Do any of you see a flaw/agree with this theory?

[Shujinco2]

The theory: The smallest possible decimal is a 0, followed by a decimal point, followed by an infinite amount of zeroes, and then followed by a one. Like this:

0.01

Note: For those who don't know, the line under the zero indicates an infinite amount.


Do any of you see any flaws in this theory?

[Ridley]

The theory: The smallest possible decimal is a 0, followed by a decimal point, followed by an infinite amount of zeroes, and then followed by a one. Like this:

0.01

Note: For those who don't know, the line under the zero indicates an infinite amount.


Do any of you see any flaws in this theory?

How is it even possible to stick a 1 in there when there is suposed to be never ending 0s.

[Shujinco2]

The theory: The smallest possible decimal is a 0, followed by a decimal point, followed by an infinite amount of zeroes, and then followed by a one. Like this:

0.01

Note: For those who don't know, the line under the zero indicates an infinite amount.


Do any of you see any flaws in this theory?

How is it even possible to stick a 1 in there when there is supposed to be never ending 0s.

Because it's the smallest decimal.

In my theory, this is equivalent to one part of time.

However, this is only a theorized decimal.

[BOSSNIG]

The repeating sign goes above the number. That theory is very much correct.

[Riosan]

The _ under the 0 symbolizes that there are infinite 0s, and that it never ends. How, then, could there be a 1 at the end?

[Shujinco2]

The _ under the 0 symbolizes that there are infinite 0s, and that it never ends. How, then, could there be a 1 at the end?

That was bothering me too. If only there was a way to symbolize "Infinity minus 1" in a decimal, to indicate an occupied place value. (Hence the 1.)

[BOSSNIG]

The _ under the 0 symbolizes that there are infinite 0s, and that it never ends. How, then, could there be a 1 at the end?

The zeros repeat forever in the same spot, the one always being at the end of them all.

[Shujinco2]

The _ under the 0 symbolizes that there are infinite 0s, and that it never ends. How, then, could there be a 1 at the end?

The zeros repeat forever in the same spot, the one always being at the end of them all.

Yeah, that makes sence too. :-\

Still working out the kinks. :D

[Zovistograt]

that would be the same as

lim (1/10^(n-1))
n->∞

right?

in that case, it sure is the smallest.

[Shujinco2]

that would be the same as

lim (1/10^(n-1))
n->∞

right?

in that case, it sure is the smallest.

I believe so. Except, what is "lim"? I've never heard of that term before. ????

And if this were to be offical (Which I'm pretty sure it already is. :D ), which term would be used, mine or yours?

[Red]

Infinity is undefined in some senses. For instance infinity minus one, plus one, divided by two or multiplied by two is still infinity. It's like dividing by zero. only won't create a black hole. Undefined. Therefore the "one" would never come. I see where your theory is coming from (I had a similar one at one point) but it just doesn't work out when you implement higher mathematics :-\ Zovistograt is right, in that case it is the smallest, but there are major flaws that you are just dodging around.

[sonicdude164]

Yeah, I think so. Just like .9=1

[Red]

Yeah, I think so. Just like .9=1

Or like how 1/3 x 3 = 1 even though 1/3=.3

[Zovistograt]

that would be the same as

lim (1/10^(n-1))
n->∞

right?

in that case, it sure is the smallest.

I believe so. Except, what is "lim"? I've never heard of that term before. ????

And if this were to be offical (Which I'm pretty sure it already is. :D ), which term would be used, mine or yours?

limit.  It reads as "as n approaches infinity, this thing will approach this number"...in this case, zero, but it just never gets there.

[Shujinco2]

that would be the same as

lim (1/10^(n-1))
n->∞

right?

in that case, it sure is the smallest.

I believe so. Except, what is "lim"? I've never heard of that term before. ????

And if this were to be offical (Which I'm pretty sure it already is. :D ), which term would be used, mine or yours?

limit.  It reads as "as n approaches infinity, this thing will approach this number"...in this case, zero, but it just never gets there.

Oh, I see. In this case, 0 is the limit, and multiplying (1/10^(n-1)) by infinity would get you 0, but since it's, well, infinity, you will never reach zero, correct? Also, if I'm correct, would that mean it's possible to get every number between X and 0 without ever actually reaching 0? Because if that's true, that plays well in my interpritation of time. 8)

But wait, wouldn't it be ((1/10)^(n-1)) instead of (1/10^(n-1)). I think, going by the order of opperations, wouldn't you raise 10 to the power of (n-1) and THEN divide it into 1 via your example? Or maybe it doesn't matter either way? :D