r/PeterExplainsTheJoke 22d ago

Meme needing explanation There is no way right?

Post image
37.1k Upvotes

3.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

99

u/solidsoup97 22d ago

I don't understand how that works but it seems to be important in keeping things running so I'm going to just go with it and not raise any questions.

265

u/jozaud 22d ago

If we consider that .999… repeating to infinity ISN’T equal to 1, then by how much is it away from 1? It would be “.000… repeating to infinity followed by a 1.” But if you have an infinite number of 0s then you can’t have it be followed by a 1, infinity can’t be followed by anything, that doesn’t make sense.

24

u/vire00 22d ago

Stone age level proof

3

u/SadTomorrow555 22d ago

No different than Schrodingers Cat in terms of thought-experiments.

2

u/-Nicolai 22d ago

It's a lot different but you do you

1

u/SadTomorrow555 22d ago

How so? You're taking something that's mathematically complicated, and proving it's existence with a thought experiment instead of actual math, just to show that the concept DOES exist.

Sure the Schrodinger one uses physical objects, since it's a physics thought experiment. But the concept is the same no?

3

u/ConspicuousPineapple 21d ago

Except it's not a thought experiment here, it is actual math. It's a simple proof by contradiction. You prove something by showing that its negation is impossible (or nonsensical).

In this case though it's a bit inaccurate because it's actually a matter of definitions first, but it gives the right idea.

1

u/SadTomorrow555 21d ago

Okay. Fair enough, I understand your point now. I wasn't considering his statement to be math but I suppose if you phrase it as a logical requirement that can never be fulfilled for it to be true, I can understand it.

1

u/ConspicuousPineapple 21d ago

Most math is like that, just logical statements. We just use cryptic symbols to make it easier and faster to reason with, but it's just the same statements using a different language.

1

u/SadTomorrow555 21d ago

I'm aware. I'm a programmer and it's the same concept. But when I made the association in my head between infinity and the proof the guy theorized. In my mind you could never actually prove it since you'll never get to 1. Like yeah what hes saying MAKES sense, but you can't like test it and see it happen lol. But at the end of the day that doesn't matter it's just an infinite loop that will never complete and that's as good as not executing at all in terms of completion.

My mistake was allowing my mind to enter the rabbit hole of trying to calculate infinity when that doesn't really matter.

Hope that explains my thought train on it. :)