Super cheap:

12: 6+6+(6/∞)

I'm trying for exactly 3 sixes.

1: 6^(6-6)
2: (6+6)/6
3: sqrt(6/.¯66)
4: 6*.¯66
5: 6-(6/6)
6: 6^(6/6) or (6*6)/6
7: 6+(6/6)
8: (6+6) * .¯6
9: 6/.¯66
10: 6.¯6/.¯6
11: 66/6
12: 6+6+(6/∞)

no more callers, please, we have a clock.

WTG Happy Monkey!

Brilliant, but for goodness' sake, don't build that thing during 2012. It'll open a portal to another dimension.

oh and
:eyebrow: ummm ... I'm going to have to look into that.

One could also have been 9 ^ (9-9).

If you don't think they're equal, please show me the difference.

0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000areyouboredyet000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000..........0000000001

right. I don't see a difference either.

:)

:D Look harder.

Nope... :)

AN INFINITE NUMBER OF ZEROS GO HERE

and we don't actually get to this part, do we?

This is a quasi-mathematical version of Mornington Crescent, isn't it?

1/9 = .¯1
9/9 = .¯9
1 = .¯9

HM, that's a tour de force !

It deserves an entry in both The (Blank) of the Beast and Hall of Fame threads !

Well done.

Thanks!

beest and I are kind of lost by this notation. What does ".¯ " mean? it appears here to mean /9 -is that correct, and if so, why and how and all that stuff? srsly, we both have relatively high mathematical skills and have never seen this notation before. please 'splain, lucy!

(I wonderd if I was going nuts or senile, so I waited for beest's confirmation before I asked.... :lol:

My math skills are feeble at best, but I think that's as close to repeating decimal that one can get with this text entry interface.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overline scroll down to the math and science section

it's a notation that means repeat what follows the overbar. so, the decimal notation for 1/3 would be 0.33333333..forever. Since I don't have the easy chops to make the bar appear OVER the 3, I use the overbar (as a separate character) to precede the 3, but it means the same.

jinx you owe me a coke.

oh right, thanks.. Is there really no way to get the bar over the top? gotta admit I've never had to try.......

Yes, in other more sophisticated editors, sure. In this editor, I didn't find a way in the timeframe I was happy with and I found an acceptable substitute. Meh. If you do find it, please publish it.

I'm kind of surprised it's not avaialable in the special alt characters -after all, you can get every vowel with every possible accent and umlaut -this is numberist! After all, they only need to provide 10 characters.....

http://www.tedmontgomery.com/tutorial/altchrc.html

I found lots of pages that discussed the unicode key sequences for it... then I found quick and dirty, done.

The Very Best Hat For Breast Feeding Baby
 

The Boob Beanie

Attachment 37194


Hell. Yeah!

:lol2: with double bonus points for being racially inclusive.

Great idea. I hope it latches on.

It's great the we at the cellar keep abreast of these trends.

And I did it by copy-and-pasting your overbar.

I tried cutting and pasting a real overbarred number from a wikipedia page (i even opened an editing page to change it from a 9 to a 6), but the bar got eaten when moving to the advanced editor, so I went with yours.

Oh, it will. lulz!

I didn't want to click on the link. Do they only come in baby sizes?

from the artist's etsy link:

Depends on the baby, apparently. $15 plus $4.95 shipping.

But I'm not a baby!

You've got to be somebody's baby.

Or, find a baby with a head the same size as yours, order the beanie for the baby, but trade candy for the beanie when the hat comes in the mail. That should be easy.

Plus, the artist doesn't say she needs a baby, she needs a size. Certainly you have a size, don't you?

and stare in wonderment at its mother!

This has been messing with my head for some time.

(i'm having trouble with the notation. I'll write r to mean recurring last digit.)

okay, the argument is:

1/9 = .1r
2/9 = .2r
3/9 = .3r
etc
8/9 = .8r
so
9/9 = .9r
But since any x/x = 1
9/9 = 1
hence .9r = 1

Hmm. Troubling.

Intuitive reply.
No it bloody doesn't. See, this is 1. It starts with a 1. That over there is 0.9r. It starts with either a zero or a nine, depending, but either way, it is different from 1. Any fool can see that.

Think of the number line. Zero in the middle, negatives off to the left, positives off to the right. .9r would be immediately to the left of 1. We zoom in, closer and closer; .9r is always abutting 1 on 1's left, but never quite in the same place. Keep zooming, it is always there.

Okay, that's not very convincing if you weren't already convinced.

Here's a better counter argument.

0.9 < 1
0.99 < 1
0.999 < 1
0.9999 < 1

etc

0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 < 1

Observation: adding more nines does not change the fact that it is less than one, no matter how many you add.

so,

0.9r < 1.

Hence, 0.9r =/= 1.

So, apparently, 0.9 both is and is not equal to one.

Man, I think we just accidentally the whole mathematics. Or my head.

By coincidence, I added the explanation to my sig line just a day or so ago while exploring IM's thread on Number Associations.

x ≠ y ⇔ ! (x = y)

See, kings can work together !:rolleyes:

Hi Zen,

If 0.̅9̅ were not equal to 1, there would have to be a difference d.

For any value d you can find an exponent n, so that 1/10^(n) >= d > 1/10^(n+1)

e.g. d = 0.0002
0.001 >= d > 0.0001

But if that value d were the difference, then it is obvious that

(1 - d) < 1 - 10^(n+1) < 0.̅9̅

e.g. 0.9998 < 0.9999 < 0.̅9̅

So, obviously the difference is less than d=0.0002 or any d you choose.

:3_eyes: :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

How can you tell they're not in the same place? There's no space between them. No matter how much you zoom in, that space will never open up.Infinity is different. For example:
No matter how many finite numbers you add together, you will never reach infinity - unless you add an infinite number of numbers.
Likewise, no matter how many nines you add to 0.9999..., you will never reach one - unless you add an infinite number of nines.
That's the page I tried to copy-and-paste the proper barred number from.

I think you'll have to subtract a finite number of decimal points to ever get to 1.

'Sall I know. 'Sall I'm sayin'.

Attachment 37552

I don't understand. Subtract decimal points?

So, assuming that it is not merely a phone that looks like a mouse, or a mouse that looks like a phone (much like the mouses that look like mice or eight balls), I presume that like many hybrid devices, it does neither duty well.

I opened the page and just saw Wolf's post.
How disappointing to scroll up and see it's that kind of mouse.

robotic kitchen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFEX5zNvP9M

it's like doing all the work of being in the kitchen without the sense of smell telling you what to add and how much...

The infinite number of nines will still be less than one. You'll have to remove the decimal point completely to get to one. As in, a decimal point, then a billion nines is still less than one.

The number of nines is irrelevant, it'll always be less than one.

A billion nines is less thamn one. Infinite nines is equal to one.

The number of nines is irrelevant, unless it's an infinite number. Then it's one. No matter how you look at it mathematically.

1/9 = .1111...
9/9 = .9999... = 1

10x = 9.9999...
x = .9999...
9x = 9
x = 1


This seems to be what you are doing.

:lol: This may never die.

Approaching the problem for another angle.

1 - 0.9r = ?

either = 0 , or = 0.000r1 (that is, an infinite string of zeros with a one at the end. Which I know makes no sense, but this is maths so never mind)

So what does happen if you divide one by zero?

either 1 / 0 = 0
or
1 / 0 = 0.0r1

My intuition is the latter. Which makes me think that 0.0r1 is a coherent concept, and that it is the difference between 0.9r and 1.

Yes, I just divided by zero on the 29th of February, 2012. WTF am I doing? :lol:

Zero. If there are infinite zeros, there is no end for there to be a one on. Neither. Are you claiming that 0.0r1 x 0 = 1?As you seem to be aware, division by zero is not possible.

:facepalm:

Total brain fart.
I was thinking about dividing by infinity.

Ahem...

And in response to
I think this is an impossible construction.
Infinity is not a number. It is a concept defined in terms of numbers but it is not itself a number. No number is infinite.

Right. Infinity is not a number. So all examples of a billion nines, or a billion zeros followed by one, do not apply.

So if 0.0 is followed by infinite zeros, you can't put a one after it. There is no "after it". 0.0r1 = 0.0r = 0.

Therefore 1 - 0.9r = 0.0r = 0.
One divided by infinity = 0.0r = 0.

ftfy
Ok, thats all I got.

I'm not convinced by that.

We define i as the square root of minus one, despite the fact that there is no number which can be multiplied by itself to produce minus one.

I see no reason to not define "infinitesimality" as 0.0recurring01.

Mathematicians just make shit up all the time, but they call it "stipulating". Why can't I? :p

Let's do some math with 0.0r1

10 x 0.0r1 = 0.0r1

(10 x 0.0r1) - (1 x 0.0r1) = (9 x 0.0r1)
0.0r1 - 0.0r1 = ( 9 x 0.0r1)
0 = ( 9 x 0.0r1)
0/9 = 0.0r1
0 = 0.0r1

So even if we stipulated that putting a one "after" infinite zeros was syntactically meaningful, it would still equal zero.

That's why it's an imaginary number.

When you have a PhD in a field no one can understand, you can get away with a lot. Hell, they got the New Math over on us. It's all gravy from that point forward.

I'm trying to remember why this is in the Products ... thread. I'm too lazy to go back and search for the origin.

This.

cause they're timesing some numbers.

:Long hard stare:

even by my standards, that was pretty bad. :D

Maybe there should be a subforum...or even just a thread for all the mathiness that goes on around here.