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 Haly
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NonstandardAnalysis.html was interesting too, found it while looking thru a thread similar to this at
Click to expand...
Do you actually understand that? You find it "interesting"? Given you do a non-maths degree at Swansea, I find it slightly odd you can comprehend stuff that is taught in the 3rd year at Cambridge to Maths students. Care to discuss your opinions on Riemann Integrable Functions? Thats 2 years below your link, so I assume its within your grasp?
Originally posted by Haly
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.
Click to expand...
You say my arrogance is growing (its going exponential, maths pun intended!), but please don't give the impression you follow such things when you don't. I don't pretend to know more than I do, I draw the line at such things. Its just no one has hit that line yet and proved they know those things.
 
Originally posted by memphisto
er

but 1 didived by 1 is well 1, not 0.99r ;)
Click to expand...

Which proves long division is wrong, or that 0.99r is 1.

I'm pretty sure you'd prefer to say that long division is wrong though....
 
Funnily enough I learn things when they interest me, don't make assumptions about me :) This interested me because debate does interest me until it gets ridiculously stupid like this is getting.
 
Originally posted by daz
Which proves long division is wrong, or that 0.99r is 1.

I'm pretty sure you'd prefer to say that long division is wrong though....
Click to expand...


but why does it even have to be long division

1/1.000000000000000 = 1 why do you have to bring the .00000 into it ?
 
Originally posted by Haly
Funnily enough I learn things when they interest me, don't make assumptions about me :) This interested me because debate does interest me until it gets ridiculously stupid like this is getting.
Click to expand...
That link is on the level of 3rd year maths students (and mostly PhD stuff). If you understand that you have either read an entire maths course and understood it (in which case you took the wrong degree!!) or you don't understand it.

And your link isn't ridicolously stupid, its stupidly hard!
 
Originally posted by memphisto
but why does it even have to be long division

1/1.000000000000000 = 1 why do you have to bring the .00000 into it ?
Click to expand...

But the poster above has shown that 1/1 = 0.999 recurring. Which is equal to 1.

Unless you are arguing that 1.0000 recurring is not equal to 1 either? :confused:
 
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
Do you actually understand that? You find it "interesting"? Given you do a non-maths degree at Swansea, I find it slightly odd you can comprehend stuff that is taught in the 3rd year at Cambridge to Maths students. Care to discuss your opinions on Riemann Integrable Functions? Thats 2 years below your link, so I assume its within your grasp?

You say my arrogance is growing (its going exponential, maths pun intended!), but please don't give the impression you follow such things when you don't. I don't pretend to know more than I do, I draw the line at such things. Its just no one has hit that line yet and proved they know those things.
Click to expand...

Oh god, since when do you need a degree to know something?

You obviously know how to be a jackass yet I doubt you have a degree in that.

Back to the original topic though, my point all along has been this.

0.9r is simply a logical way of writing 0.9 with an infinite number of 9's on the end. However there is no logical way of writing 0.0r1, because since infinity has no end you cannot put a 1 on the end of it.

Does this mean that simply because there is no logical way of describing it, it does not exist?
 
Originally posted by daz
But the poster above has shown that 1/1 = 0.999 recurring. Which is equal to 1.

Unless you are arguing that 1.0000 recurring is not equal to 1 either? :confused:
Click to expand...


how can 1 / 1 = 0.9r ? 1/1 = 1

2/2 = 1 not 1./9r

3/3 = 1 not 2.9r

or is this where you tell me that actualy it does ?
 
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
That link is on the level of 3rd year maths students (and mostly PhD stuff). If you understand that you have either read an entire maths course and understood it (in which case you took the wrong degree!!) or you don't understand it.
Click to expand...

It was a well written article that with a bit of thought can make sense to most people. I'm guessing you're just assuming things of me while knowing nothing of my background. I may not have understood it as well as some 3rd year Maths students would have but I understood it well enough to prove my point.


Although why do I have a feeling I will never be able to prove a thing to you and it'd be pointless to even bother trying? Guess we'd best both get used to it eh ;)
 
Originally posted by memphisto
how can 1 / 1 = 0.9r ? 1/1 = 1

2/2 = 1 not 1./9r

3/3 = 1 not 2.9r

or is this where you tell me that actualy it does ?
Click to expand...

Well, the poster above has used long division to show it. :)
 
when you think about it, saying does .999 recurring equal one is similar to saying does £9,999,999.99 equal £10,000,000.00

to some people it might, but i'd rather have the extra penny if you don't mind.

a rather abstract way of saying it, since pounds and pence don't have recurring decimal points, but i think the point is there somewhere.
 
Originally posted by Xenoxide
Oh god, since when do you need a degree to know something?

You obviously know how to be a jackass yet I doubt you have a degree in that.

Back to the original topic though, my point all along has been this.

0.9r is simply a logical way of writing 0.9 with an infinite number of 9's on the end. However there is no logical way of writing 0.0r1, because since infinity has no end you cannot put a 1 on the end of it.

Does this mean that simply because there is no logical way of describing it, it does not exist?
Click to expand...

If by 0.0r1 you mean the smallest possible number above zero there is a way of writing it, its 1/infinity. Which is probably the same as zero however I dont know the proofs on that so I wont say for definite.
 
Originally posted by Haly
It was a well written article that with a bit of thought can make sense to most people. I'm guessing you're just assuming things of me while knowing nothing of my background. I may not have understood it as well as some 3rd year Maths students would have but I understood it well enough to prove my point.


Although why do I have a feeling I will never be able to prove a thing to you and it'd be pointless to even bother trying? Guess we'd best both get used to it eh ;)
Click to expand...

Maths is all about proofs and you've just said you cant. If you can prove something logically. Alpha or any other 'intelligent' human has to agree. that is the point. getting the jist of it is not enough to write a proof. Its a completely different skill. I am learning some advanced maths atm. (only school) and learnign to proove and learning to put number in a forumula is demanding skill.
 
I can't believe this is still going on. Must say, my opinion of Alpha has sunk even lower. How arrogant can you get? I'm a doctor of psychology so by his standards I must surely qualified enough to arrive at that conclusion and be above refute, no?

Will you lot stop already? Yes there are lots of little ways to prove that 0.9r = 1 and yes in practical (and theoretical?) mathematics 0.9r = 1 for all intents and purposes. But the flipsideis that if you use common sense (no need to touch the word philosophical) it's accurate to suggest that 0.9r is not equal to 1. These are two different things and in their way both are correct. Practical mathematics doesn't hold the answer to everything, it can't work with 0.9r so 0.9r = 1. If you're not messing about with numbers then they don't need to be the same.

----------------

Just as an aside if infinites were workable how would you express the difference between 0.9r and 1? 0.0r1 or something? I don't deal with this sort of stuff anymore. :/
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Xenoxide
You obviously know how to be a jackass yet I doubt you have a degree in that.
Click to expand...
I got a 2-2 in my "JAckass" degree last year, but I'm hoping with the help of this thread I'll get a 1st in it this year.
Originally posted by Haly
I may not have understood it as well as some 3rd year Maths students would have but I understood it well enough to prove my point.
Click to expand...
Its not a case of sitting there and eventually it'll "twig", its a case of you have to attend classes on less complex things so unless you sat in maths lectures while you spent your youth in Swansea uni, you don't know this. If you wish to give me a brief discussion on Riemann integrable functions, Bannach spaces and the concept of unique solutions to PDEs within given domains (all requirments to understand what you linked to) I don't beleive you know what that link is talking about outside what you've Googled :)
Originally posted by Xenoxide
Oh god, since when do you need a degree to know something?B]
Click to expand...
It was you who said "My maths teacher said....." so I just "trumped" you with one of the greatest mathematicians alive, simple really :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom