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.
0.9r is the same as 0.99999999r is the same as 0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999r

It all means the same thing.

0.9r means, if you will, that all possible "9"s are added onto to the end. It doesn't just mean "you keep adding 9 to the end", it means, every possible "9" has been added; that's the definition.
 
Originally posted by Inquisitor
That's kinda leaving the mathematical side behind (which I assume this thread was intended to discuss) :o
Click to expand...

The analogy he created relates to the mathematics and I was trying to pursue it further. :)

Afterall, isn't mathematics just what we humans created to define numbers which do not exist in any real sense. So if enough people define it differently, can maths not be changed?

(Yes, I realise that mathematically for 0.99r to not equal 1 it would require lots of other maths to be changed too).
 
Originally posted by Gilly
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 ;)
Click to expand...

Now, there's lumping me with a perceived 'maths crew' and then there's forgetting my name, I am very upset. :mad:
 
Originally posted by jokester
We have a winner!

Yes you are indeed correct.

:)

Jokester
Click to expand...


hmm interesting cos on the same principle I would say that neither of them were right

I would say

0.09r = 0.09r not 0.1
0.19r = 0.19r not 0.2

there is a difference in my view however small it maybe.
 
Originally posted by Matt Wood

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.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and that would be the discussion at hand where the maths heads able to join in.

Originally posted by Matt Wood
Infinity doesn't exist other than in maths. It's a concept which can't be quantified.
Click to expand...

So the theories that the Universe is infinite are...?
Originally posted by nige
Now, there's lumping me with a perceived 'maths crew' and then there's forgetting my name, I am very upset. :mad:
Click to expand...

Hahaha, well you and Daz are rather similar. Apologies once more good sir ;)
 
Originally posted by Crispy Pigeon
Well, if his opinion was that you were called Fred, then to him you would indeed be Fred (if he truly believed that).

Furthermore, if enough people's opinions are changed then you really would become called Fred.
Click to expand...
Birth certificate? I'm George in my head, so I'm George. People can call me what they like (that isn't an open invitation DF ;)) I'll still be George.

Suffice to say that my patience for talking with people who have no ability to weild to logical argument (which is what maths is) has been reached. I now can't be bothered to try and tell anyone else. Proofs have been posted, answers been given. If any of you wish to go through your days labouring under false pretenses, go ahead, I'm happy in the knowledge my PoV is a correct one, and that there are enough people around who do realise this is a "No two ways about it" concept that not everyone here has their heads "clogged". With what, I'd probably best not say.
 
Originally posted by nige
I..... I would debate the philosophical side but this thread isn’t about that, it’s a poll on the accuracy of a mathematical proof: i
Click to expand...
But is it?

The starter of the original thread didn't specify, and the very first response (warHawk) said that it would get philosophical. I would therefore argue that the philosophical line of debate is at least as valid as the mathematical one ...... and far more interesting, since the mathematical proofs as provided by Alpha are patently and obviously correct.

The real issue, therefore, is whether the assumptions on which those proofs rely are valid and, if they are, whether they're the whole story. Which I'm not going to say more about here (I heard that collective sigh of relief :)) because it's all in the other thread.


I'm not voting here, because there is no option that says "both". It is true, if you accept the assumptions implicit in Alpha's proof, but it isn't if you don't.
 
If someone said:

3 x 8 = 24

I could say - but is it [/b]really[/b]? You think I was daft for asking, because you're all used to the concept of addition, and you've BEEN TAUGHT that 3x8=24. If someone wanted to prove it, then it would come down to showing that it agrees the the peano axioms - which are a set of rules we defined! Now this is very similiar, you are disputing 0.9r=1. This has boiled down to a discussion of the infinite - a notion which is defined in such a way that 0.9r=1.

Come on guys - think about it! :)
 
Originally posted by memphisto
hmm interesting cos on the same principle I would say that neither of them were right

I would say

0.09r = 0.09r not 0.1
0.19r = 0.19r not 0.2

there is a difference in my view however small it maybe.
Click to expand...

seem correct to me.

x=0.0999999r
10x=0.999999r
9x=0.9
x=0.1

same principle applies to x=0.19r = 0.2.
 
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
Birth certificate? I'm George in my head, so I'm George. People can call me what they like (that isn't an open invitation DF ;)) I'll still be George.

Suffice to say that my patience for talking with people who have no ability to weild to logical argument (which is what maths is) has been reached. I now can't be bothered to try and tell anyone else. Proofs have been posted, answers been given. If any of you wish to go through your days labouring under false pretenses, go ahead, I'm happy in the knowledge my PoV is a correct one, and that there are enough people around who do realise this is a "No two ways about it" concept that not everyone here has their heads "clogged". With what, I'd probably best not say.
Click to expand...

And I still can't believe you had the cheek, nay, the gall to call ME closeminded.


I'M ALPHA AND MY ANSWER IS RIGHT SO I'M NOT LISTENING!!!!
 
Originally posted by Crispy Pigeon
(Yes, I realise that mathematically for 0.99r to not equal 1 it would require lots of other maths to be changed too).
Click to expand...
Everything would change - and I mean EVERYTHING. I could start telling you that 1=2, and 4x0=345. It's a closed system, there are no holes. Change one defenition - and it all changes.

:)
 
Originally posted by Harley
But is it?

The starter of the original thread didn't specify, and the very first response (warHawk) said that it would get philosophical. I would therefore argue that the philosophical line of debate is at least as valid as the mathematical one ...... and far more interesting, since the mathematical proofs as provided by Alpha are patently and obviously correct.

The real issue, therefore, is whether the assumptions on which those proofs rely are valid and, if they are, whether they're the whole story. Which I'm not going to say more about here (I heard that collective sigh of relief :)) because it's all in the other thread.


I'm not voting here, because there is no option that says "both". It is true, if you accept the assumptions implicit in Alpha's proof, but it isn't if you don't.
Click to expand...

Although the debate may have two sides the vote, by definition, is speaking mathematically, and I can certainly appreciate why under such circumstances you wouldn’t vote. ;)

I maintain that this a non-topic and we’d be far better starting a new one if we want to talk about the philosophy of infinity, i.e. its existence in practical terms, but this is more a discussion of the human ability to comprehend such concepts than it is their actual existence.
 
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
Suffice to say that my patience for talking with people who have no ability to weild to logical argument (which is what maths is) has been reached. I now can't be bothered to try and tell anyone else. Proofs have been posted, answers been given. If any of you wish to go through your days labouring under false pretenses, go ahead, I'm happy in the knowledge my PoV is a correct one, and that there are enough people around who do realise this is a "No two ways about it" concept that not everyone here has their heads "clogged". With what, I'd probably best not say.
Click to expand...

Oh, are you off then Mr Sensitive? :p

Hang on, don't go. I wanted to ask you what your position on infinity is? Is it purely just a concept, or can it be tangible in some way? :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom