Anyone wants to explain it? :D
https://www.woodworkforums.com/attach...1&d=1205219254
Printable View
Anyone wants to explain it? :D
https://www.woodworkforums.com/attach...1&d=1205219254
i'll take your word for it:cool:
Brilliant! :2tsup:Still illegal IMHO, though, for the same reason as before: the operation is not performed on the nines, in this case the nines only identify a subset of an unlimited, and therefore infinite, set of functions. If that were allowed, any and all numbers can be produced.
If, however, you have a solution that accepts the way I suggested of producing 1, I would still be keen to see it. We would then let the professors fight over it. (If you can still find any who champions your cause...:D) I have to admit that I do not have a great opinion of Adelaide academics, though, you might end up being right...:C
Well it is as illegal as the factorial. Both are mathematics notations not operators. We accepted factorial so we should accept summation too.
I think it is ok. Trust me.:cool:
I will let you know the other 2 ways when I remember them.:D
C’mon grasshopper. That is not the right attitude. :UQuote:
Originally Posted by ss_11000
You need to work it out.
Hmmm.... As I always say to my daughter, never trust anybody who says "trust me"...:pQuote:
Originally Posted by Wongo
I still think that not being anally retentive about notations v. operators is OK (it reinforces my acceptance of lim x) , but does not change my point that you are working on infinite functions, not on the four nines, which denies the intention.
No worries mate. Take away both the ! notation and E notation. (sorry Greg, your solutions for 1 to 20 were wrong :D)
Re the acceptance of lim x, mate let me say it one more time 0.99999... is not 1.:cool: It's not even close.
:D
Well, tell that to my son's calculus professor... I'm too old for this... :CQuote:
Originally Posted by Wongo
You wouldn't still be stuck in Euclidean space, perchance?
It doesn’t matter if it is for a professor in calculus. 0.999999… is not equal to 1. It is a fact. You can round it up to 1 but it is not 1.
yeah sure.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wongo
i'll let you know in a couple of months:2tsup:
Do you accept that for any two numbers a and b there is an average number in between c = (a+b)/2?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wongo
No I don't
f
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wongo
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wongo http://image-mirror.cyanide.com.au/w...2/viewpost.gif
C’mon grasshopper. That is not the right attitude. :U
You need to work it out.
Quote:
yeah sure.:rolleyes:
i'll let you know in a couple of months:2tsup:
__________________
S T I R L O :lbs:
gday wongo, i just came across this thread again.
dunno if i'm right but does that (^^^) mean that the sum of the 3rd through to 6th terms of that series is 68, and minus the 1 it equals 67?:?
btw wongo, i got a headband that looks just like your avatar :D
CorrectQuote:
Originally Posted by ss_11000