Man of Honour
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 9,389
- Location
- London
If that's such a laudable approach, why don't you follow his lead instead of hanging around and poking fun at those you seem to consider your inferiors?
Poll: Does 0.99 Recurring = 1
- Thread starter Pious
- Start date
- Status
If that's such a laudable approach, why don't you follow his lead instead of hanging around and poking fun at those you seem to consider your inferiors?
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
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
You can call me an unknowing one. Why can you grasp the concept of an infinitely large number but not an infinitely small one?
I'm beginning to grow beyond simple "****"'s and "mildly arrogant" words in my attitude to you. I think I will bow out of this conversation now.
so because it is the basis for your whole way of thinking us mere mortals cant challenge it ?
the simple fact of the matter we believe 0.99r = 0.99r
we believe that number is there it is with us it goes on forever, and most crucially of all it does not = 1
yours is it has to otherwise everything we know and trust will collapse, the earth will explode and we will all be sucked into a black hole as the universe implodes in on itself.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,782
- Location
- London
Shooting fish in a barrel is fun too. That and he came back about 10 minutes ago and finds Xenoxide very funnyOriginally posted by Deadly Ferret
If that's such a laudable approach, why don't you follow his lead instead of hanging around and poking fun at those you seem to consider your inferiors?
I can, where did I say I couldn't? I have done Real Analysis, I know all about limiting processes to zero
Fine by me. I hold no illusions people such as Gilly and Deadly Ferret consider me an arrogant ****. Their posting (and their own admission) tell me they are older than me. You give the impression you're both younger than me and know very little maths compared to me. Feel free to bow out, your comical posts of ignorance will be missed by both myself and my friend
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,782
- Location
- London
Boy, are you going off on a random tangent?!Originally posted by memphisto
yours is it has to otherwise everything we know and trust will collapse, the earth will explode and we will all be sucked into a black hole as the universe implodes in on itself.
Since when did 0.9r = 1 result in such things, or are we going back to the "bag of numbers" someone mentioned earlier Whats "2x3" outside maths? Whats "5" outside maths? Whats 2.1 outside maths? What on earth is your point......outside maths?
Originally posted by memphisto
yours is it has to otherwise everything we know and trust will collapse, the earth will explode and we will all be sucked into a black hole as the universe implodes in on itself.
No it's not.
The argument is, if 0.999r is *not* equal to 1, then how does it work exactly like the number 1 when used in equations. If the number wasn't equal to one, it would behave differently. But it doesn't - it behaves exactly as one. Not slightly less.
I will not admit defeat because I KNOW you, and Alpha, and VO-whatever to be wrong. It's pure common sense 9 is not the same as 10, 0.9 is not the same as 1.0 no matter how many 9's you can (Or cannot) stick on the end of it.
And for those of you who believe common sense and maths to be completely irrelevant to each other, well, I'd like to see you get on in life without maths.
Hell, even my maths teacher taught me that I could write 3.333 instead of 3.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333r. Is he wrong? Because according to you he is. Or "for all intents and purposes" is he right? (Notice the quotation marks because people seem to be throwing that phrase around all evening and completely disregarding what it means).
Originally posted by Deadly Ferret
If that's such a laudable approach, why don't you follow his lead instead of hanging around and poking fun at those you seem to consider your inferiors?
Because he wants to feel above us mere mortals?
BTW done some interesting reading and this caught my eye - http://nrich.maths.org/askedNRICH/edited/1347.html Kinda disproves someone's supposed correct algrebraic formula earlier on
As well as shows you need infinity in the equation to prove it's possible. Might have been mentioned earlier, only read thru half of the few hundred posts.http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NonstandardAnalysis.html was interesting too, found it while looking thru a thread similar to this at http://forums.spodesabode.com/viewt...&start=0&sid=8b058e35e393ad4de8bf83856fb7fac2
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
Boy, are you going off on a random tangent?!
Whats "2x3" outside maths? Whats "5" outside maths? Whats 2.1 outside maths? What on earth is your point......outside maths?
1: That was called humour
something that if you move away from your maths textbooks you might learn about 2: Because you said
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
If you can't prove it wrong, then in maths its right. Since you can't prove 1>1, its right. Hence its right
That indicates that in maths it is right, so what about outside of maths ? what about in other areas ?
all you have done is said that in maths 0.99r = 1 that you can prove it in maths I understand and can see that, however philosophically you cant prove it, or form an argument against the point of view that none mathmaticians will always see 0.99r as a smaller number than 1.
Last edited:
thats called rounding....
its to help people how arn't very good at fractions (or maths in general) or of course if you are trying to find roots to equations with iterative processes and that sort of thing, but thats only if you need a real answer that is approximate to so many places
Last edited:
OK, your first point - common sense isn't necessarily common and equal to all people. You're saying "this is common sense, so it must be right. If maths doesn't use common sense, then maths is wrong." This argument is flawed. You're basing it on the assumption that your common sense is absolute and absolutely correct at that.
Secondly, 3.333 is an approximation of 10/3. It does not equal 10/3. It is close to 10/3. If we wanted to describe 10/3 precisely as a decimal, you would have to use 3.333 recurring infinitely, which you can't do on most calculators i've used.
Hence in most cases, an approximation to 2 or 3 signficant figures is used. This is the case in almost every application where 100% accuracy is not required. This doesn't make them wrong, but it doesn't make them right. They're approximations, and approximations are good to work with.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,782
- Location
- London
For the 4th time, common sense and maths aren't related. Are you not reading my posts?! Are you just selectively reading or just visually impaired?
Basic (and I mean BASIC) maths squares up with common sense (by luck), after that, and into the realms of infinity, it all goes sideways.
Yes. My Cambridge maths professor told me, and he's cleverer than your maths teacher, or at least I'd be willing to bet all my money on it. That or he got a Fields Medal (thats the Maths nobel prize) for lying
Given I know the top 5 regular posters on there, I'm registered there and know 90% of people here won't even bother trying to comprehend that post, its kinda pointless. Still, it doesn't disprove the other 7 proofs
There are several posters here who know I'm far from a maths geekOriginally posted by memphisto
1: That was called humour
Philisophicallly, I can't prove anything, but then neither can you prove me wrong. Stalemate
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
Philisophicallly, I can't prove anything, but then neither can you prove me wrong. Stalemate
so there is no right or wrong anwser to the question then I can live with that ......... until a time when i become a maths genius and crush you like a bug with my superior intellect
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
Given I know the top 5 regular posters on there, I'm registered there and know 90% of people here won't even bother trying to comprehend that post, its kinda pointless. Still, it doesn't disprove the other 7 proofs
Not really debating if you just throw something away you don't like surely? I'm sure that's what you'd say if I did the same to you
Either way it shows that you're both right and wrong in your thinking.
Also your arrogance is growing by the second, probably why most people have stopped bothering trying to get you to see anything other than what you've been taught.
You can write 0.333 instead of 0.33r, as long as you understand its an approximation, for most purposes and everyday life approximating is fine.
Common sense and science often do not gotogether. Just because an event/process seems obvious doesnt make it right. Common sense would have people believe that an objects natural state is stationary, that heavy ojects will fall faster then lighter ones. Both these theories could be considered true by someone sat there thinking about it using only common sense but a person of science who performs experiments, takes measurements to produce and back up theories would tell you otherwise.
- Status