Poll: Does 0.99 Recurring = 1

memphisto · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:22

Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
Actually you show 1>1, not 1=2 (which is possible in certain systems), I just thought that example would be easier for people to follow.
Okay, prove 1>1 using 0.9r = 1.

prove what

1 is more than 1 using 0.9r = 1 ?

I can proove 0.9r is less than 1

1 - 0.9r = 0.0r1

sniffy · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:23

Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
If you sat through my 1st year Groups lectures, you'd know that common sense gets checked at the door in maths.
Yes it is. 0.9r = 1. If its not, use it to prove 1 = 2. I'll be waiting

There's no need for me to be extremely good at maths.

0.999999(forever) minus the decimal point just isn't 1. Can you try explain in lamers turns how a number changes magically? Common sense tells me, numbers don't chang until you start adding them together (or counting up ect..)

Wow i just dont get it, if you could explain that..Great!

AlphaNumeric · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:23

Originally posted by memphisto
1 - 0.9r = 0.0r1

And I've proved that zero

Xenoxide · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:23

Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
Guess who designed the electronic pathways to your PC. Guess who came up with the equations to describe electron behaviour. Guess who made your GPS system work. Guess who came up with the idea behind your monitor. Mathematicians.

Maybe I should have phrased that as "maths as we know it". The base ten system.

In the base 10 system, you can find a way to describe 0.9r but you cannot find a way to describe the infinitely small number inbetween 0.9r and 1?

Perhaps it's about time we found a new "system" to count in?

I very much doubt that you can describe the infinitely small number in between in any other base either, but IT DOES EXIST. You just cannot count it, as you cannot count the number of 9's in 0.9r.

Yes, I agree, for all intents and purposes 0.9r is 1 since you cannot count the number inbetween. But there will always be a number in between, no matter how small. We just lack the appropriate "term" to describe it.

memphisto · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:24

Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
And I've proved that zero

On your terms you have, using your equations which as previously stated you can get to say / proove anything you want, as long as you believe it to be true.

Otherwise it just gets chucked in the bin.

VDO · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:24

Originally posted by Xenoxide
"Maths does not always translate well to the real world".

Then in my view, maths are irrelevant.

All right, I don't mind.

PS: Thanks for your "mildly arrogant" comment, I was thinking the same about you but didnt want to say it for fear of sounding "mildly arrogant".

I'm not the one dismissing proofs thought up by some of the most brilliant persons ever to have lived as "theories".

PPS: "How do you demonstrate this? You most certainly haven't done so in your posts". Because there is no way to describe the infinitely small number that goes inbetween the infinitely large number of 0.9r.

And do you know why?
Because there is no number between 0.9r and 1 <-- I had to try very hard to refrain from typing that in all caps

You can comprehend that something is infinitely large but you cannot comprehend infinitely small? Eh? I find this "mildly arrogant".

Say what?

sniffy · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:26

"Yes, I agree, for all intents and purposes 0.9r is 1 since you cannot count the number inbetween. But there will always be a number in between, no matter how small. We just lack the appropriate "term" to describe it."

That explained it quite well, ty. Just common sense really, make a new bloody word for it!

0.9r still isn't 1

yak.h'cir · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:26

Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
1=2 (which is possible in certain systems)

I wonder if a thread debating whether 1 can =2 or not would be longer or shorter then this one?

sid · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:27

Originally posted by sniffy
i can't believe people said yes. ITS SIMPLE MATH.

0.99999999999999999999 (This goes on until every single PC in the world with a connection has filled up its text documents with 999's) will never, ever turn into 1.

Common sense? You take away the decimal point and it's still 0. I really dont know how people can argue with that, strange....

Do you know what tending to a limit at infinity means???

That will answer your question.

AlphaNumeric · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:28

Originally posted by sniffy
numbers don't chang until you start adding them together (or counting up ect..)

I'm always adding something to it, so it always changes from 0.9, then from 0.99, then from 0.999, then from 0.9999, then in the end gets to 1.
Do A Level maths, or university maths (though by then you'd know I'm right

)

Originally posted by Xenoxide
as you cannot count the number of 9's in 0.9r.

Yes you can. I just told you, Google for "Countability" and "Cardinality". Its countable. Hell, I'll link to a website if you want

Originally posted by memphisto
which as previously stated you can get to say / proove anything you want, as long as you believe it to be true.

No, something I know to be true (or rather false). I KNOW 1>1 is false. 1 isn't bigger than itself. Hence if I can show using my "new idea" 1>1, my "new idea" is wrong. It can't prove "anything I want" if it proves that. Hence maths isn't "full of holes".

Originally posted by yak.h'cir
I wonder if a thread debating whether 1 can =2 or not would be longer or shorter then this one?

In a modulo 1 system. Googe it

Jokester · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:28

Originally posted by Xenoxide
I very much doubt that you can describe the infinitely small number in between in any other base either, but IT DOES EXIST. You just cannot count it, as you cannot count the number of 9's in 0.9r.

Arrrggghhh, how many times do I have to say it, there isn't an infinitely small number between 1 and 0.9r, they are identical.

In the same way that 1/3 = 0.333r

0.333r * 3 = 0.999r

= 1

Jokester

Haircut · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:29

Another proof

sid · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:30

Originally posted by sniffy
There's no need for me to be extremely good at maths.

0.999999(forever) minus the decimal point just isn't 1. Can you try explain in lamers turns how a number changes magically? Common sense tells me, numbers don't chang until you start adding them together (or counting up ect..)

Wow i just dont get it, if you could explain that..Great!

If you do that an infinite amount of times. it TENDS TO 1.

The thing is true at the limit.

nige · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:30

Originally posted by Xenoxide
That's what I'm saying. "For all intents and purposes". "For arguments sake", whatever, the number between them cannot be counted, but there will always be something.

But there isn't, it becomes so small, it doesn't exist.

sniffy · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:31

Originally posted by sid
Do you know what tending to a limit at infinity means???

That will answer your question.

No because i didn't study maths further. It just looks like common sense.
There is just a number inbetween 0.9r and 1 which people who study maths dont have a word for so it equals 1. That doesn't make me (or common sense) wrong, it's your system of working equations.

Someone got confused somewhere. Looks like i am lol. It just doesn't make (common) sense, i'd like to see how a clever maths person looks at the world, DAMN!

yak.h'cir · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:32

This "dicussion" kinda reminds me of a gcse physics class I had once where the teacher was trying to convince everyone that if a 1 tonne weight and a penny where dropped from the same height a the same time they would fall at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time. Half the class refused to accept it even though it was proved centurys ago!

AlphaNumeric · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:32

Originally posted by sniffy
It just looks like common sense.

As I said, common sense and maths aren't interlinked. There are plenty of strange results which take time to understand, go against your common sense, but none the less, are true.

Originally posted by sniffy
Someone got confused somewhere. Looks like i am lol

Yep, you

What level of maths do you have?

Jokester · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:33

Originally posted by yak.h'cir
This "dicussion" kinda reminds me of a gcse physics class I had once where the teacher was trying to convince everyone that if a 1 tonne weight and a penny where dropped from the same height a the same time they would fall at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time. Half the class refused to accept it even though it was proved centurys ago!

Actualy they're still testing that

.

Jokester

Xenoxide · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:33

Originally posted by VDO
0.9r is not infinite. Where did you get that from?

Where did I say that? 0.9r is infinite in the sense that it cannot be counted. Just like you cannot count the infinitely small number between 0.9r and 1. It does exist, we just lack the appropriate term to describe it.

Many people (Mathematitians, physicists, normal people) when dividing 10 by three count the 3.3r as 3.333 just for arguments sake. 3.3r is not 3.333. 3.3r is an infinite number.

Why should I not count 0.9r as 0.999? Let me guess, "because it is not 0.999, it has an infinite number of 9's on the end which cannot be counted".

Just like 3.3r is not the same as 3.333, because 3.3r is an inifinite number. Can you honestly not tell me that sometime in your life you have trimmed 3.3r down to 3.333 when dividing 10 by three? Hell, even my calculator does that...

So, "for all intents and purposes" 3.3r is 3.333.

Then, "for all intents and purposes", 0.0 with an infinite number of 0's and a 1 on the end (Whereever it may be, even if there is no end), is 0.0r1 in my book (As you said), or 0.001.

No matter how many 9's, whether than be counted or not, whether they end or not, there will always be that infinitely small number inbetween 0.9r and 1.

riven · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:34

alpha, i dont think non mathematicians will ever understand.

i was once again amazed at the beauty of maths the other week. We are doing second derivatives, and so we had to learn about turning imaginary numbers into real numbers by integrating with cosx and sinx because of the change of sign.

simply beautiful.