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 Bodak
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.
Click to expand...


i do know what a real number is, i've taken maths to a-level and passed it amazingly well (A) (apparently my english gcse's are still lacking)
i guess my point wasn't put across too well. what i'll say is this:
i see it as being similar to the x/2 graph. doesn't matter how close you get to where you want to be, you've still got half the remaining distance to cover, which still leaves you with another half, of which you'll only travel half at one time, etc etc, but that's a debate for another day.
i am a man of science, and as such, i agree that 0.9r doesn't equal 1.

that's all i'm gonna say. i'm outta here
 
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. :P


Andy.
Click to expand...

Thank you!

My point all along is that maths lacks an appropriate way of describing the diference. However, simply because you cannot describe it does not mean it does not exist.
 
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
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?
Click to expand...

Sorry, my comment was intentionally arsey as you're really not helping your popularity and you're being rather unpleasant (yes you don't care etc). It is repetitive so why not just drop it and walk away like you said you would earlier? You're currently coming across as a right git and frustrating yourself in the process. It's lose-lose, the only person who's winning is Mr. Ferret who loves a good bit of baiting.
Save yourself the trouble and save yourself some face. You're a smart guy and I hate to see smart guys make themselves look like arses even if they are right. It's not the facts, it's the manner.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by DragonHunter

i guess my point wasn't put across too well. what i'll say is this:
i see it as being similar to the x/2 graph. doesn't matter how close you get to where you want to be, you've still got half the remaining distance to cover, which still leaves you with another half, of which you'll only travel half at one time, etc etc, but that's a debate for another day.
Click to expand...

Zeno's Paradox (what you're talking about) has been covered numerous times in the thread.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ZenosParadoxes.html

"The resolution of the paradox awaited calculus and the proof that infinite geometric series can converge, so that the infinite number of "half-steps" needed is balanced by the increasingly short amount of time needed to traverse the distances."
 
Originally posted by memphisto
or talking to others and learning that 0.9r does not = 1 :p
Click to expand...

But as far as I can tell the only people on here who are arguing that point are the ones without degrees in maths i.e. probably not "various different people who do know their stuff extremely well". If this topic was a theory or unproven there would be various people with high level maths qualifications arguing both sides with various proofs, and from what i've read thats simply not the case.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Haly
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.
Click to expand...
You did the wrong degree. You should be doing Mathematics, since you understand PhD level mathematics at 3rd year age, and without even going to the lectures.
To quote to link, I would like you to elaborate on (for my own peicce of mind ;))

First of all - it has a lot to do with measure theory. I assume you must obvioulsy know what a measure is. So I'm sure you wont mind telling us.

Also, a Banach Space is pretty special - they come up to. Would you be able to tell me if a Banach space was everywhere connected? (Do you even know what a vector space is?!?!)

I'm not asking much - just a couple of explinations that will show you know the VERY VERY BASICS of what that link entails
 
Originally posted by yak.h'cir
But as far as I can tell the only people on here who are arguing that point are the ones without degrees in maths i.e. not "various different people who do know their stuff extremely well". If this topic was a theory or unproven there would be various people with high level maths qualifications arguing both sides with various proofs, and from what i've read thats simply not the case.
Click to expand...

true

but maths isnt everything.
 
Originally posted by Bodak
Zeno's Paradox (what you're talking about) has been covered numerous times in the thread.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ZenosParadoxes.html

"The resolution of the paradox awaited calculus and the proof that infinite geometric series can converge, so that the infinite number of "half-steps" needed is balanced by the increasingly short amount of time needed to traverse the distances."
Click to expand...

In otherwords, there is a short amount of time needed to travel that distance, yet it does exist. Yes it is negligible. But yes it does exist!

ie. An infinitely small amount of time.
 
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
You did the wrong degree. You should be doing Mathematics, since you understand PhD level mathematics at 3rd year age, and without even going to the lectures.
To quote to link, I would like you to elaborate on (for my own peicce of mind ;))

First of all - it has a lot to do with measure theory. I assume you must obvioulsy know what a measure is. So I'm sure you wont mind telling us.

Also, a Banach Space is pretty special - they come up to. Would you be able to tell me if a Banach space was everywhere connected? (Do you even know what a vector space is?!?!)

I'm not asking much - just a couple of explinations that will show you know the VERY VERY BASICS of what that link entails
Click to expand...



why dont you just drop it ?

its hardly the end of the world whether or not she understands it or not is it ? or is it simply that you cant bear the thought that someone else might actually understand some actual mathematics ?
 
In maths we need to conveninently describe certain things. Nobody is arguing with that. Maths is all about defining rules - and those rules are what we use in physics to describe the world around us.

Without those rules, we'd find it much harder to describe those systems, if at all possible.

Within those rules, we (I say we, I've done very little... i actually haven't done anything to broaden the horizons of maths on this planet..) have defined certain characteristics of fractions, decimals, infinity and within that infinite geometric series. If you want to challenge those rules, you can't merely say "nope, i'm not accepting it", you have to offer an alternative way of thinking such that the numbers still work. Because without this, a system rebuttal is quite pointless to be honest.
 
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
You did the wrong degree. You should be doing Mathematics, since you understand PhD level mathematics at 3rd year age, and without even going to the lectures.
To quote to link, I would like you to elaborate on (for my own peicce of mind ;))

First of all - it has a lot to do with measure theory. I assume you must obvioulsy know what a measure is. So I'm sure you wont mind telling us.

Also, a Banach Space is pretty special - they come up to. Would you be able to tell me if a Banach space was everywhere connected? (Do you even know what a vector space is?!?!)

I'm not asking much - just a couple of explinations that will show you know the VERY VERY BASICS of what that link entails
Click to expand...

I'll tell you what, since you and your enourmous intellect already seem to know the answer, why don't you tell us, instead of pulling someone else into a flame-bait?
 
Originally posted by daz
In maths we need to conveninently describe certain things. Nobody is arguing with that. Maths is all about defining rules - and those rules are what we use in physics to describe the world around us.

Without those rules, we'd find it much harder to describe those systems, if at all possible.

Within those rules, we (I say we, I've done very little... i actually haven't done anything to broaden the horizons of maths on this planet..) have defined certain characteristics of fractions, decimals, infinity and within that infinite geometric series. If you want to challenge those rules, you can't merely say "nope, i'm not accepting it", you have to offer an alternative way of thinking such that the numbers still work. Because without this, a system rebuttal is quite pointless to be honest.
Click to expand...



but the point is, the only people that would be able to offer any sort of rebuttal to your proofs / questions are other mathmaticians, which suggest that you all think you are superior to none mathmaticians.


which means nothing will ever be challenged because you are taught to believe 0.99r = 1 is true.
 
Yay another maths thread.

Lets not decend into a "im more intelligent than you" debate.

It was well documented a few years back that the person with the highest IQ ever recorded worked as a school janitor (and im not getting confused with the film either lol).

I'm fairly sure also that he had no formal qualifications either.
 
Originally posted by daz
In maths we need to conveninently describe certain things. Nobody is arguing with that. Maths is all about defining rules - and those rules are what we use in physics to describe the world around us.

Without those rules, we'd find it much harder to describe those systems, if at all possible.

Within those rules, we (I say we, I've done very little... i actually haven't done anything to broaden the horizons of maths on this planet..) have defined certain characteristics of fractions, decimals, infinity and within that infinite geometric series. If you want to challenge those rules, you can't merely say "nope, i'm not accepting it", you have to offer an alternative way of thinking such that the numbers still work. Because without this, a system rebuttal is quite pointless to be honest.
Click to expand...

You have just proven yourself, Alpha, and anyone else wrong.

What you are basically saying is that 0.9r is not equal to 1, however since there is no other appropriate way of working with it, the diference is negligible. And therefore for all intents and purposes, 1 is equal to 0.9r. I will completely agree with this.

However, in actual fact 0.9r is not equal to 1, and there is a diference. This diference is infinitely small, and is therefore almost completely ignored when doing mathematics. But the diference is there.
 
Anyone who doesn't accept that 0.9r = 1 clearly doesn't understand the meaning of 0.9 recurring. If they did, they would realise that it is true.
 
simple,

if you round up 0.9r then it = 1, if not it simply equates to 0.9r


end of, lol


canna believe this is going on still

of course there is a differeance between 0.9r an 1 otherwise why would we bother having a 0.9r in the first place, it's sooo much simpler to type 1 than 0.9r lol


try it, am i right or am i right???

lol :D
 
Originally posted by Élynduil
Sorry, my comment was intentionally arsey as you're really not helping your popularity and you're being rather unpleasant (yes you don't care etc). It is repetitive so why not just drop it and walk away like you said you would earlier? You're currently coming across as a right git and frustrating yourself in the process. It's lose-lose, the only person who's winning is Mr. Ferret who loves a good bit of baiting.
Click to expand...
I understand your point, and would normall conceed, but I've the nasty traint in me most males have, arrogance (though its a universal thing I suppose) and wont back down from an argument unless I'm defeated or tired (though I'm quite tired). If I come across as a jerk here, then so be it. Those who know me, speak to me on MSN and ask for help in threads see I can be a perfectly helpful and nice person. True, I can be a jerk at times, but I imagine we all can. If anyone ever wants help on here, I'll provide it (assumgin I don't get banned in my "jerk" phases). Those who know me know I'm laid back, open minded and always up for a night of random gibberish spouted from someone who is too stimulated.

I will conceed either part or all of my reputation (assuming my reputation is good on here), after all, I do not beleive or think I know everything. At least I attempt to back up my opinions, thats all I ask of my "opponents" in such debates.
Originally posted by Xenoxide
I'll tell you what, since you and your enourmous intellect already seem to know the answer, why don't you tell us, instead of pulling someone else into a flame-bait?
Click to expand...
But that would provide her with the answers. Its not a case of "I must back up my proof", its a case of "You must prove me wrong", as with any proof.

Besides, I thought your enormous intellect (or your teachers) know all the logical arguments to this anyway?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom