Originally posted by w11tho
Yes, and you have also put:
1.5x - x = 1.49999.... - 0.99999....
So:
0.5x = 0.5
![]()
Yeah, he realised his mistake 30 minutes after telling me that



Originally posted by w11tho
Yes, and you have also put:
1.5x - x = 1.49999.... - 0.99999....
So:
0.5x = 0.5
![]()
Originally posted by hendrix
no, i didnt take away 1, i took away X to give 1.5 x - 1x = 0.5 x
Originally posted by hendrix
In reference to this equation:
In reference to this equation:
One of my fellow maths students is trying to disprove it using:
x = 0.9r
(times 1.5)
1.5x = 1.49r
-x
0.5x = 0.49r
x = .49r/0.5
x = 0.9r
and not 1
Somebody please help me put him right![]()
Originally posted by odoliam
your friend has made a mistake half way through
when he subtracted x, he assumed it was equal to 1, and not as originally stated, x=0.9r
1.49r - 0.9r not equal to 0.49r, unless 0.9r=1,
which is what he is trying to disprove
he uses as part of his proof that which he is trying to disprove
tell him he is an amateur, and to stop playing big boys games
oh, and for my two pennies:
0.9r is for all intents and purposes 1 - I live in the real world, and as an engineer couldn't really give a, well you know
but my opinion is that to be 100.0r% precise 0.9r is not 1.0r
![]()
And I thought engineers were meant to be good at maths!Originally posted by odoliam
...as an engineer couldn't really give a, well you know
but my opinion is that to be 100.0r% precise 0.9r is not 1.0r
Originally posted by w11tho
And I thought engineers were meant to be good at maths!![]()
Maths knowledge/ability?Originally posted by leeframp
This all seems simple and obvious to me, what am I missing?
Originally posted by leeframp
All those 'proofs' where you say X = 0.9r so 10x = 9.9r are rubbish since there is an undefined 'number' of 9s in each rendering the equation useless.
This all seems simple and obvious to me, what am I missing?
Nothing other than a GCSE and some A Level certificates (though if you asked me where I put them, I think I might have lost themOriginally posted by SidewinderINC
(and i think he has a few certificates on the wall somewhere)
My lecturers, and they agree with me. (or rather I do with them)Originally posted by SidewinderINC
is everyone else as tooled up in the maths department as he is?
Of course its definable. What makes an infinite sequence undefinable? You know "sin", "cos", "exp" and literally hundreds of other functions are defined by infinite power series (as you should know from Taylors Theorum in A Level), and are perfectly acceptable. Pi is an infinite sequence of numbers, but still a perfectly defined number.Originally posted by leeframp
As this number cannot be defined as a mathematical number (I view it as more of an instruction) then it is impossible to attempt to prove or disprove it's value by putting it in an equation.
The fact 0.9r is a definable number.Originally posted by leeframp
All those 'proofs' where you say X = 0.9r so 10x = 9.9r are rubbish since there is an undefined 'number' of 9s in each rendering the equation useless.
This all seems simple and obvious to me, what am I missing?
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
I'm a year off a BA in Maths
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
Of course its definable. What makes an infinite sequence undefinable? You know "sin", "cos", "exp" and literally hundreds of other functions are defined by infinite power series.
Originally posted by leeframp
3.1415926535897932384626433832795 is an approximation of pi, but it does not 'equal' pi. Nor will any answers you get from that number be the 'exact' answer. Sure, it will be near enough to be considered 'right' in practical terms, but like I said, I don't consider the 'real' pi to be definable. Same with 0.9r.
Originally posted by jokester
0.9r is perfectly definable, I can tell you the value of any of the digits at any point in the number, something I can't do for pi.
Jokester
I'm sorry to say this - but you don't know what you're talking about. For instance, sqrt(2) has an infinite decimal expansion, and it is the only positve number that satisfies x²=2. Sin(Pi) = 0, not Sin(3.141), not Sin(3.1415926535897932384626433832795), but EXACTLY Sin(Pi).Originally posted by leeframp
I agree that numbers like these are used in maths, but I interpret your use of the word 'defined' in this way as an approximation rather than a 'definite' value.
When pi is used to calculate an area, a truncated form of the indefinable value is used to perform a calculation. So the value you have used, and therefore the answer you get, is an approximation.
3.1415926535897932384626433832795 is an approximation of pi, but it does not 'equal' pi. Nor will any answers you get from that number be the 'exact' answer. Sure, it will be near enough to be considered 'right' in practical terms, but like I said, I don't consider the 'real' pi to be definable. Same with 0.9r.
They go on forever, hence the infinite decimal expansion.Originally posted by leeframp
How many 9s are there then?