On the timeline of everything, at point 0, all matter was infinitely compressed and dimensionless, right? Then, it exploded, and produced the Big Bang…
We know that the original mass produced by the big bang should have been very bumpy to produce galaxies like it did, and this was confirmed...
I do not know of a way to take a function outside of another unknown function. If you know what the function “D” is, though, just replace it with the formula inside that function, and simplify.
The problem is that, if you do not know what the function D looks like, you do not know how it is...
Yes, that is valid. I would call it recursive, but I am a programmer, not a mathematician. Replacing a function with a variable in that case, though, is fine.
Just to be sure, though…
When you see x = some-repeating-decimal, it actually means x = limit(some-function-that-would-generate-that-repeating-decimal)?
Okay, okay, sorry – lack of comprehension on my part. That, and math teacher telling me I was right when I was not (sigh)… I apologize.
I get the math, but still do not understand it in my mind, how a number infinitely close to another number is that number…
It is true. Maybe we are just arguing about the applicability of the “equal” sign, but in the strictest term of the word, ONE divided by THREE does *NOT* EQUAL 0.3333 (Repeating)
Just because a number is infinitely close to another number, does not make them the same.
If you wrote a...
Maybe I am not reading it properly, but 0.3333… (With an infinite expansion of decimal 3’s) is NOT = to 1/3, it is just infinitely close.
Anytime you get a repeating decimal, you actually have an answer which is infinitely close to the true answer, but not the true answer. The repeating 3 is...
Uhm… maybe someone already said this, but 0.333… comes infinitely close to 1/3rd, but is not 1/3rd. 0.999… repeating comes infinitely close to 1, but is not 1.
Infinitely close, for all practical purposes, might as well be “equal”, which is why they say “1/3 = 0.333…” instead of “1/3...