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.
*Chuckles* You're too easy to wind up. I could do this all night.

You've just posted that you don't use the equation for your convienience. You use the assumption (anything stated without the proof to accompany it is an assumption by definition) because you don't want to bother proving it each time you use it.

Strangely enough, I said that the equation doesn't have any real application or use in mathematics apart from being used to easily substitue 1 for 0.9r.

I fail to see at which point you didn't prove what I said correct? But please feel free to enlighten me ;)
 
richard pryor character in superman stole millions of dollars from his company from rounding erros in paycheck's because of the computer system they used or something

excellent point:confused:
 
Originally posted by Kyle Reece
You've just posted that you don't use the equation for your convienience. You use the assumption (anything stated without the proof to accompany it is an assumption by definition) because you don't want to bother proving it each time you use it.
Click to expand...
By that argument, every time someone adds up the change due from buying a round of drinks they have to prove that the Real Numbers form a vector space, then that they can be ordered.

Does 0.9r change its value over time? Do I need to check its still 1 every time I use it?

Did you do (or are doing) GCSE maths? Did every time you said 10x59 (or the like) did you manually check that 59+59+59+59+59+59+59+59+59+59 = 590, or did you just stick a 0 on the end of it? Because by your "logic", if you didn't you are making assumptions.

Its an assumption "by defintion" if you haven't proved it. Once you've proved it, its true for all time. In questions where it says "No assuming [such and such]" I prove the result as asked. Otherwise, its suffice that someone else has proved it in the past.

It seems that its your thinking thats flawed there hmm?
 
Last edited:
if you want to see how annoying try proving 1+1=2, and once you fail look at how many pages it took hardy to do it in
if you want to see how annoying try proving 1+1=2, and once you fail look at how many pages it took hardy to do it in
Click to expand...

sorry it was whitehead and russell, my bad
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
Its the most accurate (ie squares up with experimental results) model of the universe we've (humans) have ever made. Predictions for the behaviour of systems of particles are in agreement with experiments down to 10 decimal places. Newton's Gravity screws up at about the 4th decimal place.

Its got little to do with common sense too. Even some of the "basic" ideas aren't what most people would think of as correct. In Quantum Mechanics ab != ba. Its non-commutative algebra.
With "usual" numbers you get things like 3x5 = 5x3. No problem. Once you meet matrices you realise that not everything is so nice. Quantum Mechanics is based on such "non-nice" things.

B]
Click to expand...


Yeah I know that, just thought it paralleled quite well with people saying that 0.9r=1 has no effect on the real world. Most people have either no knowledge of quantum physics and just think that its some scientists wet dream, i.e. only occurs in some darkened lab under the right conditions... ;)
 
Originally posted by carvegio
if you want to see how annoying try proving 1+1=2, and once you fail look at how many pages it took hardy to do it in
Click to expand...
Nah, give him something nastier. 1 > 0. Prove it. I bet you use 1 > 0 all the time. If someone gave you no change after you gave them £10 for a £8 round of drinks you;d say "Hey, where's my change?" because £2 is bigger than £0. Prove it.
Originally posted by yak.h'cir
Yeah I know that
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn't mean to make it look like I was telling you, it was more a "general post", for those that might wonder what use non-common sense things can be :)
 
Originally posted by Kyle Reece

Strangely enough, I said that the equation doesn't have any real application or use in mathematics apart from being used to easily substitue 1 for 0.9r.
Click to expand...

You can use it to teach limits, as clearly shown god knows how many times in this thread. That's a pretty good use.
 
A remember a massive thread on this maybe a year or so ago, was like deja vu when i saw this one (havent used ocuk in awhile)

edit: and i clearly remember AlphaNumeric and someone else (gilly i think?) arguing over it
 
I'm really supprised this topic has generated such interest. It's surly beatin the previous threads on religion and god! People are actually more motivated by someone sayin that 0.9r does/doesnt equal 1 then debating whether life is an accident or design!!!
 
Originally posted by KillerKebab
Prove that 1>0 ?

Thats probably the most basic thing in maths... and I have no idea how on earth I can prove it :/
Click to expand...
Its a 1st year Numbers and Sets question here in Uni. I couldn't do it when I did that question. You need working knowledge of Fields and Equivalence Relations. Suffice to say, even if you can prove it from them (takes about 1/2 an A4 page), don't you think its a bit silly to have to prove that, everytime you think "Is that number bigger than that number?", which is what Mr Reece says you have to do, or you're making an assumption. You must prove somethign every single time you use it he says.

In that case, it'd take about 300 pages to answer any maths question. Thats how long it takes for you to build up maths from its axioms to answering any kind of even vaguely difficult question (even long division!). Not exactly practical, nor required, given proofs don't alter with time.
 
Originally posted by TwoWheelTerror
I've had a thought.. if you multiply .9r by 10 it'll have a zero on the end..

x = .9999999....
10x = .999999....0

does this mean that .9r cannot equal 1
Click to expand...
No, there is no zero, because the sequence of 9's never ends. If you don't want to think about it like that, instead think that "times 10" shifts the decimal point to the right, not the numbers to the left. This you have the same sequence of 9s, just the decimal point moved right. No zero at the end, no difference between 0.9r and 1 :) Thats nowhere near a proper explaination, but perhaps the best way of thinking about it if you don't like infinities.

/edit
Anyway, I'm off to sleep, I've lectures at 9, 10 and 11 tomorrow morning, and 2 1 hour supervisions in the afternoon. I await Mr Reece's explaination why every single "assumption" in maths must be proved every single time its used, given proofs are constant, and once true are always true ;) That and his proof of 1>0, since I'm sure he uses that a lot, so has proved it countless times and he can reel off quickly. Shouldn't take more than a few hundred pages of PhD level mathematics to prove every result he uses in that proof too :p
 
Last edited:
st_dogbert_small.gif


Stop bumping, let the thread die, as it's clear we're never going to prove (wait, we have!) that mathematically we're right. 0.0r1 indeed...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom