Permabanned
Square 0.9r
Poll: Does 0.99 Recurring = 1
- Thread starter Pious
- Start date
- Status
Square 0.9r
Soldato
Exactly, 0.9r is 1 by definition, and that's that
Can't you see 0.9r ISN'T another number!? That's the whole point!
Soldato
I'd quite enjoy a discussion about the nature of created self contained systems, their applications and weather they can be ever truely consistant, should they be completed, but that isn't what anyone else seems to want.
An infinitely, non recurring decimal does not exist in the real world, due to quantisation. That I conceed. Shame physics and reality have no bearing on maths isn't it?
So you think that something created and specifically defined can be altered by peoples opinions? Take the "I'm called George" example I just gave. Does your opinion make my name Fred, or Tom, or Jim? Nope, by definition I'm George, just like by definition 0.9r = 1.
I'm far from a nerd.Originally posted by Deadly Ferret
Must make a refreshing change from recording train designations at the local station.
You do realise Archemedes defined 1/n to be zero as n goes to infinity don't you?
Man of Honour
All their mathematical genius clogs up their heads and leaves no room for humour or tolerance.
Here's a good example:
I was just teasing, not seriously suggesting you were a trainspotter!
Last edited:
It appears I’ve been bundled with the ‘maths crew’, something I slightly resent p)! I have never said there isn’t a philosophical side to the existence and forms of infinity, recurring decimals and so on. However, they do exist as mathematical concepts and have mathematical proofs – I would debate the philosophical side but this thread isn’t about that, it’s a poll on the accuracy of a mathematical proof: it is nonsensical. You're trying to quantify the conceptual (and thus unquantifiable) difference between a concept and a quantifiable number! It's so crazy it can only be debated mathematically!
If you start a thread addressing the philosophy of these concepts, I’ll be happy to join in.
p)! I have never said there isn’t a philosophical side to the existence and forms of infinity, recurring decimals and so on. However, they do exist as mathematical concepts and have mathematical proofs – I would debate the philosophical side but this thread isn’t about that, it’s a poll on the accuracy of a mathematical proof: it is nonsensical. You're trying to quantify the conceptual (and thus unquantifiable) difference between a concept and a quantifiable number! It's so crazy it can only be debated mathematically! If you start a thread addressing the philosophy of these concepts, I’ll be happy to join in.
Soldato
Just like there's something clogging up your head to make you unable to realise a defintion cannot be different due to someone's opinion.Originally posted by Deadly Ferret
All their mathematical genius clogs up their heads and leaves no room for humour or tolerance.
Man of Honour
And what might that be?
PS: Remember to say it with good grace, or you'll be affirming Gilly's complaint that you lot are quite aggressive.
PS: Remember to say it with good grace, or you'll be affirming Gilly's complaint that you lot are quite aggressive.
Soldato
I was only teasing, couldn't you tell?Originally posted by Deadly Ferret
PS: Remember to say it with good grace, or you'll be affirming Gilly's complaint that you lot are quite aggressive.
Man of Honour
Originally posted by Deadly Ferret
And what might that be?
PS: Remember to say it with good grace, or you'll be affirming Gilly's complaint that you lot are quite aggressive.
It was more a warning than a complaint.
And Daz, apologies for lumping you with the maths crew. It was an unfortunate turn of phrase more than anything else. You don't match them because you can see there are other ways that this can be approached, so I retract the statement
I do now.
Are you actually telling me that you see no place for infinity other than in maths?
Alpha is reminding me of memphisto on the subject of the Govt, it's scary!
I voted no, I understand how it can be proven to be 1 and in practical appliance I would use it as 1. However I don't agree that it is 1 in common sense terms, it's 0.99r there's still a difference even if the difference doesn't exist in mathematics.
I voted no, I understand how it can be proven to be 1 and in practical appliance I would use it as 1. However I don't agree that it is 1 in common sense terms, it's 0.99r there's still a difference even if the difference doesn't exist in mathematics.
Man of Honour
OK, maybe I should have read right through the thread before voting. I was originally in the No camp, but now I've seen a 'proper' mathematical proof here, I'm converted, kicking and screaming, to the Yes camp.
But, and this is a big but, is this really something that gets used (even by mathematicians), or is this just some mathematical curio for nerds?
But, and this is a big but, is this really something that gets used (even by mathematicians), or is this just some mathematical curio for nerds?
Man of Honour
Originally posted by w11tho
He might not really be agressive though - he might be teasing!
Well he ought to do it in such a way that we know that to be the case then. We don't all have the mathematical genius required to comprehend his complex and subtle form of teasing.
at the end of the day who cares ? its not like maths is actually useful beyong multiplying, dividing, adding and subtracting.
but anyway I dont care, if 0.9r = 1 and some actual person sat down and spent days trying to prove it then more fool them. What a waste of time and energy.
why didnt they just say 1 = 1 there we go now i can go the pub.
so question does
0.09r = 0.1
0.19r= 0.2
etc etc
or is it simly 0.9r = 1
but anyway I dont care, if 0.9r = 1 and some actual person sat down and spent days trying to prove it then more fool them. What a waste of time and energy.
why didnt they just say 1 = 1 there we go now i can go the pub.
so question does
0.09r = 0.1
0.19r= 0.2
etc etc
or is it simly 0.9r = 1
Soldato
That's kinda leaving the mathematical side behind (which I assume this thread was intended to discuss)
Don
We have a winner!
Yes you are indeed correct.
Jokester
Man of Honour
Again, another that I respect who also sees it the way I do.
Affirmation hath arrived
Originally posted by Deadly Ferret
Well he ought to do it in such a way that we know that to be the case then. We don't all have the mathematical genius required to comprehend his complex and subtle form of teasing.
Maybe its the ability in maths that hinders other ways of thinking? Or maybe the mind is trained not to think in those other ways?
Originally posted by Inquisitor
That's kinda leaving the mathematical side behind (which I assume this thread was intended to discuss)
Thats a rather large assumption there old boy.
Mathematically, 0.9r = 1. You can't argue with that. It's been proved. It's like you can't argue with 2+2=4.
Philosophically however, I find it harder to believe. It's just the concept that any 'decimal', recurring or otherwise, can be as large as 1 when the number preceding the decimal point is 0.
It's like Zeno's Paradox, which shows how a rabbit cannot possibly be caught by a dog moving at twice its speed. It's difficult to disprove mathematically but once one starts looking at it in a 'wider' way it becomes clear that it's untrue.
Infinity doesn't exist other than in maths. It's a concept which can't be quantified. That's where Zeno's Paradox breaks down.
Philosophically however, I find it harder to believe. It's just the concept that any 'decimal', recurring or otherwise, can be as large as 1 when the number preceding the decimal point is 0.
It's like Zeno's Paradox, which shows how a rabbit cannot possibly be caught by a dog moving at twice its speed. It's difficult to disprove mathematically but once one starts looking at it in a 'wider' way it becomes clear that it's untrue.
Infinity doesn't exist other than in maths. It's a concept which can't be quantified. That's where Zeno's Paradox breaks down.
- Status