Poll: Does 0.99 Recurring = 1
- Thread starter Pious
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for that jokester
I just realised something that i hadnt realised before
You can express recurring decimal as a fraction
eg 0.1r is same as 1/9
then 0.12r is 12/99
But 0.9r by logic would be 9/9 = 1
Yup its true. I feel convinced by my own logic.
People can choose not to believe that above result. Thats upto them. I think i speak for all people on my side of the debate that when I say that whether or not you believe it has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.
Sid
I just realised something that i hadnt realised before
You can express recurring decimal as a fraction
eg 0.1r is same as 1/9
then 0.12r is 12/99
But 0.9r by logic would be 9/9 = 1
Yup its true. I feel convinced by my own logic.
People can choose not to believe that above result. Thats upto them. I think i speak for all people on my side of the debate that when I say that whether or not you believe it has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.
Sid
ok back for one last post then im off this thread
yes cos if its infinite small somthing exists albeit minuscle. other wise it wouldnt be infintely small it would be nothingness.
if you say time has been around for ever then it has no begining and no end and it doesnt form a loop. Thats how i c it but it depends what time therory you want to go by it can be loops donughts weired shapes and therorys.
Mathematically speaking, something infinitely small would be 0.0r1 (as memphisto would say
), and since there is no such thing, it would equal zero.Right then, fun as this has been, it's 11:15 PM here (how long before some clever individual says 10.9r:14.9r, you think?), I have school tomorrow, and no shortage of work to do for it. So I shall be off for now, see if this is still running when I return!
You're saying that there must always be a "miniscule bit" left that means 0.9r is slightly smaller than 1. If this is true, then for something infintely long (e.g. time/circle) there must be that "little bit" left, making it finite in length, thus it must have a start and finish point.
- Joined
- 31 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 5,172
- Location
- Barrow-In-Furness
Originally posted by gambitt
ok next topic:
what is 0^0 (zero to the power of zero)?
have fun
Google says 1!
Originally posted by VDO
Mathematically speaking, something infinitely small would be 0.0r1 (as memphisto would say
I agree
0.0r1 makes no sense
that would be saying that after the decimal point, there are an infinte amount of zeros and then 1 after that. If the number of zeros never ends you cannot put a 1 after that. does anybody understand that??
sid
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,782
- Location
- London
The limit as x-> 0 of x^x = 1, but if you do not use a limiting process, it's a much more complex entity.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,782
- Location
- London
Thats just making things more complex. After all 0/0 = anything you want depending on the limiting process. 0^0/0^0 = 0^(0-0) = (0/0)^0, which is all "up in the air" unless you consider limits.
Given that most people here don't either understand, beleive or trust limits (since 0.9r is all about limits) you're just inciting another riot I think
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,782
- Location
- London
It's a little trickier than that. One way would be to define it as:
Limit(E->0) of:
1 - Int[from E to 1] (Exp(xLog(x))(1+Log(x)))dx
Plug this into a computer and you'll get 0^0 -> 1
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
It's a little trickier than that. One way would be to define it as:
Limit(E->0) of:
1 - Int[from E to 1] (Exp(xLog(x))(1+Log(x)))dx
Plug this into a computer and you'll get 0^0 -> 1
Are you like a professor of maths or something
Even for a cambridge maths student, you seem to know helleva lot more than anybody else here?
I wont argue with you and accept you as correct.
sid
- Status