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.
Originally posted by w11tho
So will you dispute that:

3+4=7

??

ok, this philosophical point of view is easy.

3+4 does not equal 7, because I don't believe the addition operator exists, ok maybe in mathematics, but in reality and from a philisophical point of view it doesn't.
 
Originally posted by gambitt
ok, this philosophical point of view is easy.

3+4 does not equal 7, because I don't believe the addition operator exists, ok maybe in mathematics, but in reality and from a philisophical point of view it doesn't.

Could you make your argument circular please, because I'm trying to wrap my head around it. :D
 
Originally posted by w11tho
lol - good one. Please tell me, how did you manage to put an 8 on the end of a number that never ends?

That is my point the number never ends ever never ever ever. So it cant eqaul 1.

As for those maths eqautions ive go no idea what the hell there talking about.

its the same as saying 0.999 = 1
same as 0.9r doesnt equal 1 the 9s never ever end and so cant possibly =1

i say the maths is iether floored or they just rounding up for simplicity.
 
Originally posted by w11tho
But why not? It can be proved based on axioms - but you don't like that. What about philosophically then? Philosophically - is 3+4=7 true?

Depends on your take on it. I'm sure we could come up with some vague philosophical debate on whether 3 + 4 = 7 or not, but that would boil down to the same debate we're already having, so why not stick with this one?
 
Originally posted by Gilly
Depends on your take on it. I'm sure we could come up with some vague philosophical debate on whether 3 + 4 = 7 or not, but that would boil down to the same debate we're already having, so why not stick with this one?
I was just curious. You won't debate 3+4=7 (true based on axioms), but you will debate 1=0.9r (true based on axioms).
 
Originally posted by w11tho
I was just curious. You won't debate 3+4=7 (true based on axioms), but you will debate 1=0.9r (true based on axioms).

I said it'd boil down to the same debate. Whats the point in switching now?

Isn't an axiom a mathematical law?
 
Originally posted by Deadly Ferret
I expect there is a shorthand way of expressing it akin to X.Yr, but regrettably I'm not one of the maths heads and so don't know what it is. :D
0.01r does not mean 0.0...01 - that would be silly.

In any case, as there are an infinite number of zeroes, there would be no one at the end.

/EDIT: Christ, this thread jumped another half a page while I was reading and replying! That makes 3... or 2.9r ;)
 
Originally posted by Gilly
Isn't an axiom a mathematical law?
Google for peano axioms. They are the set of rules which we base our entire number system on.

BTW - we defined them, they're not wrong - they are defenitions! :)
 
Originally posted by w11tho
I was just curious. You won't debate 3+4=7 (true based on axioms), but you will debate 1=0.9r (true based on axioms).

cos there is no debate about 4+3 that is 7 how ever you look at it


o.9r by deffination cannot eqaul 1.

recuring means never ending its infinatley long so it might be very very very close to 1 but never reaches 1.

it talks about a diverging series, yes it diverges on 1 meaning the value gets closer and closer and closer but it can never hit 1.
 
Originally posted by w11tho
Google for peano axioms. They are the set of rules which we base our entire number system on.

BTW - we defined them, they're not wrong - they are defenitions! :)

So I was basically right then. An axiom is a mathematical term. A law that maths is built around. Right?

Just answer the question.
 
Originally posted by AcidHell2
cos there is no debate about 4+3 that is 7 how ever you look at it


o.9r by deffination cannot eqaul 1.

recuring means never ending its infinatley long so it might be very very very close to 1 but never reaches 1.

it talks about a diverging series, yes it diverges on 1 meaning the value gets closer and closer and closer but it can never hit 1.
Are you being serious - or are you extracting the urine? You say that 4+3=7 is obvious (it's based on defentions), but 1=0.9r is wrong based on the same defentions.
 
Originally posted by Gilly
I've noticed you like that term ;)
Given you've met me, you should be aware I'm not a "maths head", it isn't the be all and end all of my personality.
Originally posted by AcidHell2
cos there is no debate about 4+3 that is 7 how ever you look at it

o.9r by deffination cannot eqaul 1.
Congradulations, you've just madee a complete error. Haven't I been saying by definition it is? By the same way 3+4 = 7, 0.9r = 1.
Originally posted by Gilly
Isn't an axiom a mathematical law?
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Axiom.html
 
Originally posted by Gilly
So I was basically right then. An axiom is a mathematical term. A law that maths is built around. Right?

Just answer the question.
Not really - but it all gets quite deep I think. They are basically the 'laws' we work with. As I said - google is your friend.

:)
 
Originally posted by AcidHell2
o.9r by deffination cannot eqaul 1.

recuring means never ending its infinatley long so it might be very very very close to 1 but never reaches 1.

I don't suppose you'd mind telling us what's between 0.9r and 1, then?
 
Originally posted by memphisto
explain it then.

I'll do it in basic terms rather than explain it using the summation.

1/3 = 0.333r

where r signifies that the 3s are repeated for ever without end.

Now you can safely muliply 0.333r by 3 safe in the knowledge that there will never get a carry generated by this operation to give you:-

0.999r which must equal 1 (since that's what we started with).

Jokester
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom