Poll: Does 0.99 Recurring = 1
- Thread starter Pious
- Start date
- Status
I mean 0.0r1 as being 0.0000000, with an infinite number of 0's in it, and a 1 on the end.
Of course, I'm assuming that in this case the 0.0r1 compliments the 0.9r, in that there are an equal number of infinite 9's in it as there are an equal number of infinite number of 0's, minus one.
Since it is an infinite number there is no way of ensuring that there an equal number of 0's as there are 9's minus 1.
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
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
Er that's your problem really isnt' it not mine?
Think the debate is going anyway and getting pointless, slowly seeping into personal comments and assumptions
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,782
- Location
- London
Even lower than 1? By AcidHells reasoning thats infinite, so I thank you for the praise Elynduil
More seriously though, I do not (to be blunt) really care about your opinion of me. I think you make decent posts and have a good analytical mind, but at the same time, someone whom I've never (and in all likelyhood, will never) meet's opinion of me is mute.
I've argued the same points again and again to those who don't know what they are talking about (usuallyt by their own admission), don't you think its a bit repetative?
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 480
- Location
- Birmingham
Originally posted by Xenoxide
You're well on your way, son.
i thought someone was gonna say "you've already got one, aren't you doing a PhD?"
EDIT
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,782
- Location
- London
Not personal insults. If you do understand such things from "recreational reading", I admire your intelligence. If you're claiming to understand something you don't, its hypocritical (by definition), thats all.Originally posted by Haly
Er that's your problem really isnt' it not mine?
Think the debate is going anyway and getting pointless, slowly seeping into personal comments and assumptions
To remove all personal opinions from this, I'll just ask factual questions :
Have you sat in on 1st, 2nd and 3rd year courses?
Do you understand these concepts to the point you can talk about them without a net link?
If the answer to either (or better, both) of these is "No", then you lied. Not my opinion, its fact.
Answers on a postcard to.....
Yep, and I award you a 1st in Ignorance. Wear it with pride my sonOriginally posted by Xenoxide
You're well on your way, son.
Last edited:
Tosh.
Money is a discreet number system. You can have any munber of the interger set (2, 6, 21/7, etc) and give it meaning. You can have 5 pence. You cannot have 5.23 pence, because there isn't a denomination that small.
We're talking about the set of real numbers, which is any "real" number you can imagine along the numberline.
Incidently, I think it's great you all want to disprove this issue so greatly, but when a mathematician wants to disprove a new theory, they generally do some reading around the subject. Some of you admit to having no maths degrees, A levels, experiance or such. Give the geometric sequence (Gauss) proof a look, it's nothing more than 30 mins reading if you're up to looking at A level revision sites. Then come back, with a little knowledge, and try looking for flaws.
Didn't say insults I said comments
No I haven't sat in on lectures but I have had numerous debates about mathematical issues with a lecturer when it's interested me. Maths doesn't interest me much anymore only when I want to debate it.
You don't have to do a degree or go to University to learn things, simply having conversations with various different people who do know their stuff extremely well when you're interested in the subject can teach you a hell of a lot more.
Like I said, don't make assumptions without having the facts
I'm pretty sure you cant write 0.0r1, since 0.0r means there are an infinite number of zeros there is no room for the 1 on the end...
The number that is 0.000...001 is often represented by 1/infinity. which is often taken to be 0, but not sure if this is an approximation or exactly equal to. But at a guess I would say that 0.0000infinte0001=0.
Doesn't this question just show that the decimal system is flawed?
1 is a whole, 0.9999999r is not a whole because no matter how many billions of 999s you stick on the end there's always a bit missing from a whole 1 as there is no end to the number, it's constantly recurring.
So, mathematically speaking 0.99r would equal 1, but only cause of the flaws in the decimal system not being able to represent certain fractions, such as 1/3, as complete figures.
And there is my useless muttering on the subject.
Andy.
1 is a whole, 0.9999999r is not a whole because no matter how many billions of 999s you stick on the end there's always a bit missing from a whole 1 as there is no end to the number, it's constantly recurring.
So, mathematically speaking 0.99r would equal 1, but only cause of the flaws in the decimal system not being able to represent certain fractions, such as 1/3, as complete figures.
And there is my useless muttering on the subject.
Andy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,782
- Location
- London
Okay, you have read outside your course. I say "Good for you", and I mean that without sarcasm or lying, if someone reads outside their course, its a good thing.Originally posted by Haly
Like I said, don't make assumptions without having the facts
But the things you have linked to are way beyong "talking to a lecturer". The link you provided and said was "interesting" would make half the mathematicians in almost any uni in the UK winch! Its the stuff PhD's are made of. You do not know that stuff from talking to a lecturer, its takes hundreds of hours ofd lectures and thousands of houres of personal work to get those concepts. Read your link and honestly say if you understand such things?
I don't get why people think alpha is being arrogant, he is simply correct. He is giving reasoned, logical, recognised arguments, which no one else is doing. And really is cleverer than probably all of you, so why is it arrogant for him to say that you are wrong and don't understand, when you say things that are wrong and are not listening when he explains it.
Why do people always assume people of great intelect are being arrogant. Simple truth is they will understand things that you never will, so accept it.
Why do people always assume people of great intelect are being arrogant. Simple truth is they will understand things that you never will, so accept it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,782
- Location
- London
I owe you a pint
I agree with you that 0.0r1 isn't an appropriate way of describing it, which is what I said. However, many people on this board seem to think that just because there is no appropriate way of describing it, it does not exist.
"often taken to", is that not another way of saying an "approximation"? 1/infinity is not then 0 then, it's 1/infinity.
Just like 0.9r is not 1, it's 0.9r. There is a diference. It is really really tiny (Infinitely small), and there is no appropriate way of describing it that makes sense, but it does exist.
but thats hte point he is both right and wrong. I am both right and worng and you are both right and wrong.
in fact everyones opinion on this matter is both right and wrong.
unless of course they think that 0.99r is neither =1 or not = to 1 and infact they think 0.99r = 27 in which case they probably are just plain wrong
Originally posted by Andy C
Doesn't this question just show that the decimal system is flawed?
1 is a whole, 0.9999999r is not a whole because no matter how many billions of 999s you stick on the end there's always a bit missing from a whole 1 as there is no end to the number, it's constantly recurring.
So, mathematically speaking 0.99r would equal 1, but only cause of the flaws in the decimal system not being able to represent certain fractions, such as 1/3, as complete figures.
And there is my useless muttering on the subject.
Andy.
You might think that, but what it does show is that fractions such as 1/3 are nasty to work with in the decimal system. One third is equal to 0.333 recurring in decimals, whereas if we want to approximate one third, we'll use 0.33 (or 0.333 if you like
). Your calculator will probably approximate one third to 8 decimal places. If you had a calculator that you display an infinite number of decimals on, and you typed 1/3, then it would give you 0.333 recurring. If you then multiplied this number by three on the magic calculator, it would give you 1. If you didn't use a magic calculator though, you'd get 0.9999999 (however many decimal places it used to approximate).Sorry but I do. I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't understand it. I may not understand it as well as some would but I still understood what it meant and how it would be relevant to the debate.
Expecting you to suggest I'm lying or twisting the truth which I suppose is understandable but all I can say is I'm being honest and anyone who knows me knows I don't lie especially not over trivial matters.
BTW from what I can equate from the things I've read as well as this thread I'm guessing this is a hotly debated issue which probably means there's no right or wrong
But I do tend to think more philosophically than mathematically these days.- Status