Poll: Does 0.99 Recurring = 1

Does 0.99 Recurring = 1

  • Yes

    Votes: 225 42.5%

  • No

    Votes: 304 57.5%
  • Total voters
    529
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric

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".

Click to expand...

yes thats my point something you know to be false. So if you dont believe it is false then whatever equation you have come up with gets the thumbs up.

under that understanding though that you cant have an equation that you know is false.

why do you think 0.99r is = 1 ?

I dont want maths we have had that argument, as you have to think something is true for the equation you have come up with to be valid, by yer own admission. Explain why 0.99r = 1.

No forumula's just an explanation away from maths.
 
Originally posted by sniffy
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.
Click to expand...
The number between 0.9r and 1 is the same number that's between 1 and 1.

Because 0.9r and 1 are the SAME BLOODY THING.

Can you - any of you - please point out the flaw in the following "system of working equations"?:

x=0.9r
10(x)=10(0.9r)
10x=9.9r
10x-x=9.9r-x
10x-x=9.9r-0.0r
9x=9
x=1
 
Originally posted by sniffy
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
Click to expand...

It just LOOKS like common sense


That sort of stuff has no place in maths. Its true as long as you cant disprove it. That is how maths work. People seem to think you can proove anything but they are wrong. You cant. NOt in maths.

Not everything in life is common sense. this is one of thsoe things

thats all i can say.
 
Originally posted by VDO
That is what we are getting at here. 0.9r is equal to 1, there is nothing in between.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
If the maths doesn't help the above will make you stop and think.
Haven't read the entire thread but I think most are having trouble grasping the idea of infinity.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by VDO
The number between 0.9r and 1 is the same number that's between 1 and 1.

Because 0.9r and 1 are the SAME BLOODY THING.

Can you - any of you - please point out the flaw in the following "system of working equations"?:

x=0.9r
10(x)=10(0.9r)
10x=9.9r
10x-x=9.9r-x
10x-x=9.9r-0.0r
9x=9
x=1
Click to expand...

According to my friend that is an axiomic Proof.

its incontravertible. Period.
 
Originally posted by Xenoxide
0.9r is infinite in the sense that it cannot be counted.
Click to expand...
For the 3rd time IT CAN BE COUNTED.
Originally posted by Xenoxide
3.3r is an infinite number.
Click to expand...
Its an infinite decimal (not infinite), and no mathematician alive would use 3.333 as 10/3, they'd write 10/3, I know I would!
Originally posted by Xenoxide
there will always be that infinitely small number inbetween 0.9r and 1.
Click to expand...
Which I've proved earlier to be zero.

Xenoxide, how old are you (out of interest)?
 
Not very high.

If common sense and maths dont interlink, how is maths practical or even useful (to the extent you have studied it) in everyday live, it seems very pointless.

It's no different (for me, looking at this in a common sense frame of mind) then you saying that black sheep is white.

Common sense should tell you it isn't, but a "maths" sum tells you otherwise.

Tbh i am going to be very arrogant about it, 0.9 is NOT 1. I dont care how much maths you studied, 0.9r is not 1. 0.9r is 0.9r. 1 is 1

Now that is common sense
 
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....
Click to expand...

Mate, think logically for a second.

If I have a piece of cake, and divide it into three equal pieces, I can describe those pieces as fractions of the whole, or one third. I can also describe them as nasty decimals 0.3333 recurring. Now simple maths says that if I have three pieces of cake, of size 1/3 or 0.333 recurring then I can only have the whole piece of cake. No more no less.
 
Originally posted by jokester
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
Click to expand...

Can I ask you something?

Why did you write 0.333r and 0.999r? Why not 0.9r, or 0.3r? Why not 0.999999999999999r or 0.33333333333333r?

They are identical, yes? It's just that 0.9r and 0.3r take less time to type/write than 0.999r and 0.333r? Yes?

Why can't I write 0.0r1?

Why not 0.000r1?

Or 0.000000000000000000r1?

Because the number of 0's inbetween is incomprehensible and infinite, just as the number of 3's or number 9's are incomprehensible and infinite.

"Prove" 0.9r to be 1 all you want with your formulas and maths, when it comes to the real world there is no such thing. In the real world, 0.9r and 0.3r are irrelevant since there is no such thing.

Maths is flawed.

But for crying out loud, "for all intents and purposes" it will do!
 
Originally posted by VDO
Because there's no number in between 0.9r and 1.

Can't get much less mathematical than that!
Click to expand...

that doesnt mean it is 1 though does it, you have said there is no number in between but that in itself proves that they are two separate numbers.

In the alphabet A does not = B simply because there are no letters between A and B.
 
Originally posted by sniffy
Tbh i am going to be very arrogant about it, 0.9 is NOT 1. I dont care how much maths you studied, 0.9r is not 1. 0.9r is 0.9r. 1 is 1

Now that is common sense
Click to expand...
Wonderful. Why not pass a law setting the value of pi to 10.24, and the acceleration of free-fall under gravity as 303m/s^2 while you're at it?
 
Originally posted by sniffy
If common sense and maths dont interlink, how is maths practical or even useful (to the extent you have studied it) in everyday live, it seems very pointless.
Click to expand...
Life isn't about common sense. Know much about Quantum Mechanics? Common sense isn't even on the map with that stuff, and its the foundations of life itself!
Originally posted by sniffy
Tbh i am going to be very arrogant about it, 0.9 is NOT 1. I dont care how much maths you studied, 0.9r is not 1. 0.9r is 0.9r. 1 is 1
Click to expand...
I'll tell Stephen Hawkings that next week. I saw him on Thursday, on the table next to me and some friends in uni. I'm sure he'll be fascinated by your elegant proof "Its not", and rewrite "A Brief History of Time" in your honour ;)
 
Originally posted by Xenoxide


"Prove" 0.9r to be 1 all you want with your formulas and maths, when it comes to the real world there is no such thing. In the real world, 0.9r and 0.3r are irrelevant since there is no such thing.
Click to expand...

Of course there is, it's a decimal representation of a fraction. The fraction is easier to write and think about than recurring decimals, so those are used more often, despite being the same thing.
 
Originally posted by daz
Mate, think logically for a second.

If I have a piece of cake, and divide it into three equal pieces, I can describe those pieces as fractions of the whole, or one third. I can also describe them as nasty decimals 0.3333 recurring. Now simple maths says that if I have three pieces of cake, of size 1/3 or 0.333 recurring then I can only have the whole piece of cake. No more no less.
Click to expand...

But take away a tiny tiny sliver of that cake, even a crumb and it's not the whole cake which would surely also be 0.99r?
 
Originally posted by daz
Mate, think logically for a second.

If I have a piece of cake, and divide it into three equal pieces, I can describe those pieces as fractions of the whole, or one third. I can also describe them as nasty decimals 0.3333 recurring. Now simple maths says that if I have three pieces of cake, of size 1/3 or 0.333 recurring then I can only have the whole piece of cake. No more no less.
Click to expand...

But in the real world you cannot divide a whole cake into three equal pieces. That's complete rubbish.

You would have to make 2 pieces 3.333333 of the whole, and 1 piece 3.333334 of the whole.

Why dont you take a knife to a cake and try it? No matter how much you measure, no matter how much you try you cannot divide that cake into three equal parts, there will always be a tiny little sliver left over, or one piece will be larger than another.
 
Originally posted by Xenoxide
Can I ask you something?

Why did you write 0.333r and 0.999r? Why not 0.9r, or 0.3r? Why not 0.999999999999999r or 0.33333333333333r?

They are identical, yes? It's just that 0.9r and 0.3r take less time to type/write than 0.999r and 0.333r? Yes?

Why can't I write 0.0r1?

Why not 0.000r1?

Or 0.000000000000000000r1?

Because the number of 0's inbetween is incomprehensible and infinite, just as the number of 3's or number 9's are incomprehensible and infinite.

"Prove" 0.9r to be 1 all you want with your formulas and maths, when it comes to the real world there is no such thing. In the real world, 0.9r and 0.3r are irrelevant since there is no such thing.

Maths is flawed.

But for crying out loud, "for all intents and purposes" it will do!
Click to expand...

You cant do the 0.0r1 trick coz there no such number

U cannot put that 1 because the r before it signifies that those 0s will never ever finish. ok ?

thats why you are wrong.
 
Originally posted by memphisto
that doesnt mean it is 1 though does it, you have said there is no number in between but that in itself proves that they are two separate numbers.

In the alphabet A does not = B simply because there are no letters between A and B.
Click to expand...
Look, alphabets!=numbers

For every two numbers, A and B, there has to be a number in between, yes? (A+B)/2? Do you follow that far?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom