CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
The Closest We Can Get To The Truth is the Aproximate Truth (99.999...%)
I made a recent debate about this but failed to reveal the true question. Im sorry.
When people state facts, they use the word "is," "did," "was," etc.
He is in the supermarket.
He did slept during the afternoon.
He was swimming in the pool.
But how do we know that this truth is one hundred percent guaranteed? Is the boy swimming, in the supermarket, and did he actually slept in the afternoon? Let me explain this "seem" nonsense further...
The only truth that is one hundred percent guaranteed is perceptional truth. And the only person who knows about that fact is you and you only. Notice that i said "only." However, other people cannot "retrieve" this truth to be one hundred factual. No one can retrieve this truth to be one hundred percent factual. No one can retrieve this truth to be one hundred percent factual.
The closest we can get to this truth is 99.99...% percent of the time unless the truth you are seeking is your perceptional truth.
Here is another important example:
I want you to count the number of fingers on your right hand...including the thumb. And tell me how many fingers do you have.
You stated: "I have five fingers."
I reply: "How can i truth your counting capabilities?"
You state: "Because i know how to count?" And that would be fail response in my opinion.
I reply: "How do you know that when you are counting your fingers, you didn't miss a finger?"
I also reply: "Maybe this is the correct way you should count "1" "2" "3" "4" and "6." And that number "6" would be the last finger on your right hand and not "5."
Again i can reply: "How do i know if the middle finger is actually considered a finger." (There are people who consider the thumb not to be finger).
Only the Counter knows one hundred percent that he has five fingers on is right hand. But other people can't take that fact as one hundred percent factual because there is always going to doubts and possible errors.
There is never a 100% guarantee to anything. When you talk about what someone has it's unclear because you can't see this so therefore making it unclear and unproven....
I don't want you to comment on my debate. YOu call me ignorant when i downvote people. I downvote people when they are wrong and you guys get so emotional.
Please, i find you ignorant and go marry your ignorant husband.
What have i said that I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE WITH YOU LIKE THIS ANYMORE. You are ignorant enough to get that through your mind and you will say anything to belittle me.
Please, im emotional? Im ignorant? When you people get so mad when i downvote. That is pathetic.
Yeah i made a slight error when sayinig "marrying your husband." But you can marry your husband. Couples can re-marry.
I guess your clearer here. That it is never Guaranteed though what the truth is will remain a fact. But, there are always doubts. When your trying to estimate? Yes... There is never Hundred percent but the truth will always remain constant when itself but perception can always have a loop cuz that the Human Brain's design.
I see that you guys view downvoting a bad things. Axe was wrong. 99.999... does not equal one. You simply upvoted him for no reason and i find that ignorant of you.
You are abusing the upvoting and the downvoting system. Get a life. Go get a job.
"I see that you guys view downvoting a bad things."
You downvoted me not because my argument was bad but because you disagreed with it, that is not the purpose of the downvoting system.
"Axe was wrong. 99.999... does not equal one."
I was right,(As proved in another argument)
"You simply upvoted him for no reason and i find that ignorant of you.
You are abusing the upvoting and the downvoting system. Get a life. Go get a job.
Downvote."
You are the one abusing the voting system, you downvote someone if their arguments were bad or irrelevant, mine was a perfectly good point on why your orginal argument was flawed, it appears you can't handle constructive criticism.
Its because fractions are a screwy way to represent things.
A fraction is a different type of topology than a decimal number.
The algebraic proof doesn't really explain why, but only points out that it must be true if switching between topologies is valid, and both representations are equivalent. I don't think both representations are equivalent in every case, as I would take the algebraic proof to show.
The notation is missing something important, you need calculus.
If you read farther in the article, it does invoke calculus for the more analytical proofs.
One should interpret a implicit Limit to infinity to be there. Are you familiar with calculus?
The algebraic example presented in the Wikipedia article is primitive,(as the article states) and I would say it represents how decimal and fraction representation are not exactly equivalent in every case. It is missing a limit to infinity of a infinite series, something that is not a part of algebra but of calculus. In other words, algebra isn't equipped to handle the switch between the two representations.
I've read books by proffessors of mathematics containing proofs that 0.999recurring=1, it is also something we are taught at GCSE and A-level at school.
you see the same simplification with improper integrals and numerous other things in math.
Simplifications are numerous in mathematics, but unfortunately can lead to misunderstandings, like treating differentials in Leibniz notation as if their fractions to do substitution can lead one without knowledge of the underlying process to think its mathematically sound.
.9 repeating suggests there is a infinitesimal difference between 1 and it, that difference never goes away.
The limit to infinity of .9 repeating however, tells us that it approaches 1; and that for most purposes it might as well be taken as one since after all the difference is only infinitesimal. Technically, there is still a difference between the two and its one that not everyone likes to write down the proper notation for.(since it can be tedious)
I disagree with you. You were wrong in your statement by saying that .99... is equal to one. Most people would accept as one because it is infinitely close that it is negligible.
But .99 is .0...1 one off from one. Again, you are wrong. It does not equal to one.
Nope, 0.9999...9 is .0000..1 off from one. 0.9999...(that goes on infinitely) is equal to one. You do agree that 1/3 is 0.33333... right? So multiply that by 3 and it's basically 1, or 0.9999... for that matter
The statement such as “1+1=2” is a truth because of the meaning of the symbols in it and not because of any facts in real life. The statement could then not be untrue.
The fact that this mathematical statement does not hold in real life does not change its veracity in the world of logic.
It is true in the same way the following would be true.
Of course. Did I say it was not?
In a book, john rides a horse. It is true in the book that john rides the horse, but it may not be true in real life.
Indeed.
Usually "true" refers to true in real life, not hypothetically true.
"Truth" includes all the sorts of truths ( real life, logical, hypothetical...). Whether it usually refers to real life does not change what it is. Saying that the truth can only be approximate is not true because logical truths (like the one in my previous arguments) are 100% true.
If what you are saying is accurate, then anything and everything can be declared 100% true
It can be 100% true in one context but 100% false in another.
Logical truth is a counter-example to the TheThinker's statement. He did not specify that he was talking about real life truth. He said "The Closest We Can Get To The Truth is the Approximate Truth (99.999...%)"
But the mass of the raindrop would end up being twice as large.
The two original raindrops could of been of different masses.
It does in your example.
A rain drop is a entity, its mass is a property of that entity.
The mass may be considered an entity itself, but that doesn't mean when two raindrops are added that the propositions of math holds. The rain drop lacks a property that is essential in basic math, that of being non-fluid, and not combining with others when added. The atoms may be non-fluid, and may not undergo a nuclear reaction but that in no way changes that the rain drops are fluid, and combines with other raindrops.
I recently finished my Chem II course in college and found out something really interesting that you might want to know that two liquids are not always additive.
In other words, ten millimeters plus another ten millimeters are not always twenty millimeters.
"I recently finished my Chem II course in college and found out something really interesting that you might want to know that two liquids are not always additive.
In other words, ten millimeters plus another ten millimeters are not always twenty millimeters."
I too have heard of such things, but isn't that only if 2 liquids made of different elements are combined?
"The two original raindrops could of been of different masses. "
Then it wouldn't be 1+1, it would be 1+1.245 or something.
"
A rain drop is a entity, its mass is a property of that entity.
The mass may be considered an entity itself, but that doesn't mean when two raindrops are added that the propositions of math holds. The rain drop lacks a property that is essential in basic math, that of being non-fluid, and not combining with others when added. The atoms may be non-fluid, and may not undergo a nuclear reaction but that in no way changes that the rain drops are fluid, and combines with other raindrops."
The only reason why simple mathematics doesn't work in your example is solely to do witht he english language, "raindrop" is a name it isn't a measurement, it's like me saying "2 rulers are added together how long do they measure?".
Rulers are of different lengths and therefore the answer could have infinite possibilities.
I didn't see the mistake you have here. I noticed Axmeister's remark. He has a point.
Let us call X --> raindrop:
1X+1X=1X
Logically/mathematically incorrect: 1X+1X=2X
Physically incorrect: if we add 2 same raindrops we will obtain a raindrop. But not the same raindrop as the raindrops we added. So, it would be ( X-->raindrop):
1X+1X= 1X'
That is, if we add 2 same raindrops.
If they are not the same we have: 1X'+1X'''=1X''
So, your equation does not work logically and physically.
The only reason there can be doubt is because of human paranoia. To assume you don't know 100% just because perception isn't infallible is wrong, because whether or not you can perceive the truth does not make it 1% untrue.
Human doubt in our perception is only colored by our communication.
If we communicated via telepathy instead of sight and sound, in whence we could always hear every thought and know every action and therefore have no doubt of the truth, then we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.
1 + 1 = 2 to the mathematicians that discovered it, because they saw the truth 100%. Just because we listened to them and didn't go through all of the processes they did to find out that 1 + 1 = 2 doesn't make it any less true, whether our paranoid human brains will believe them or not.
Oh, you know who is wrong.... I see. Therefore, you know what is right.
In this comment, you are wrong when you said that i can verify with the calculator.You can verify with the calculator but how do i know if the calculator's functionality is perfect
The calculator's perfect functionality can be verified as well. You verify that the program of the calculator corresponds to the rules of mathematics.
However, you seemed to have missed the main point of my argument. I repeat it:
"1" is given the value of one. However, whether you know or do not know that does not change the veracity of " if "1" is the value of one then 1+1=2".
I gave your vote back because it didn't feel necessary.
Anyway....
"1" is given the value of "one"....and i will ask you to prove it.
And you reply:
1+1=2
1=2-1
1=1
If you reply that way of course. Then i will ask you, to prove the value of "2." Then you will use different numbers (IF you do) and then i will ask you to prove those values. We can go on and on to infinity and we will never reach infinity.
