Conceptual Framework of the Nature of Time

[Lord J Esq]

Ah, that damned Time Bastard theory rears its ugly head again. It's still a bunk theory, I say. It makes indefensible assumptions and reeks of subjectice rationalization; it's the ultimate case of twisting the facts to fit a story rather than the other way around. You know, I was pages deep into my third post on the subject when I realized that whether or not my points were right, I had lost the audience. No sense trying to continue a delicate and involved argument when you've antagonized people. There's some advice for you, Mr. Froggy...don't lose your audience.

I too will be interested in seeing this time theory you've devised. I've been working on something similar myself.

[Shadow_Dragon]

What's mathematical ideation?

[Hadriel]

Expressing stuff in equations.

[Daniel Krispin]

Well, there's always simple ones like the second integral of accleration, ie. distance. a=c therefore a'=v=ct+b therefore a''=v'=d=(1/2)c(t^2)+bt+c or, as it's put for a starting position of 0, and considering that bt is inital velocity, and of course c=a as was defined at first, d=0.5*a*(t^2)+v(initial)*t

That's a sort of simple example, and the best I can think of now. Of course, anything regarding time would be far more complex, and likely draw from advanced calculus, and things such as the solving of differential equations... which is no fun, let me tell you. So annoyingly abstract. That shouldn't exist in mathematics.

[Luminaire85]

I think it's a = v' = d'' and v = d'.

[DarkGizmo]

Mathematics are so wierds

x = 0,9 periodic (continue to infiny)
10x = 9,9 periodic
10x - 1x = 9,9 periodic - 0,9 periodic
9x = 9
x = 1

and this one

Three guys goes to an hotel, the receptionist tells them it's 30 $ per room.
Each guy pay 10$ for a total of 30$ and rent one room for all
Then the boss come and tell the receptionist it's 25$ not 30$.
She walk to their room and knock, she tell them she made a mistake.
She decide to not tell the truth and steal from the so she give them 1 $ each andh keep 2 $.
Now eac guy paid 10-1 = 9 $ and the receptionist kept 2$

3*9 = 27 -----> $ paid by the 3 guys
27 + 2 = 29 --> $ kept by the receptionist

29$ there were orignaly 30$ where is the last $ ?

(btw I like math but they get real hard sometime, next year I'm going to CEGEP, so I will learn some abstract math I think)

[Daniel Krispin]

I think it's a = v' = d'' and v = d'.

Right, other way around. I even said 'integral of a = v', but wrote it as the derivative. Thanks for pointing that out.

[jotabe1789]

hehehe, i liked it, darkgizmo made me think.

Well, the first is obviously that 1=0.9 period ^_- because... how much is:
1-0.9period= ???

The second... i think it is because you are summing things that are different. 30 is what they pay plus what they are returned. The 2 she keeps for herself, she keeps them from the 27 that should be the hotel profit. So they pay
3x9 = 27 = 25 + 2
being 25 the true hotel profit.
So
25 (profit) + 2 (pilfer) + 3 (returned money) = 30 (money given at first).
 

[Sir Frog]

Mathematics are so wierds

x = 0,9 periodic (continue to infiny)
10x = 9,9 periodic
10x - 1x = 9,9 periodic - 0,9 periodic
9x = 9
x = 1

There are countless people (many of whom well educated) who simply will never accept that 0.999... = 1.  They will say, "Well, 0.999... equals 1 minus an infinitessimal number" or "Well, technically, 1 is the limit; 0.999... never actually 'gets to' 1."

Of course, such people are wrong.  Saying that 0.999... is "ever slightly" less than 1 is just as incorrect as saying that 0.333... doesn't quite equal 1/3.  (Recall that 0.999... = 9/9 = 1 and 0.333... = 3/9 = 1/3; why people contest the former but readily accept the latter is quite beyond me.)

Oh well.

[Sentenal]

I won't accept that.  (1/3)*3 is 1, but .33~*3 is .999~.  Therefore, .99~ can never be one.  Plus, .99~ being one is agianst the definintion of infinity.

[DarkGizmo]

1/3*3 = 3/3... what is hard there, I msut admit that 0.333~*3 is 0.999~ (which equals one anyway joke)

I know that 0.999~ isn't one but why can someone tells it other way jsut like I prove it...

[jotabe1789]

Yeah... actually it is an ongoing proof that 0.9... = 1 by reductio ad absurdum.
We assume that it is true that 0.9... = 1, and while we don't get to any contradiction through this assumption, it will be perfectly valid.

But the arithmetical demonstration should be enough:
1 = 3 x (1/3) = 3 x 0.3... = 0.9....

Because, no matter how you do it, 1 - 0.9... = 0 always.

[Sentenal]

no, that would equal .1~

[jotabe1789]

ok, consider this series:

x = 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ... etc

It is obvious that x = 0.9..., right?

but we can also define:

x.sub.n = SUM (from n=1 to n=n)  9 x 10^-n

where x will be:

x = lim (n->infinite) [x.sub.n]
 
which results that x = 1 if you make the calculation formally.

So here you have a formal demonstration of 1 = 0.9...

[Daniel Krispin]

ok, consider this series:

x = 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ... etc

It is obvious that x = 0.9..., right?

but we can also define:

x.sub.n = SUM (from n=1 to n=n)  9 x 10^-n

where x will be:

x = lim (n->infinite) [x.sub.n]
 
which results that x = 1 if you make the calculation formally.

So here you have a formal demonstration of 1 = 0.9...

Hmmm... I see what you mean. This pesky math, I was never much good at it. I'm more for the kinematics and the like, moving gears and objects and all.