideas on the subject.

There are two different universe we can comment on. The observable universe and the universe as a whole. The observable universe is has a radius of 13,7 million lightyears, so the light, representing the universe, that has been able to reach earth in the time the universe has existed.

But the shape of the universe itself as a whole is more problametic. It is now believed, at least by some, that the unverse can actually be much much, I really mean, much bigger than that what we are able to observe. But that doesn't mean it is infinite.

[lostinidlewonder]

You can infuriate people further by saying.
1/3 = 0.333333 recuring

so 1/3+1/3+1/3 = 0.9 recuring not 1.

[tompilk]

You can infuriate people further by saying.
1/3 = 0.333333 recuring

so 1/3+1/3+1/3 = 0.9 recuring not 1.

so what's 1 divided by 3 then?
Tom

[henrah]

You can infuriate people further by saying.
1/3 = 0.333333 recuring

so 1/3+1/3+1/3 = 0.9 recuring not 1.

1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1/3 * 3, and that's already been proven to be 1.

[pianistimo]

if ur cooking and measure things by just dumping  1/3 could equal 1.

i am of the opinion that if u have some imagination - u can just imagine what's missing.

[musik_man]

so what's 1 divided by 3 then?
Tom

1/3

[deja vu]

Here's the original post:
that .999... and 1 are the same number

They are not!  If you want to round it off to "1" that's fine with me.

.999........ no matter how far it's extended it's still going to come up short from "1".

John

WHAT? don't roll your eyes! you are blatantly wrong.

Okay listen I will attempt to explain.

Divide 1 by 3. It equals a third. agreed?  ¹₃

Okay. Now let's convert "one third" to a decimal. It equals 0.3333333 (recurring, obviously)

Now let's times 0.33333 (recurring) by three. It will equal 0.999999 (recurring)

But that is the same as a third times three. WHICH EQUALS ONE!

[pianistimo]

it depends on which type of measurement u are needing.  if u need a precise answer or a relative answer. 

i mean - bra sizes are now going from 1/2 sizes to 1/4 sizes.  it used to be one size fits all at the 1/2 size.  that's of course a mathematical need for women.

for men, it might be 1/2 sizes in shoes going to mroe precise measurement of 1/4 sizes.

[prometheus]

We aren't talking about bra sizes or measurements. We are talking about the meaning of abstract numbers.

[soliloquy]

tralala.  This thread is super long so I haven't read any of it so I don't know if someone already posted this, but w/e.


*math lesson*

1/9 is .111111111111111etc as we all know.

2/9 is .22222222222222etc

8/9 is .8888888888888etc

9/9 is .99999999999999etc


Nine over Nine, just like five over five or 2 over 2, is one.

[pianistimo]

if increments of 9 were so important, how come u have ten fingers.  i think what we're discussing is how to write up loan papers with an untrustworthy bank.  if people forget that they actually have anything left over (as .1 or convince them that 9/9 =10/10) then it's more for the salesman.  this can add up when u have a large loan. 

but, when it comes payback time - ur down to cents. 

[kony]

this is the most stupid maths thread ever..

the fact is, 0.999999 recurring EQUALS 1. I hope no one after this will argue with this, because this is mathematically correct.

it's all about the concept of limits, which i believe is a high school topic people learn at age 16, 17.

[yuc4h]

Yea, I think we should argue about much more profound things like whether or not Big Bang was created by multidimensional branes colliding along an extra dimension of space.

[henrah]

This is how the Big Bang was created:

https://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&n=2&videoid=752053860&Mytoken=10BB3936-6615-14A7-F32DBD056F79CCC324573267

[anekdote]

A spiral has infinite convolutions. Each and every convolution is governed by a ratio. There is no center or edge to a spiral. It just continues on into infinity. Equivalently, .999~ has a ratio of .9 governing each convolution/repetition of the series. The series is infinite. To claim it has a limit, i.e. that it is equivalent to 1, is the same as simplifying a spiral so that it eventually converges.

So I'm agreeing with prometheus here. .999~ must be a flawed way of writing 1/9.

This is very confusing!

[lostinidlewonder]

Here's a statistics situation which will make a few people annoyed.

I have three boxes, please guess which one has the million dollars inside it. You choose box 1. You are revealed that box 3 doesn't have the million dollars in it and are offered if you want to change your mind about which box has the million in it. Statistically you have more chance of winning the million if you change your mind and choose the other box. It's true.

I wonder what this means about the decision's I make in my life. Would be nice to pick a mystery box.

[johnny-boy]

I disagree.  After revealing #3 it's a new ballgame. Now you have the choice between two; either keeping #1 or exchanging it for #2. So at this point your chances are 50 - 50. Picking one over the other doesn’t change the odds.


Best, John

[Derek]

You guys are bogging yourselves down. The answer is very simple.  .3333etc.  TENDS towards  1/3.  You would literally need an infinite number of 3's after the decimal place for that to actually BE 1/3rd.     When you perform a calculation,  you're either going to use an approximation, i.e.  .333 or .3333  OR you are going to use the actual fraction, 1/3.   If you multiply .333 by 3,  you get .999, which is not 1.  If you multiply a third by three, you DO get 1.  What is so complicated about that?

[johnny-boy]

That's what I've been telling them all along Derek.  I think their professors brainwashed them. It's not really that complicated if one uses common sense.

John

[yuc4h]

I disagree.  After revealing #3 it's a new ballgame. Now you have the choice between two; either keeping #1 or exchanging it for #2. So at this point your chances are 50 - 50. Picking one over the other doesn’t change the odds.

You are so wrong, everyone who has studied calculus of probability can tell. A piano forum isn't really a right place to argue about mathematical subjects since clearly alot of people lack informed opinions about mathematical subjects.

Arguing that that 0.999... ≠ 1 is just about as stupid as arguing that
(8-8)/(4-4) = 2

because
(8-8)/(4-4) = (8*(1-1))/(4*(1-1)) = (8*1)/(4*1) = 8/4 = 2 

[johnny-boy]

You are so wrong, everyone who has studied calculus of probability can tell. A piano forum really isn't a right place to argue about mathematical subjects since clearly alot of people lack informed opinions about mathematical subjects.

I understand what you were getting at. I’ve heard this one many years ago in school (it’s nothing new). The bottom line is that you have two choices in the final decision - that's 50 -50.

John

[yuc4h]

Maybe in practice, but not in theory