Recurring numbers

Whitewater · 25 Feb 2006 at 01:45

cyborg said:
last summer, i was still only working over the weekends, never changed my work rota from college, and i used to wake up at 11.34 every morning. I'd still be lying down at the time, and would look at the time on the hi fi. So you might say? ever look at 11.34 upside down? try it in a calculator.....

Thou shalt be burned in righteous fire

Zefan · 25 Feb 2006 at 01:50

Zip said:
What does 1337 stand for?
Ive never been able to work that out

If this is serious then I'll explain. 1337 is the numerical representation of LEET, taken from the word Elite. It went like this "Wow guys we are an elite clan"....."Wow guys we're leet" "0mfG fell4's w3'r3 proP3r 1337!".

:Edit:

Raikiri said:
1337 = leet = elite

And I always do that as well, 13.37 on the dot.

Bugger.

Minto · 25 Feb 2006 at 02:30

daz said:
I always manage to look at my watch at 13.37 for some reason.

that's nothing, i was measuring the intensity of scattered gamma rays today and miscalibrated. I only noticed when a peak's energy came out as 1337.000 keV exactly.

Took me a good 5 mins to work out why the number made me uneasy, and then another couple to realise it wasnt right.

Gilly · 25 Feb 2006 at 02:51

Arcade Fire said:
Haha, I just read through some of that old 0.99r=1 thread.

I have to say, Gilly, that I've never seen you so wrong in my life!

You must be reading through backwards glasses.

jamoor · 25 Feb 2006 at 03:01

Jumpingmedic said:
So you thought you'd come on here and infect us all with this curse?! ARGH

I think it's just that you will notice things that you're looking for. Ever since the world trade centre attacks I've started noticing the time 9:11 on my watch constantly. It's not that there's more than two 9:11 per day anymore, it's just that with all the news coverage back then those digits were etched into my brain and if I glance at a watch at that time I will make that connection.

Same thing's happening to you now that your gfs brought this to your attention.

There's a really annoying one you can do to people that'll usually drive people insane... "Why can't you feel your tongue when you arn't thinking about it" Have fun trying to forget about your tongue now

get an analog watch.
edit - read bbc news onlline also to avoid having to be exposed to the words 7/7 and 9/11 constantly.

Jumpingmedic · 25 Feb 2006 at 04:10

qwerty said:
You're proof is too hand wavy, mine is better:

Let x=0.9r **************(1)
10x=9.9r ***************(2)
(2)-(1): 9x=9
Therefore x=1

Magic! You can't argue with maths.

All that equation proves is that we don't have a mathematical system capable of dealing with infinite numbers.

You've just multiplied a recurring number by 10... so what?... now it's ten times infinity? You can't multiply anything involving infinity, the maths just doesn't work, you're multiplying the numbers on the left but you are unable to change the numbers on the right because theres still the same amount of numbers. So obviously if you subtract the same number from the same number they cancel each other out.

If you actually were able to multiply infinity by 10 then the right hand numbers would not match and the number would change.

x = 0.9999
10x = 9.999

9x = 9.999-0.9999 = 8.9991

x = 0.9999

The same number. It fails to work with infinite numbers simply because our maths can't deal with them. Like trying to play a high definition film on a low definition tv. Our inferior system has rounded out the subtleties and given us a distorted version of the truth. Maybe oneday some mathematical genius will work out a new system that allows for calculations involving infinity and I'll finally be able convince you all that 0.9 recurring does not, and never will, equal 1

I'd also like to add that this horrible thread hijacking is all Beserker's fault

Jumpingmedic · 25 Feb 2006 at 04:11

jamoor said:
get an analog watch.
edit - read bbc news onlline also to avoid having to be exposed to the words 7/7 and 9/11 constantly.

It's very hard to find an analogue watch with a calculator.

It's too late 9:11 is stuck in my head

jamoor · 25 Feb 2006 at 05:02

Jumpingmedic said:
It's very hard to find an analogue watch with a calculator.

It's too late 9:11 is stuck in my head

Wearing a digital watch with a calculator automatically makes you a geek, change your name to JumpingGeek NOW!!!

Also why do you need a calc?

Haircut · 25 Feb 2006 at 08:22

This proves that whatever you add to 0.999... it is greater than 1, thus by the continuum property of the real line they must be the same number, anyone feel free to prove me wrong.

Omicron · 25 Feb 2006 at 08:41

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_number
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_0.999..._equals_1
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=106212

Wiki is usually a source people will accept, and the first reply in the physics forum link is from someone with a PhD in maths.

Jumpingmedic said:
Maybe oneday some mathematical genius will work out a new system that allows for calculations involving infinity and I'll finally be able convince you all that 0.9 recurring does not, and never will, equal 1

No, you just cannot put in 'infinity' as you would put in 5 or 298448283 into an equation. There are huge sections of maths devoted to dealing with concepts like infinity (0.9r is not infinity as your post implies, it's got infinitely many decimal places, but it definately not infinite in size) For instances, some infinities are different from others, though it's counter intuitive to most people. There are more to the ideas of 0.9r than you get just dealing with terminating numbers. Do you know of completeness? It's something a 'mathematical genius' came up with to deal with infinite precision in numbers, so we've a way of handing 0.9r.

Remember, intuition is another way of saying 'in my experience' and most people's experiences in maths are sorely lacking, which is definitely what your post implies of yourself I'm afraid. The inability to put in infinity into an equation like you would 5 is because you end up with logical contradictions, which at the end of the day are the yardstick by which maths is built, not yours or my gut feelings.

Pickers · 25 Feb 2006 at 08:45

Raymond Lin said:
My house number at home is 69.

Mine too!!

I believe (when the family pulled up to view the house) I said something along the lines of "I could enjoy living here".

As for £xx.99 at the supermarket - LOL. I can imagine a live comic comming out with that on stage.. genius sir.

Zip · 25 Feb 2006 at 08:47

TBH any recurring number can equal 1 if u think about it.
If they keep recurring (think about a circle) they are all fractions of the other number before them and you add that fraction into the circle over and over again and it will eventually end up with so many fractions it will create one whole

My brain is complex

Omicron · 25 Feb 2006 at 08:59

36:) said:
So is 1.999999999999999999999r 2?

According to this guy (3rd paragraph) it is. Check the URL is you aren't sure of his credentials

Zip said:
My brain is complex

That or your hat is on too tight

[edit] On looking around physicsforums.com a bit more I came across these :
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=110434 (sums up my views too, it's people lack of understanding which leads them to deny 0.9r=1)
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5513&highlight=.999
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=76016&highlight=0.999
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=22866&highlight=0.999

Scary to read in some cases.

Jumpingmedic · 25 Feb 2006 at 20:21

jamoor said:
Wearing a digital watch with a calculator automatically makes you a geek, change your name to JumpingGeek NOW!!!

Also why do you need a calc?

I am a geek... i make no argument about that

. I am capable of doing fairly complex calculations in my head. But I come across sums too complicated for me to efficiently work out on a regular basis. So a calculator is vital.

I may be a geek but I'm still a Jumpingmedic

Jumpingmedic · 25 Feb 2006 at 20:27

Omicron said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_number
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_0.999..._equals_1
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=106212

Wiki is usually a source people will accept, and the first reply in the physics forum link is from someone with a PhD in maths.
No, you just cannot put in 'infinity' as you would put in 5 or 298448283 into an equation. There are huge sections of maths devoted to dealing with concepts like infinity (0.9r is not infinity as your post implies, it's got infinitely many decimal places, but it definately not infinite in size) For instances, some infinities are different from others, though it's counter intuitive to most people. There are more to the ideas of 0.9r than you get just dealing with terminating numbers. Do you know of completeness? It's something a 'mathematical genius' came up with to deal with infinite precision in numbers, so we've a way of handing 0.9r.

Remember, intuition is another way of saying 'in my experience' and most people's experiences in maths are sorely lacking, which is definitely what your post implies of yourself I'm afraid. The inability to put in infinity into an equation like you would 5 is because you end up with logical contradictions, which at the end of the day are the yardstick by which maths is built, not yours or my gut feelings.

You're right. I'm no maths professor. I didn't even know there were any theories based on infinity.

None the less when I see an equation like:

Let x=0.9r **************(1)
10x=9.9r ***************(2)
(2)-(1): 9x=9
Therefore x=1

...I don't need a PHD in maths to tell me that it is the equation that is wrong. I stand by my view point that our current incarnation of mathmatics can't cope with infinity, no matter how many people you have working on it.

robmiller · 25 Feb 2006 at 20:30

Arcade Fire said:
Haha, I just read through some of that old 0.99r=1 thread.

I have to say, Gilly, that I've never seen you so wrong in my life!

Haha, yeah

iCraig · 25 Feb 2006 at 20:31

The date is equal to the US emergency services telephone number 911.
9 + 1 + 1 = 11

Ahaha, thats amazing.. its a big conspiracy, no wait sorry wrong word. I meant to say
its ******* coincidence!!

Ahem.

Omicron · 25 Feb 2006 at 20:45

Jumpingmedic said:
...I don't need a PHD in maths to tell me that it is the equation that is wrong. I stand by my view point that our current incarnation of mathmatics can't cope with infinity, no matter how many people you have working on it.

Because your intuition leads you the wrong way. We aren't dealing with infinity in the sense that 0.9r is an infinite quantity. I don't think anyone would argue with the fact it's less than something like 1.1, and more than 0.

There are loads and loads of ideas in maths which deal with infinities. I don't know how old you are, but A Level students meet the idea of infinite sums when dealing with certain geometric series. If you include the idea of limits, you can derive integration which is the foundation of so much of engineering, maths and physics. Then in the opposite direction you've differentiation, dealing with things going to zero, and you've even more of maths, physics and engineering. Considering we design 100 story buildings, computers, planes, power stations, launch satellites and (try to

) predict the weather using those ideas based on the concept of infinity and completeness, obviously something is going right or we'd be unable to do those things.

If you're a pure mathematician, the kind which scare most sane people, you can even start talking about how there are infinitely many different infinities. Sounds crazy I know, but if you follow certain ideas to their logical conclusion, it's an indisputable fact, unless you dispute things like 1+1=2 and 1>0 which I think we can all agree on

If you want more reading on how we CAN deal with infinities, have a gander here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completeness

I don't mean to sound rude, but it does seem terribly like you're just sticking with a preconceived notion you have about something which when you boil it down, you don't actually understand or know much about. I wouldn't pretend to know more than a professional programmer when it came to C, C++, Perl, VB or whatever because I've not learnt much about those things, so unless you're a mathematician by profession (or very least, degree, but then you wouldn't be making the errors you are) it's hard to make comments on material well estabilished in concrete and proven logic for at least 100 years.

Berserker · 25 Feb 2006 at 20:52

Jumpingmedic said:
I'd also like to add that this horrible thread hijacking is all Beserker's fault

Oh god, what have I done. :eek:

For my next trick, I'll restart the half a sandwich debate.

Jumpingmedic · 25 Feb 2006 at 20:54

Berserker said:
Oh god, what have I done.

For my next trick, I'll restart the half a sandwich debate.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE! WHAT HAVE YOU DOOOOOONE!!!!!?!?!?!??!

if you cut a sandwich in half then it's half a sandwich