I found a triangle with two right angles! =D

look, a triangle with 3 90 degree angles.

 Holy pomegranate

That's... Quite fantastic, really.

Lolwut

i think the TS's wierdo triangle is because it's so damn huge that it LOOKED like 90 degrees

actually it would probably look more like a straight line from far away.

look, a triangle with 3 90 degree angles.

 Holy pomegranate

Triangles must have 3 straight lines in all 3 (or more?) dimensions in order to be called a triangle

Triangles must have 3 straight lines in all 3 (or more?) dimensions in order to be called a triangle

Technically, if you set the XY plane to be the sphere, it'd work... However, that's VERY advanced math, getting close to making my head explode D:

Technically, if you set the XY plane to be the sphere, it'd work... However, that's VERY advanced math, getting close to making my head explode D:

It's just spherical coordinates. Usually taught in the 3rd semester of Calculus.

:[
89.9999999999999 =/= 90

Where are the boobs?

Look at the red circles more closely.

Triangles must have 3 straight lines in all 3 (or more?) dimensions in order to be called a triangle

Triangles are 2D. :[

It's just spherical coordinates. Usually taught in the 3rd semester of Calculus.

Didn't get to learn that here... But thinking it again, It must be like the earth's coordinate points... Must be still a pain in the ass to do equations and stuff with them, though...

:[
89.9999999999999 =/= 90

Actually...

0.999... = 1, :. 89.999... = 90

Actually...

0.999... = 1, :. 89.999... = 90

no, certainly not. 1/3 equals 0.333..., but that's just a floating point value and a loss of precision.

Triangles are 2D. :[

They would still be 2D in 3D as long their lines are straight.

Actually...

0.999... = 1, :. 89.999... = 90

10x - x = 9.9999999... - 0.9999999...

THAT is the wrong part. There's a small thing in maths called... infinitesimals.
The MOST small number, consisting in an infinitely small number, thus indefined.

Basically, 0.9999999... is 1 minus an infinitesimal. After multiplying by ten, it goes to...

10(-10 infinitesimals) - 1(+1 infinitesimal)

And taking those out, you get...

9(-9 infinitesimals)

ACTUALLY, by proximity, you get it closer to 8.99999999..., instead of 9.

ok...

An infinitesimal can be defined as:

0.000000...

BUT imagine it has a 1 in the end (after infinity zeros), to put it simple. That'd be the smallest number EVER. So small that can't be defined.

0.999999... Would be 1 minus that number, as you can figure out. If you follow the calculus at the first post, it uses an aproximation when multiplying by ten, and takes off those 9 extra infinitesimals, when it shouldn't.

In my post, you see what happens with them, after adding them in. Granted, the result is practically the same, but not exactly.

There, taken from an obscure thread lost in time long ago... D:

no, certainly not. 1/3 equals 0.333..., but that's just a floating point value and a loss of precision.

x = 0.999...
10x = 10(0.999...)
10x = 9.999...
10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999...
9x = 9
x = 1

0.333... = 1/3
(0.333... = 1/3)3
0.999... = 1

Proofs I just digged up, found out one of them was lol

(0.333... = 1/3)3

Ah! But you can't accurately multiply a number that "never ends". If anything, you should transform it into a fraction to calculate it, first. And oh, hey, it turns out to be 1! (Example, try to multiply the square root of 2 accurately... Can only use "x · √2")

Unless you DO multiply all the 3s in there. If you accomplish that feat, I'll give you a medal

No, that proof is correct. The problem is that Hazzy said 89.9999999999999, not 89.9999....

look, a triangle with 3 90 degree angles.

 Holy pomegranate

yay for non-linear

yay for XYZ

Actually...

0.999... = 1, :. 89.999... = 90

89.999... = 90
89.999 =/= 90

No, that proof is correct. The problem is that Hazzy said 89.9999999999999, not 89.9999....

I see... I've done a bit of extra research, and while it's true, it's, however, a limit... It equals to 1, but isn't 1 "exactly".

Huh... Wait, what?

Uh-oh... (inside mind: I'MMA FIRIN MAH LAZOOOOOOR! BWAAAAAAAARGH!!!!!!!!!) (head lazored itself really bad)

I see... I've done a bit of extra research, and while it's true, it's, however, a limit... It equals to 1, but isn't 1 "exactly".

Limits can be evaluated. That's the point of a limit, to allow us to describe a value that will never be reached but becomes infinitesimally close.

It is exactly 1 and can replace 1 in any situation. Yes, it defies logic, but it's true.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sci-math-faq/sp.../0.999eq1/