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 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...
True, but
Originally posted by Xenoxide
Maths is flawed.
Click to expand...
Has nothing to do with reality. Within maths its true. Outside maths, its open to debate, but within maths its true. Which are you arguing with?
 
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
You compare the alphabet to numbers? Now you're really clutching at straws!
Click to expand...

it was an example used to prove that point, you still havent answered my previous question.

why do you believe 0.9r = 1 and not from a maths viewpoint ?

and I may have used the alphabet but by your logics as there isnt a number between 0.9r and 1 then A = B :p
 
Originally posted by jokester
Actualy they're still testing that :p .

Jokester
Click to expand...

Any links, or is it just accounting for relativistic effects?

I was quite interested to read that they are only just about to test theory of relativity to a signifigant degree of accuracy. Something about using gryoscopes to measrure the drag on space time due to the motion of the Earth!
 
Originally posted by Haly
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?
Click to expand...
No crumb is infinitely small. If it were, it wouldn't exist. Alpha proved how "0.0r1"=0.
 
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...
The alphabet is not a continuum, the real numbers are.
Link

For any two numbers, A & B for which A<>B there exists an infinite amount of numbers between the two.

Thus, if there is no number between two other numbers then they must be the same number
 
Originally posted by Xenoxide
But in the real world you cannot divide a whole cake into three equal pieces. That's complete rubbish.

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.
Click to expand...

Seeing as you're argument is getting worse, how about I have nine cakes.

And give you three of them.

How many do you have? You have 3/9, or one third. One can represent this number as a fraction of 9, calling it 0.333 recurring.

0.333 is an approximation of one third. 0.333 recurring *is* one third.
 
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?
Click to expand...

Either are interchangeable but by definition an r on the end means that there is an infinite repeating decimal of the last value,

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...

There is such a thing, they are 1 and 1/3.

Jokester
 
Originally posted by VDO
No crumb is infinitely small. If it were, it wouldn't exist. Alpha proved how "0.0r1"=0.
Click to expand...

You misread what I said I think.
I didn't mean the crumb would simply vanish, that was my whole point.
Mind you I was typing in real terms rather than mathematical terms ;)
 
Originally posted by memphisto
yes so

(0.9r+1)/2
Click to expand...

the answer to that mathematically is 1

you can believe whatever you want. It annoying us your trying to justify it mathematically. no chance
 
Originally posted by memphisto
it was an example used to prove that point, you still havent answered my previous question.

why do you believe 0.9r = 1 and not from a maths viewpoint ?

and I may have used the alphabet but by your logics as there isnt a number between 0.9r and 1 then A = B :p
Click to expand...

I'm still unsure how this could be considered a non maths view point... 0.9r is a mathematical construction, it will always be maths so you have to use the rules of maths! Which tell us that 0.9r=1. If the greatest mathmaticians in the world have proved this concept surely it must be easier to believe that it is peoples understanding of that concept that could be flawed not the concept itself???
 
anyway what am i doing arguing the mathematics, yer all insanely illogical, and im as close to being a pinball wizard as a mathematical genius.

I'm not countering your arguments using maths, I simply cant. However as I have asked and alpha has said

you only believe a equation / theory is correct if you know it to be true.

Therefore a long time ago some bloke must have sat down and said to himself over breakfast and a nice cup of warm tea

Eureka !!!

0.99r = 1

I'm a genius then gone on to prove it.

My question is

Why did he initially believe 0.99r = 1 ?
Any proofs you guys come up with you must therefore believe to be true either before you do them or after the equation has been written so why do you believe 0.99r = 1
 
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
Because real life has soooooo much bearing on the behaviour of maths.
Click to expand...

Actually I never once said it did :) So don't go getting cocky and assuming things with me ;)
 
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
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!
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 ;)
Click to expand...

Feel free, because Stephen Hawking is wrong, you are wrong, and every one else who says that 0.9r is 1 is wrong. I'll be "mildly arrogant" about it too. Hell I'm liking this phrase.

Say I was going to buy Virgin Atlantic airlines for £100,00,000,000. And I paid for it in pennies. Delivered in lorries. All to the front door of the bank.

Now what if I inadvertently made a mistake in my counting, and there is only £99,999,999,999.99 worth of pennies there.

Are they going to count them all? What if they make an error during counting? They could employ a computer to count it by feeding a penny through at a time, but it could make an error and accidentally feed two pennies through by accident!

It might be so very very very close to the number, but it is not the number.

For all intents and purposes, the number is "infinity", since it cannot be counted, or it could, but it would just take so damned long.

Just like for all intents and purposes we call 0.9r 0.999 or 3.3r 3.333. If we tried to count it (Which I'll agree is impossible, but IF we tried), it would take so damned long.

When doing maths people trim these "recurring" numbers down to a number which makes more sense when writing it down. If you dont, then the number is irrelevant in real life as it cannot exist.
 
Another example here

Take 3 potatoes, split them into 3 (each group consisting of 1 potato for those dumb ppl out there!)............they are all 1/3 of the whole set.......each is 0.3r............but together they make the whole (1). so either a whole set is not a set (in which case kill yourself now!) or you are wrong so go to bed now PERIOD!


Ok beat that.
 
I was supposed to be at a party 30 minutes ago, so a friend just came round (he's a mathmo too) and wondered WTF I was doing. After a brief explaination, a quick browse and some laughter (from him, not me) he just said (not my words) "Some people just don't know when they're wrong" and returned to said party.

If any of you had has this discussion face to face with a university professor or one of the original people to prove this, they wouldn't waste 30 seconds on trying to convince you, instead chalking you up as "one of those people" who dont' bother listening to logical argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom