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 AlphaNumeric
Strange you remember all that about vector spaces, yet forget that about Banach spaces. Complete being?

Strange your replies sync up so well with Mathworld ;)
Click to expand...

Even stranger that you proved my point that you wouldn't believe me ;) :) And yet I still jumped thru the hoops for you in the chance you'd accept I knew some stuff from interest.

Earlier I said in the thread that it was best if we both accepted that neither would believe the other, I stand by that whole heartedly.
 
Originally posted by memphisto
but the crux of it is that you want mathematical proof. we cant give you mathematical proof, to a question that is partially philosophical


However we can all agree in our own little way that 0.99r is not 1

you can all agree that 0.99r is 1

Or we can all agree that there are 2 different answers from two different viewpoints.

like Alpha said previously philosophically he cant prove me worng but then philosophically i Cant prove I'm right.

therefore there is no right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Well that's fair enough if you want to say it's philosophical, but there are other posters in the thread that have been attempting to prove that it doesn't equal 1 on a mathematical level, and that is who myself and Alpha have primarily been arguing againt.

Mathematically it *has* to be 1.

Philosophically I guess you can take any number to mean anything you want...
 
Originally posted by Xenoxide
Ok, how about I conclude this.

1.0 - 0.9, what is the answer?

1.00 - 0.99, what is the answer?

1.000 - 0.999, what is the answer?

1.0000 - 0.9999, what is the answer?

Now follow the above pattern an infinite amount of times. Can you honestly tell me that at any point during the course of the pattern, the answer ACTUALLY becomes 0.0r (0.0 recurring)? I'll agree that there is a point where the diference becomes negligible for all intents and purposes, but does it ACTUALLY BECOME EXACTLY 0.0 recurring?
Click to expand...

AlphaNumerics, I am surprised you havent come up with a reply by now. It's usually less than 10 seconds before you are rebutting something I have said.
 
the philosophical route is a cop out imo, again just my opinion, it can be proved mathematically to be correct and these are under very strict axioms.

but you dont even try to prove it philosophically or can't even begin to try and prove it via this route, as its most likely "impossible" just like proving that anyone besides ourselves exist

it will just end up a debate of language and terms used in the end like half the philosophical arguements I have seen before
 
Originally posted by memphisto
so ?

you just stated that philosophically you agree with me have you not ?
Click to expand...

I just said I can see your philosophical point.

How can i agree with both view

Its either true or its not.

BTW opinions backed with some proof mean something to me. Rather than I just think coz its common sense. I know science and maths are not common sense.
 
Mathematically, 0.9r = 1.

It has been proved on this forum, not in 1 way, but in 7 distinct ways. How many more proofs do you want?

I ask those that disagree to find a number between 0.9r and 1, to prove their point. You will find this impossible!
:cool:
 
Originally posted by Xenoxide
AlphaNumerics, I am surprised you havent come up with a reply by now. It's usually less than 10 seconds before you are rebutting something I have said.
Click to expand...

YES it does become zero at the limit!!!


That is now it is defined. You are arguing with the way it is defined. I didnt choose it that way. And it makes sense to some of us at least.
 
Originally posted by Xenoxide
AlphaNumerics, I am surprised you havent come up with a reply by now. It's usually less than 10 seconds before you are rebutting something I have said.
Click to expand...

1 - 0.9 = 0.1. There's one zero before the one.

1 - 0.99 = 0.01. There's two zeroes before the one.

1- 0.999 = 0.001. There's three zeroes before the one.

Logic would dictate that if you have an infinite number of nines, you would therefore have an infinite number of zeroes before the one. Which would be zero, because you'd never get to the one.
 
Originally posted by daz
Well that's fair enough if you want to say it's philosophical, but there are other posters in the thread that have been attempting to prove that it doesn't equal 1 on a mathematical level, and that is who myself and Alpha have primarily been arguing againt.

Mathematically it *has* to be 1.

Philosophically I guess you can take any number to mean anything you want...
Click to expand...


maybe that is so but by that basis you can say mathematically 0.99r = 1 becuase these 9 proofs show it to be so,

but this isnt true for all instances of 0.99r = 1

and there would be no argument ?


Philosophically I think the argument comes down to

Do you think there is a difference between 0.9r and 1


I believe there is. You believe there isnt. Neither answer can possibly be wrong.
 
Originally posted by $piderweb
Mathematically, 0.9r = 1.

It has been proved on this forum, not in 1 way, but in 7 distinct ways. How many more proofs do you want?

I ask those that disagree to find a number between 0.9r and 1, to prove their point. You will find this impossible!
:cool:
Click to expand...


but why do you have to find a number between the two ? by that very statement that offers the rebuttal that eventhough there is not a number between them they are by definition 2 different numbers.
 
Originally posted by memphisto
like Alpha said previously philosophically he cant prove me worng but then philosophically i Cant prove I'm right.

therefore there is no right or wrong.
Click to expand...
Philisophically we yield to one another. Mathematically, I take it you conceed perhaps?
Originally posted by Haly
Even stranger that you proved my point that you wouldn't believe me ;) :) And yet I still jumped thru the hoops for you in the chance you'd accept I knew some stuff from interest.
Click to expand...
You are a media studies student in Swansea. Given I have met the head of maths there, and have seen the exams they give, I know the level of studies there. Its not a case of interest, its a case of you claim to know things PhD students dn't know. You don't learn these things out of "interest", you learn it ouf it 3 years of degrees, or else all the Cambridge students I know are lazy.
You replies are stangely remenicent of Mathworld, thats all.

Perhaps you could relate them to lower levels of mathematics, to help those who aren't of "our level" of lectures?

I assume you are aware of "Ashtons Theorum", offten quoted by those who prefer not to give proofs or solid back up which is similar to vector space theorums? You cannot get to vector spaces without Ashtons Theorum. Interlink the two and I'll be happy :) Have you seen Banach spaces and Ashtons Theorum? They go hand in hand and a brief explaination (I'm asking no more than 3 lines of text, nothing more) of their interlinking would be more than enough to silence me, and make me conceed to your knowledge. One last hurdle, and I will conceed.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by daz
1 - 0.9 = 0.1. There's one zero before the one.

1 - 0.99 = 0.01. There's two zeroes before the one.

1- 0.999 = 0.001. There's three zeroes before the one.

Logic would dictate that if you have an infinite number of nines, you would therefore have an infinite number of zeroes before the one. Which would be zero, because you'd never get to the one.
Click to expand...

That excatly the same reason why 0.0r1 doesnot work. You never get to the 1!!
 
Originally posted by memphisto
maybe that is so but by that basis you can say mathematically 0.99r = 1 becuase these 9 proofs show it to be so,

but this isnt true for all instances of 0.99r = 1

and there would be no argument ?
Click to expand...

Well it is, because to show otherwise you would have to give an example of where 0.999recurring doesn't equal 1. And you'd only have to give a single mathematical example and you'd disprove the lot... but there hasn't been one so far. ;)
 
Originally posted by Xenoxide
AlphaNumerics, I am surprised you havent come up with a reply by now. It's usually less than 10 seconds before you are rebutting something I have said.
Click to expand...
I came up with a reply to that somewhere between 10 to 15 pages ago. I rebutted your reply before you even made it ;)
 
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
Philisophically we yield to one another. Mathematically, I take it you conceed perhaps?
Click to expand...


well, er no.

I still think that 0.99r does not = 1 but i was trying to provide a way out for all of us :p
 
Originally posted by sid
That excatly the same reason why 0.0r1 doesnot work. You never get to the 1!!
Click to expand...

If that's the case, then there is no such thing as "0.9r" because you do not get to the last 9. If it was "0." with an infinite number of "9"'s on the end you would never get to the first nine. So 0.9r would be 0.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom