Poll: Does 0.99 Recurring = 1

AlphaNumeric · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:58

Originally posted by Xenoxide
Maths always has a purpose.

Several Pure mathematicians in my uni just spun in their beds (they aren't dead, so no graves). You are wrong! Its the pursuit of knowledge.

Xenoxide, you've just talked complete ****. Maths not always has a purpose, its the continuation of our ideas and thoughts in a logical expression.

How old are you? (I ask again). Do you have any formal maths education (beyond GCSE)?

Xenoxide · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:58

Originally posted by sid
Erm it does have bearing. that computer you are using now works on principles in maths.

All the technology u use works because proofs in maths are infallible. maths has bearing in real life.

Yeah, and calculator on my Windows PC still trims 3.3r doesn to 3.333 because it cannot do it! Goes to show how much bearing it has.

AlphaNumeric · 31 Oct 2004 at 20:59

Originally posted by Xenoxide
Windows PC still trims 3.3r doesn to 3.333 because it cannot do it! Goes to show how much bearing it has.

Because we all trust Microsoft as far as I can throw an elephant!

sid · 31 Oct 2004 at 21:00

Originally posted by Xenoxide
Your not getting my point. We expand in human knowledge in order to aid us in and/or help us understand LIFE.

The meaning of life??

Thats a hard question.

daz · 31 Oct 2004 at 21:00

1/3 as a decimal is 0.33 recurring.

0.33 is an approximation of one third. 0.33 recurring *is* one third.

sid · 31 Oct 2004 at 21:01

I sense jealous among those incapable of arguing mathematcially. If you dont understand the point of maths . Dont argue about is then.

daz · 31 Oct 2004 at 21:01

Originally posted by Xenoxide
Yeah, and calculator on my Windows PC still trims 3.3r doesn to 3.333 because it cannot do it! Goes to show how much bearing it has.

We're not talking about real life here though - we're talking about thought experiments. A calculator prefers to work things out using decimals, rather than fractions. Now because your calculator cannot represent 0.333 recurring, it will use however many decimal places it has to approximate 0.333 recurring.

riven · 31 Oct 2004 at 21:02

Originally posted by Xenoxide
Yeah, and calculator on my Windows PC still trims 3.3r doesn to 3.333 because it cannot do it! Goes to show how much bearing it has.

go learn c++ you will learn that infact the number system for it only goes so far (64,000 odd unsigned int i vaugely recall, let alone a float) so of course it cant do it.

Xenoxide · 31 Oct 2004 at 21:02

Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
Several Pure mathematicians in my uni just spun in their beds (they aren't dead, so no graves). You are wrong! Its the pursuit of knowledge.

Xenoxide, you've just talked complete ****. Maths not always has a purpose, its the continuation of our ideas and thoughts in a logical expression.

How old are you? (I ask again). Do you have any formal maths education (beyond GCSE)?

You have not given me a reason why maths should exist other than your reason of "to expand human knowlege". Why do we expand human knowledge? Do I read an encyclopedia because it's fun, or because I want to help me understand life more? Does reading an encyclopedia for fun not expand your knowledge of life anyway?

PS: You're talking as much **** as I am in my book. And my book is not the same as your apparently. Am I wrong or are you wrong? Please tell me "oh-almighty-knowing-one" who still writes 0.9r because he cannot write an infinite number of 9's.

memphisto · 31 Oct 2004 at 21:02

Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
Given maths is the ultimate expression of logical argument, I find that a bit rich. You ignore proofs (about 8 of them at last count!) again and again, and explainations and say we're illogical? I have yet to see a completely logical argument from you yet

alpha you said that you have to believe a solution to be true or at least implied that here

Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
Thats the point, we can't. If I do a proof to something and get 1 = 2, I scrunch up the paper, chuck it in the bin and start again. Why? Because its known to be false.

All these proofs seem complex and seem like they could be used to prove anything, but if we show 1 = 2, which we know to be false, we know we can't use that "proof" because its a lie.

I challenge anyone to use 0.9r = 1 to prove 1 = 2 (and I don't mean using the "divide by x-y = 0 trick).

so by this if you write an equation or proof where 1=2 you would throw it in the bin because you know it to be false.

SO what I am trying to get at is who said 0.99r = 1 is true ?

someone must have ? some mathmatician in the past will have wrote a proof like the ones in here, which can not be disproved using mathmatics am I correct ?

this proof says 0.99r = 1 so you all believe it because he has proved it and he convinced you all with his proof. therefore genrations of mathmaticians have nodded there heads at his work and thought he is right.

But he is right because he belived / you believe that his proof shows the truth and is not false, is that correct ? In your logical realm of maths you believe that because of that proof you are all right and me the little man who knows nothing about that is wrong.

Yet the whole system is based on the belief that 0.99r = 1 is true

what is like your proofs that proove 1=2 it is actually false ?

and 0.99r does not actually =1 ?

Xenoxide · 31 Oct 2004 at 21:02

Originally posted by riven
go learn c++ you will learn that infact the number system for it only goes so far (64,000 odd unsigned int i vaugely recall, let alone a float) so of course it cant do it.

So you're telling me if it had a higher "unsigned int" it would be able to display 3.3 and an infinite number of 3's on my screen?

riven · 31 Oct 2004 at 21:03

Originally posted by sid
The meaning of life??

Thats a hard question.

42

riven · 31 Oct 2004 at 21:04

Originally posted by Xenoxide
So you're telling me if it had a higher "unsigned int" it would be able to display 3.3 and an infinite number of 3's on my screen?

if the limit was infinite then it would display 1

Mozart · 31 Oct 2004 at 21:05

Originally posted by Xenoxide
You have not given me a reason why maths should exist other than your reason of "to expand human knowlege". .

Er, ever heard of 'engineering', 'physics'? You know, technology. You woudn't be on your computer right now if it wasn't for mathematics.

Mathematics is part of life, and it can be pretty useful.

daz · 31 Oct 2004 at 21:06

Originally posted by memphisto

Yet the whole system is based on the belief that 0.99r = 1 is true

The point is, 0.999 recurring, or 0.333 recurring * 3 must equal one, otherwise our whole system of algebra is wrong. It follows on from what we already know. If it doesn't equal 1, then it must equal something else. The number must be real and rational because we can represent it as a fraction.

Xenoxide · 31 Oct 2004 at 21:06

Originally posted by memphisto
what is like your proofs that proove 1=2 it is actually false ?

Oh yes, a very nice question. I like you.

Alpha will come up with a reasoning like "if you put one apple next to one other apple you get two apples". Yet by that reasoning if you put 0.9r apples on a table next to another bunch or 0.9r apples on a table you get 2 apples?

What if I was to put 9r apples on a table next to another group of 9r apples? Do I get 20 apples?

Or 200 apples?

Or 400 apples (Yes it would still work by Alpha's reasoning)

AlphaNumeric · 31 Oct 2004 at 21:07

Originally posted by Xenoxide
Please tell me "oh-almighty-knowing-one" who still writes 0.9r because he cannot write an infinite number of 9's.

You obviously don't know enough maths to have come up against infinite sums. Run home to your quadratic formula and circle theorms and leave those who know about more complicated things to talk

Originally posted by memphisto
SO what I am trying to get at is who said 0.99r = 1 is true ?

1 = 2 only in a modulo 1 system, and our number system is not a modulo system, so to you and other layman (no offence) 1 isn't 2 and never will be.

Originally posted by memphisto
SO what I am trying to get at is who said 0.99r = 1 is true ?

While I don't know his name, it'll probably been after Gauss (who proved the summation formula).

Originally posted by memphisto
But he is right because he belived / you believe that his proof shows the truth and is not false, is that correct ?

If you can't prove it wrong, then in maths its right. Since you can't prove 1>1, its right. Hence its right

Xenoxide · 31 Oct 2004 at 21:07

Originally posted by daz
The point is, 0.999 recurring, or 0.333 recurring * 3 must equal one, otherwise our whole system of algebra is wrong. It follows on from what we already know. If it doesn't equal 1, then it must equal something else. The number must be real and rational because we can represent it as a fraction.

I believe that's his point. What if the whole system of algebra is wrong and you've been living a lie for the past 3000 years (Or however long)?

daz · 31 Oct 2004 at 21:08

Originally posted by Xenoxide

Alpha will come up with a reasoning like "if you put one apple next to one other apple you get two apples". Yet by that reasoning if you put 0.9r apples on a table next to another bunch or 0.9r apples on a table you get 2 apples?

What if I was to put 9r apples on a table next to another group of 9r apples? Do I get 20 apples?

Or 200 apples?

Or 400 apples (Yes it would still work by Alpha's reasoning)

Now again you're comparing a discrete variable with a continuous one. Which is completely meaningless.

AlphaNumeric · 31 Oct 2004 at 21:08

Originally posted by Xenoxide
What if I was to put 9r apples on a table next to another group of 9r apples? Do I get 20 apples?

Or 200 apples?

Or 400 apples (Yes it would still work by Alpha's reasoning)

9r has no meaning. Hence I wouldn't say that. Another fine example of your lack of understanding