Poll: Does 0.99 Recurring = 1

Karaboudjan · 31 Oct 2004 at 15:10

Originally posted by VDO
This has been gone through in the previous thread. Would you really like me to copy/paste the posts, rekindle the argument and take us all back to square 1?

Square 0.9r

Inquisitor · 31 Oct 2004 at 15:10

Originally posted by w11tho
How can you say a defenition is wrong to those who made it (not saying I'm one of them!).

Exactly, 0.9r is 1 by definition, and that's that

Originally posted by blade007
yep for me one number is not the same as another

Can't you see 0.9r ISN'T another number!? That's the whole point!

AlphaNumeric · 31 Oct 2004 at 15:11

Originally posted by nige
I would have quite enjoyed going at the philosophical side of this argument.

I'd quite enjoy a discussion about the nature of created self contained systems, their applications and weather they can be ever truely consistant, should they be completed, but that isn't what anyone else seems to want.

An infinitely, non recurring decimal does not exist in the real world, due to quantisation. That I conceed. Shame physics and reality have no bearing on maths isn't it?

Originally posted by Gilly
Simply because you chose this as your vocation doesn't make your opinions any more valid than anyone elses, and yes, that includes those that do not agree with you.

So you think that something created and specifically defined can be altered by peoples opinions? Take the "I'm called George" example I just gave. Does your opinion make my name Fred, or Tom, or Jim? Nope, by definition I'm George, just like by definition 0.9r = 1.

Originally posted by Deadly Ferret
Must make a refreshing change from recording train designations at the local station.

I'm far from a nerd.

Originally posted by Gilly
Where did I say a defenition was wrong?

You do realise Archemedes defined 1/n to be zero as n goes to infinity don't you?

Deadly Ferret · 31 Oct 2004 at 15:11

Originally posted by Gilly
Why do you guys have to be so aggressive?

All their mathematical genius clogs up their heads and leaves no room for humour or tolerance.

Here's a good example:

Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
I'm far from a nerd.

I was just teasing, not seriously suggesting you were a trainspotter!

nige · 31 Oct 2004 at 15:11

It appears I’ve been bundled with the ‘maths crew’, something I slightly resent

p)! I have never said there isn’t a philosophical side to the existence and forms of infinity, recurring decimals and so on. However, they do exist as mathematical concepts and have mathematical proofs – I would debate the philosophical side but this thread isn’t about that, it’s a poll on the accuracy of a mathematical proof: it is nonsensical. You're trying to quantify the conceptual (and thus unquantifiable) difference between a concept and a quantifiable number! It's so crazy it can only be debated mathematically!

If you start a thread addressing the philosophy of these concepts, I’ll be happy to join in.

AlphaNumeric · 31 Oct 2004 at 15:12

Originally posted by Deadly Ferret
All their mathematical genius clogs up their heads and leaves no room for humour or tolerance.

Just like there's something clogging up your head to make you unable to realise a defintion cannot be different due to someone's opinion.

Deadly Ferret · 31 Oct 2004 at 15:15

And what might that be?

PS: Remember to say it with good grace, or you'll be affirming Gilly's complaint that you lot are quite aggressive.

w11tho · 31 Oct 2004 at 15:16

Originally posted by Deadly Ferret
And what might that be?

PS: Remember to say it with good grace, or you'll be affirming Gilly's complaint that you lot are quite aggressive.

He might not really be agressive though - he might be teasing!

AlphaNumeric · 31 Oct 2004 at 15:16

Originally posted by Deadly Ferret
PS: Remember to say it with good grace, or you'll be affirming Gilly's complaint that you lot are quite aggressive.

I was only teasing, couldn't you tell?

Gilly · 31 Oct 2004 at 15:16

Originally posted by Deadly Ferret
And what might that be?

PS: Remember to say it with good grace, or you'll be affirming Gilly's complaint that you lot are quite aggressive.

It was more a warning than a complaint.

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

Originally posted by AlphaNumeric

You do realise Archemedes defined 1/n to be zero as n goes to infinity don't you?

I do now.

Are you actually telling me that you see no place for infinity other than in maths?

Nikias · 31 Oct 2004 at 15:17

Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
So you think that something created and specifically defined can be altered by peoples opinions? Take the "I'm called George" example I just gave. Does your opinion make my name Fred, or Tom, or Jim? Nope, by definition I'm George, just like by definition 0.9r = 1.

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.

Élynduil · 31 Oct 2004 at 15:17

Alpha is reminding me of memphisto on the subject of the Govt, it's scary!
I voted no, I understand how it can be proven to be 1 and in practical appliance I would use it as 1. However I don't agree that it is 1 in common sense terms, it's 0.99r there's still a difference even if the difference doesn't exist in mathematics.

Berserker · 31 Oct 2004 at 15:17

OK, maybe I should have read right through the thread before voting. I was originally in the No camp, but now I've seen a 'proper' mathematical proof here, I'm converted, kicking and screaming, to the Yes camp.

But, and this is a big but, is this really something that gets used (even by mathematicians), or is this just some mathematical curio for nerds?

Deadly Ferret · 31 Oct 2004 at 15:18

Originally posted by w11tho
He might not really be agressive though - he might be teasing!

Well he ought to do it in such a way that we know that to be the case then. We don't all have the mathematical genius required to comprehend his complex and subtle form of teasing.

memphisto · 31 Oct 2004 at 15:18

at the end of the day who cares ? its not like maths is actually useful beyong multiplying, dividing, adding and subtracting.

but anyway I dont care, if 0.9r = 1 and some actual person sat down and spent days trying to prove it then more fool them. What a waste of time and energy.

why didnt they just say 1 = 1 there we go now i can go the pub.

so question does

0.09r = 0.1
0.19r= 0.2

etc etc

or is it simly 0.9r = 1

memphisto · 31 Oct 2004 at 15:18

Originally posted by Élynduil
Alpha is reminding me of memphisto on the subject of the Govt, it's scary!
.

can you remind me of this ?

Inquisitor · 31 Oct 2004 at 15:19

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.

That's kinda leaving the mathematical side behind (which I assume this thread was intended to discuss)

Jokester · 31 Oct 2004 at 15:19

Originally posted by memphisto
0.09r = 0.1
0.19r= 0.2

We have a winner!

Yes you are indeed correct.

Jokester

Gilly · 31 Oct 2004 at 15:20

Originally posted by Élynduil
Alpha is reminding me of memphisto on the subject of the Govt, it's scary!
I voted no, I understand how it can be proven to be 1 and in practical appliance I would use it as 1. However I don't agree that it is 1 in common sense terms, it's 0.99r there's still a difference even if the difference doesn't exist in mathematics.

Again, another that I respect who also sees it the way I do.

Affirmation hath arrived

Originally posted by Deadly Ferret
Well he ought to do it in such a way that we know that to be the case then. We don't all have the mathematical genius required to comprehend his complex and subtle form of teasing.

Maybe its the ability in maths that hinders other ways of thinking? Or maybe the mind is trained not to think in those other ways?

Originally posted by Inquisitor
That's kinda leaving the mathematical side behind (which I assume this thread was intended to discuss)

Thats a rather large assumption there old boy.

Mattus · 31 Oct 2004 at 15:20

Mathematically, 0.9r = 1. You can't argue with that. It's been proved. It's like you can't argue with 2+2=4.

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.

It's like Zeno's Paradox, which shows how a rabbit cannot possibly be caught by a dog moving at twice its speed. It's difficult to disprove mathematically but once one starts looking at it in a 'wider' way it becomes clear that it's untrue.

Are you actually telling me that you see no place for infinity other than in maths?

Infinity doesn't exist other than in maths. It's a concept which can't be quantified. That's where Zeno's Paradox breaks down.