I did not too many posts back...
Printable View
I did not too many posts back...
5(e^x-1)=x(e^x)Quote:
5*e^x - 5 = x*e^x
5=x(e^x)/(e^x-1)
ln5=lnx + xln(e) - ln(e^x-1)
ln5=x+lnx-ln(e^x-1)
5(e^x-1)=xe^x
Back to square one.
(5-x)e^x=5
x=ln5-ln(5-x)
x+ln(5-x)=ln5
x=0 and
x<5
I think, you can only solve it using numerical methods.
let x=-xQuote:
xe^x=1
so
-x=e^x
then
e^x+x=0
I'm pretty sure you're correct Xei.
P.S. Xei have you done UCAS, what uni's have you applied too. I have applied too, Oxford, Manchester, Warwick, York and Bristol. However, I haven't got any offers yet, but I have got an interview with Manchester.
I'm going for Cambridge, UCL, Warwick, Bath, and Imperial.
UCL sent me a letter on Thursday which said 'based on your application there is no need to interview you; come to London on date X and we'll give you an offer', and just this morning I got a letter from Bath saying 'we anticipate giving you an offer but please come down for a visit and informal interview on date Y'.
No news from Cambridge yet because I've got to send them an additional form which takes hours to fill out, but that should be done by today.
Bath sucks, you should have put Bristol instead.Quote:
I'm going for Cambridge, UCL, Warwick, Bath, and Imperial.
If you get rejected from Cambridge, and then we both get an offer from Warwick and then both get accepted, then see you at Warwick.
I didn't know you wanted to do applied mathematics. Anyway, you should have applied to Oxford, they only get you do a test and a interview, no additional forms. Also, you have to do STEP 2 and 3.Quote:
No news from Cambridge yet because I've got to send them an additional form which takes hours to fill out, but that should be done by today.
I only got an interview for Manchester. I'm surprized you haven't heard anything for Imperial, as in another forum alot of people were getting offers for Imperial.Quote:
UCL sent me a letter on Thursday which said 'based on your application there is no need to interview you; come to London on date X and we'll give you an offer', and just this morning I got a letter from Bath saying 'we anticipate giving you an offer but please come down for a visit and informal interview on date Y'.
P.S. Whats going to be you're second choice? Is it Warwick. As I assume Cambridge is you're first choice.
Bath is pretty good for maths at least; in the top ten. It's my reserve, but seeing as I've got UCL in the bag I guess it's no longer necessary. Pretty place though.
Cambridge has pretty much the best maths course in the world; I didn't ever hear it was better for applied. I mean, considering that it's bred the likes of Andrew Wiles, who solved pretty much the least appliable mathematical puzzle ever. Although saying that, of course I actually do want to go into applied maths, ultimately. Networks would really come into that area; although there is sort of a blurring into pure. Also Cambridge has a reputation for science whereas Oxford has more of a reputation for the arts.
I don't really know what my second choice would be. I heard Warwick has a poor social life and also that they're a little undeserving of their reputation and only require STEP in order to show off and filter off the best students without necessarily providing the best education for them. Then again they do have a variable course which allows you to take 25% of your modules in neuroscience if you want. Same with UCL, they're very variable, and also they are at the forefront of neuroscience research. Imperial's just generally prestigious. All I heard from them so far was a 'thanks for applying', though. They did ask for 80%+ in each module without resits, and I did sort of get 79% on C3 last year before retaking and getting above 90%, but that was a year early so I hardly think they can get fussy about it... I hope.
Number theory is one of the most funded and applied mathematics, i.e. crypotography. Didn't Andrew Wiles say that the only thing different in number theory is that its the most applied subject.Quote:
Cambridge has pretty much the best maths course in the world; I didn't ever hear it was better for applied. I mean, considering that it's bred the likes of Andrew Wiles, who solved pretty much the least appliable mathematical puzzle ever.
Cambridge too me just looks like applied mathematics.
Not really. Comparing Cambridge modules to Oxfords, it seems that Oxford is more pure.Quote:
Networks would really come into that area; although there is sort of a blurring into pure. Also Cambridge has a reputation for science whereas Oxford has more of a reputation for the arts.
Wouldn't it be better to go into mathematical logic, espically since all AI and trying to understand how we think comes into uncertain logic. Well, thats what I heard.
Thats a lie.Quote:
I don't really know what my second choice would be. I heard Warwick has a poor social life and also that they're a little undeserving of their reputation and only require STEP in order to show off and filter off the best students without necessarily providing the best education for them.
Warwick policy of admission I think is really fair. Also, Warwick is known as the third best uni for maths. So I would go for Warwick as second.
I heard they don't like retakes. Maybe this explains why you haven't got an offer from them yet.Quote:
, but that was a year early so I hardly think they can get fussy about it... I hope.
P.S. I would put Warwick as second choice, if you get an offer from Cambridge. Since they are better then all you're other choices.
Some dude that studies math I know said it was mathemathically provable. Then again, what does he know. Then again, who cares. Then again, I hardly ever order 0.9999...99 pancaces in a restaurant.
There have been like a dozen proofs in this thread already. Get your head out of your ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
Excuse me? (also: Proof? Where?)Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
Of course I didn't read all the posts in this topics. Also, yeah, probably I didn't really say anything new. Then again, if all the things on the internet had to be new, then this entire topic shouldn't exist.
Also, for practical reasons, anyone that honestly cares in his day-to-day life that 0.999999 = 1 is a faggot.
So lighten up.
0.999999 does not equal 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
And you, sir, are the one that is calling people names.
Hey, I fixed your post for ya.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
Regarding your query:
First of all, it is rather obvious that .99... equals 1. Whether or not being intelligent enough to realize that makes a person a faggot is irrelevant.Quote:
Excuse me? (also: Proof? Where?)
Secondly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999... (Make sure you read the first sentence very very carefully).
There have been a couple of valid proofs so far, mine was on the previous page I think.
You have to remember that mathematics isn't 'real', it's a system for shunting symbols about according to very precise rules. Within that system, 0.999... is 1, but bear in mind that neither 0.999... or 1 actually physically exists.
Well, according to same people that know things about maths 0.9999... does equal 1. I am sorry if I confused you by not in fact writing down an infinity of 9's, but shortened it to '0.999999 equals 1'. I see how you got confused there, it's so complicated to see it was an abbreviation.Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
Get your head out of your ass. You can interpret this sentence as me quoting you or as me giving you some advice. Pick whichever you prefer.Quote:
And you, sir, are the one that is calling people names.
-
Thanks, faggot.Quote:
Originally Posted by hungrymanz
Funny how mister intelligent (you) completely disagrees with the person I called a 'faggot'. As far as 'faggot' in the context I used it in was synonymous with 'idiot' or 'ill informed on the subject at hand', I am correct in calling either you or the person you are defending a 'faggot', because of the logic of the excluded 3rd.Quote:
Regarding your query:
First of all, it is rather obvious that .99... equals 1. Whether or not being intelligent enough to realize that makes a person a faggot is irrelevant.
So, I don't know which one of you two is a 'faggot', or 'wrong' if you like that term better, but I am at least certain one of you guys is, and that one should certainly stop pretending to know something about math.
At least I don't pretend to know anything about this kind of mathematics.
Yeah, it read "I am a faggot that uses wikipedia because I know shit about math but like to pretend I do." Really insightful sentence.Quote:
Secondly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999... (Make sure you read the first sentence very very carefully).
I'm going to go ahead and request that this thread be locked. All's there is worth being said on the topic has been said and now it's just being run by a bunch of immature bastards who can't debate their ideas without insulting each other.
:lock:
It's not a matter of debate, since .999... = 1 is provable. You can't debate proofs, especially such trivial ones. Rather, it is a matter of enlightening those who refuse to accept that .9.. = 1Quote:
Originally Posted by Kushna Mufeed
Where the hell could this apply in my life?
Newsflash for Suttsman; you're in the philosophy forum.
Look people, the staff is simply not going to stand for the degeneration of respect towards other members. The over all attitudes from many members have declined considerably. It has resulted in a very negative atmosphere around this Forum.
I don't care what you reasons are.
A continued abuse of this will result in warnings. Eventually and unfortunately member bans.
1/9 = 0.1111111111111111111111111111111...
2/9 = 0.2222222222222222222222222222222...
3/9 = 0.3333333333333333333333333333333...
4/9 = 0.4444444444444444444444444444444...
5/9 = 0.5555555555555555555555555555555...
6/9 = 0.6666666666666666666666666666666...
7/9 = 0.7777777777777777777777777777777...
8/9 = 0.8888888888888888888888888888888...
9/9 = 0.9999999999999999999999999999999... = 1
10/99 = 0.10101010101010101010101010101...
11/99 = 0.11111111111111111111111111111...
12/99 = 0.12121212121212121212121212121212...
That proves everything. :P I guess. Now, finally, we can live together in peace again. :D
I haven't bothered to read the whole thread, I don't know how such a simple question can spawn 7 pages. It is simply a question of can numbers reduce to infinity. And obviously they can (no force but the end of time will stop something from writing out 99999... over and over again), so no it will never ever in infinity time reach 1.
It's a static number, not a process. And by the closure axiom of the reals, it equals 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidDreamGod
WTF? I thought I asked this to be locked? Aren't the staff supposed to lock a thread if the OP requests it?
i've never even thought about this lol.... but I guess I would say they're not equal, since .999 will always be slightly less than 1, and .9999, and .99999 and forever on won't ever be 1.
I'm sorry I didn't get any of that.:?Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
If you don't have the knowledge required to understand statements about the structure of the reals, what makes you qualified to comment on whether 0.9~=1? Anyway, the issue was settled over a hundred years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidDreamGod