Poll: Does 0.99 Recurring = 1

AlphaNumeric · 2 Nov 2004 at 23:10

Originally posted by Bodak
Apparently I'm doing 2400 just for my degree. 25hrs a week, 32 weeks a year, 3 years. Even knocking off revision and such, there's still quite a bit more than 2k.

Wow, thats a lot. I do about 13 hours a week, 24 weeks a year (of which only 16 weeks actually have lectures), 3 years, comes out as 624 hours of lectures in my degree.
Lectures are not compulsory, and even if you do go, its expected you do 3 times (at least) as much hours of work in your own time. Some people manage 5 or 6 times as much, which is a hell of a lot of personal work! Its more a case of "heres the general case, do examples yourself". Long gone are the days like GCSE where its "Heres the method, now do these 100 examples", its "Method 1, proof. Method 2, proof. Method 3, proof".

Originally posted by w11tho
Also, Alpha - how on earth do you prove 1>0 from the axioms! (i'm totally lost!)

With a degree, a PhD and about 400 pages of intense maths. Suffice to say, no one here can do it, unless a Pure maths professor has registered and not come forward yet. Not the kind of thing you pick up "chatting to a lecturer", even if you find it interesting, it requires a huge amount of knowledge and ability.

Bodak · 2 Nov 2004 at 23:16

Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
Wow, thats a lot. I do about 13 hours a week, 24 weeks a year (of which only 16 weeks actually have lectures), 3 years, comes out as 624 hours of lectures in my degree.

How many "topics" do you do?

Maybe because this is a sports uni, they push us extra hard to not make the maths department look bad.

j00ni · 2 Nov 2004 at 23:19

Originally posted by Bodak
You suck

Apparently I'm doing 2400 just for my degree. 25hrs a week, 32 weeks a year, 3 years. Even knocking off revision and such, there's still quite a bit more than 2k.

try 30+hrs a week, 35 weeks a year (ave), for 5 years on for size

5000+ hours for my degree

/edit: although 0hrs is maths, so i am happy

w11tho · 2 Nov 2004 at 23:29

Originally posted by Bodak
How many "topics" do you do?

Maybe because this is a sports uni, they push us extra hard to not make the maths department look bad.

Hey - Bodak! Sorry to go off topic slightly. But I remember you said you got into Warwick. How did you find the STEP papers? I am thinking of applying there - so just wondering what they are like.

carvegio · 2 Nov 2004 at 23:48

wow that is a lot of hours, I have 12 hours a week of lectures (Imperial third year) of which i go to about 9/10

Bodak · 2 Nov 2004 at 23:51

Originally posted by w11tho
Hey - Bodak! Sorry to go off topic slightly. But I remember you said you got into Warwick. How did you find the STEP papers? I am thinking of applying there - so just wondering what they are like.

I applied for Liverpool and Loughborough in the end. What's the saying? Planning prevents **** poor performance? I chose Loughborough, and I honestly don't know why. Guess I can't complain til at least summer, if it's that bad, I can try for a transfer somewhere.

NB - I sat a Physics AEA paper, and "played" (ie - never took) STEP papers, because my college only really did them for Cambridge people. Again, something else I might have given a thought to if I had a clue. Uni to me was always Liverpool, until I wanted to get out.

w11tho · 3 Nov 2004 at 00:00

Originally posted by Bodak
I sat a Physics AEA paper, and "played" (ie - never took) STEP papers, because my college only really did them for Cambridge people. Again, something else I might have given a thought to if I had a clue. Uni to me was always Liverpool, until I wanted to get out.

Sorry mate, I figured cos you said you got into Warwick you passed the STEP papers! No probs - cheers for the info!

AlphaNumeric · 3 Nov 2004 at 00:04

Originally posted by Bodak
How many "topics" do you do?

1st year it was 4 a term for 2 terms. 2nd year it was a total of 12 topics (though some were only 16 lectures, not the "usual" 24), and this year it'll be 10 topics, totalling about 210 1 hour lectures.

As I said, the emphasis is put on personal work, not lecturing. The lecturer gives guides and general ideas, rarely are "examples" given, especially in Pure Maths (not that I do that). Its up to a student to work out or find examples in books. After all, ultimately all you require is the method, and perhaps a single example to get the point across. If not, then textbooks or the net are available. One of my "Integrable Systems" lecturers favourite phrases is "I won't bother proving this, its highly trivial". Trivial implies its obvious, which implies a proof is instantly explainable. He's got enough experience to see the proof instantly, and he expects us to learn enough that within 16 lectures we are the same!

I have fewer lectures per week, and less weeks per year than almost every other uni, yet cover more material. You can see how thag equates to personal time being hugely important.

carvegio · 3 Nov 2004 at 00:06

the step papers are not very difficult, here is a sample one http://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/undergrad/admissionsinfo/steppaper/02II.pdf there are some more samples online i think somewhere to

it takes a lot of practise from the typical a-level mindset though to achieve a good standard in step type papers, so if you have any experience of olympiads or olympiad type problems it should be very easy

only consider doing it if applying to cambridge though

AlphaNumeric · 3 Nov 2004 at 00:11

Originally posted by carvegio
the step papers are not very difficult

Its relative. They are hard if you've programmed yourself to repeat answers parrot fashion as you require to pass A Level. The concepts in STEP are not advanced, but instead disguise what you need to do rather than spell it out for you as A Level does. Saying they are "not very diffucult" is a mis-nomer, given they are used as Cambridge entrance exams and even those given offers only get the required grade less than half the time from what I've heard.

carvegio · 3 Nov 2004 at 00:13

Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
Its relative. They are hard if you've programmed yourself to repeat answers parrot fashion as you require to pass A Level. The concepts in STEP are not advanced, but instead disguise what you need to do rather than spell it out for you as A Level does. Saying they are "not very diffucult" is a mis-nomer, given they are used as Cambridge entrance exams and even those given offers only get the required grade less than half the time from what I've heard.

yes I agree, thats why I said this to....

it takes a lot of practise from the typical a-level mindset though to achieve a good standard in step type papers, so if you have any experience of olympiads or olympiad type problems it should be very easy

Bodak · 3 Nov 2004 at 00:17

Originally posted by w11tho
Sorry mate, I figured cos you said you got into Warwick you passed the STEP papers! No probs - cheers for the info!

I passed the mock everyone else did

w11tho · 3 Nov 2004 at 07:27

Originally posted by carvegio
the step papers are not very difficult, here is a sample one http://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/undergrad/admissionsinfo/steppaper/02II.pdf there are some more samples online i think somewhere to

it takes a lot of practise from the typical a-level mindset though to achieve a good standard in step type papers, so if you have any experience of olympiads or olympiad type problems it should be very easy

only consider doing it if applying to cambridge though

What did you get in STEP carvegio? Thanks for the info btw!

Womble · 3 Nov 2004 at 15:58

I voted NO but..... look what I just did

0.99999999999999999999999999 = x
9.99999999999999999999999999 = 10x

therfore 9x = 9
and x = 1

spooky aye?

Bodak · 3 Nov 2004 at 15:59

Originally posted by Womble
I voted NO but..... look what I just did

0.99999999999999999999999999 = x
9.99999999999999999999999999 = 10x

therfore 9x = 9
and x = 1

spooky aye?

At the risk of sounding like a WTLW... check the other 30 odd pages. I'm sure that proof is on them all...

Spock · 3 Nov 2004 at 17:08

This is directed at Memphisto mainly, as well as all the others that say 0.9r doesnt = 1.

First, I am not a mathmetician, although to my utter revulsion, I was forced to do some calculus etc as part of my university course (engineering), which, incidentaly, I gave up on (lost interest, couldnt afford it). But thats another story.

The thing is, Memphisto, you are not wrong - 0.9... with infinite 9s cant ever reach 1, off course it can't - on the face of it.

But 0.9r - please take a look at my following - non mathematical - but perfectly valid example.

You are standing aiming a pistol at my head. The muzzle of the pistol is 1 metre away from my head.

There is an infinitely fast camera, side on to the stuation.

You pull the trigger, and within a split second, after the bullet has travelled 0.9 metres, it takes a photograph. At 0.99 metres it takes another photograph, and again at 0.999 metres, 0.9999 metres and on to infinity.

Now, asuming the camera is infinite of course in terms of speed, and film, the bullet would never reach me - and I would be one smiling ******-******

Hence, by that reasoning, 0.9r, would never reach 1.

Sadly for me however, the insides of my head would be exiting stage left. The bullet would indeed travel the 1 metre distance.

Both sides are right here, in their own arena of reasoning and constraints of thinking.

Karaboudjan · 3 Nov 2004 at 17:27

Mr Spock, I like your explanation

What I disagree with, is the reason why the 2=1 "proof" is wrong, it looks more like a failing of algebra (at least a failing of the shorthand if there is any) in my opinion

growse · 3 Nov 2004 at 17:29

Originally posted by Karaboudjan
Mr Spock, I like your explanation

What I disagree with, is the reason why the 2=1 "proof" is wrong, it looks more like a failing of algebra (at least a failing of the shorthand if there is any) in my opinion

The standard reason why the standard 2=1 "proof" is wrong is because you do a step which involves dividing both sides by 0. Notation and algebra doesn't really come into it.

daz · 3 Nov 2004 at 17:30

Originally posted by Karaboudjan

What I disagree with, is the reason why the 2=1 "proof" is wrong, it looks more like a failing of algebra

What is the 2 = 1 "proof"...

Karaboudjan · 3 Nov 2004 at 17:35

Originally posted by growse
The standard reason why the standard 2=1 "proof" is wrong is because you do a step which involves dividing both sides by 0. Notation and algebra doesn't really come into it.

There is nothing that I know of (Currently at P2 A Level knowledge) in algebra that says that the x couldn't be divided by something. IIRC there wasn't a x =//= 0

If someone could post the proof it would help a great deal

Poll: Does 0.99 Recurring = 1

Does 0.99 Recurring = 1

Yes

No