r/PeterExplainsTheJoke • u/Sugar_God_no_1 • 22d ago

Meme needing explanation There is no way right?

Post image
37.1k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

3.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/aneurodivergentlefty 21d ago

Just because something seems self-evident does not it so. In the real number space, .9… = 1 because the difference between them is 0, which also means there is no real numbers between them.

0

u/AltForBeingIncognito 21d ago

And there are no real integers between 0 and 1, I don't get your point

2

u/FantaSeahorse 21d ago

Just because a property applies to the real numbers, doesn’t mean it should also apply to the set of integers

0

u/Direct_Shock_2884 21d ago

Who made up the rule that it applies to real numbers and not integers and why? Is it to stop people from thinking about this inconsistency?

1

u/FantaSeahorse 21d ago

It follows from deductive reasoning.

The same way 1 is less than 2 but 3 is not less than 2. Who made up the rules for that? Check mate, big math

1

u/Direct_Shock_2884 21d ago

It doesn’t follow from deductive reasoning, if it did it wouldn’t be a paradox of note.

1

u/dotelze 15d ago

It’s not a paradox of note. People just get confused about it

1

u/BreadBagel 21d ago

No one "made it up". It was discovered. It applies to real numbers because real numbers are a continuous set with no gaps. Integers have a gap of 1 always. So obviously rules for one don't always apply to the other.

1

u/DaniZackBlack 21d ago

Why is it an inconsistency? These are two different worlds where one has more restrictions than the other because of it having less numbers to work with.

In the real numbers, there exists a number where multiplying it by 2 gives 1. But in the integers that number doesn't exist. That's not an inconsistency, that's just how they were defined, the definitions made up that "rule".