You are using a calculator, and are therefore doing maths.
Your calculator is perfectly capable of the work, as long as you are capable of accurate instruction.
Enter '1 divided by 2' and you will get the answer to 0.99r divided by 2
0.99r = 1
- Thread starter McDaniel
- Start date
You are using a calculator, and are therefore doing maths.
Your calculator is perfectly capable of the work, as long as you are capable of accurate instruction.
Enter '1 divided by 2' and you will get the answer to 0.99r divided by 2
What does r stand for? I thought it meant repeated?
0.99r + 0.1 = 1 ? No?
Why does r exist if it's not used in anything? Nothing is timed in 0.99r?
Surely the actual figure of 0.99r is never going to be 1 as it needs 0.1 to make it to 1. We don't just round up if we want an exact figure?
Isn't that why people say "I'm 99.99% sure i'm going to hell" If they were 100% sure they would say that, which means if it's 99.99% sure there is still some doubt ? Surely this principle applies to 0.99r?
0.99r + 0.1 = 1 ? No?
Why does r exist if it's not used in anything? Nothing is timed in 0.99r?
Surely the actual figure of 0.99r is never going to be 1 as it needs 0.1 to make it to 1. We don't just round up if we want an exact figure?
Isn't that why people say "I'm 99.99% sure i'm going to hell" If they were 100% sure they would say that, which means if it's 99.99% sure there is still some doubt ? Surely this principle applies to 0.99r?
Last edited:
No.
0.99r = 0.999999999999........ where the amount of 9s is infinite.
0.99r +0.1 = 1.0999999999999... where the amount of 9s is infinite.
0.99r is not the same as 0.99.
Yes you can! there's an MR button for "Many R's" that's what you use when you want to get 0.999999999999r!
Really?
Place value.
Code:
0.99999999999...
+0.1
------------------
1.09999999999...Going on forever. Never ending.
Yes.
Why did you write 1.99r?
Why didn't you write 2 = 2?
...and we're not rounding it up. Rounding up means adding to the original value. How much do you add to 0.99r to make it equal to 1?
The sum 1-0.99r can never be completed because it's an infinite answer, our universe won't even be around long enough to complete the equation. Claiming to know the answer to 1-0.99r is no more realistic than claiming you can count to the end of our numbering system.
I'm one of these
I've read some of the proofs and get them.My problem is that I don't agree that 1/3=0.3r. 0.3r is a 'fix' for being unable to describe in decimal one third......
Some rules are made to ensure the other rules work (like i in square roots of negative numbers): I stopped Maths after CSYS, but even then learned that you have to just accept the rules within the framework of the rules you are learning.
My favourite one of these brain-$%**s is the Monty Hall problem. Despite the fact that I can't myself figure out why it is true (I mean, WHY do the odds change... just , they..don't!!), I know it is true because I've tried it out with cards.
0.9r is difficult to test practically.
Is Mathematical Induction related to this subject? IIRC, I have read that this is the method by which we reason about infinite numbers.
I don't understand it, just suggesting this to the mathematicians.
You would need +0.0r1 but you can't have a 1 on the end of an infinite string of zeros as there is no end.
The problem is it's infinite. The number can't and doesn't exist.
So people need to stop thinking in real world terms. In the real world it simply doesn't exist. Even in maths it doesn't really exist and in maths terms it equals 1.
It is an infinite answer. That being 0.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 12,751
Christ, why can't people just accept that 0.9r = 1 ?
1-0.9r = 0
because there is an infinitely small difference between 1 and 0.9r. If something is infinitely small, it is 0. So there is 0 difference.
1-0.9r = 0
because there is an infinitely small difference between 1 and 0.9r. If something is infinitely small, it is 0. So there is 0 difference.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 730
- Location
- Oxford
This is just getting painful now, you're a moron. Fair enough, you don't understand mathematics, but are you even capable of learning? It's clear you don't have a clue about mathematics, so why on earth are you arguing the point with people who have significantly more knowledge on the subject?
It is a good example of a strange concept, that's not always immediately intuitive for most people.
It comes about because the host KNOWS where the prize is.
When you pick a door, you have a 1 in 3 chance of picking the right one.
The host knows whether you have picked right or wrong. If you have picked right, then he can show you either of the other doors, as they are both wrong. But if you have picked wrongly, he can only show you the other wrong door. He obviously can't open the door with the prize behind.
So at the start there is a 1 in 3 (33%) chance of the prize being behind any door.
The door you initially choose has a 1 in 3 (33%) chance of being right.
After the host opens one of the OTHER doors, you now know that the prize is behind either your door, or the other one.
But the host hasn't done anything to change the fact that you had a 33% chance of picking your door in the first place. Nothing has changed to affect what you already chose.
So your door still has a 33% chance of being right (like it did when you first picked it).
But now the prize is DEFINITELY behind either your door, or the only other remaining one. So if your door has a 33% chance of being the right one, the other door must be 67%, so you are better to swap.
But I agree, it's not something that's very obvious at all.