Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 81

Thread: 0,9999999=1

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    3,487
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheVoiceInYourHead View Post
    But there is no last number.

    And no, they used the formula correctly.
    There's no last number in 0.99999999999... but there's a last number in 1.0. That just proves that it's incorrect.

    And no, the formula is used incorrectly. When you use it to find the fraction of a recurring decimal, you have to isolate the non-recurring part from the recurring part, by multiplying by an integer multiple of 10. In 0.999999... the recurring and non-recurring can not be separated, and so the formula is not usable.
    [CENTER][img]http://signatures.mylivesignature.com/54486/113/4539C8FAAF3EAB109A3CC1811EF0941B.png[/img][/CENTER]
    [CENTER][BANANA]TSN ~ Vacation! ~ says :I Love Santy[/BANANA][/CENTER]

    [CENTER][BANANA]Raymond - Oh rilie? says :Your smart[/BANANA][/CENTER]

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    8,876
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Quoted
    327 Post(s)

    Default

    No. 0.999999... does not equal to 1.

    Try in scar.
    SCAR Code:
    begin
      WriteLn(BoolToStr(0.999999999999 = 1));
    end.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    3,487
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zytex! View Post
    No. 0.999999... does not equal to 1.

    Try in scar.
    SCAR Code:
    begin
      WriteLn(BoolToStr(0.999999999999 = 1));
    end.
    That's not suitable either...because SCAR doesn't let you declare recurring decimals
    [CENTER][img]http://signatures.mylivesignature.com/54486/113/4539C8FAAF3EAB109A3CC1811EF0941B.png[/img][/CENTER]
    [CENTER][BANANA]TSN ~ Vacation! ~ says :I Love Santy[/BANANA][/CENTER]

    [CENTER][BANANA]Raymond - Oh rilie? says :Your smart[/BANANA][/CENTER]

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,089
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Quoted
    43 Post(s)

    Default

    Yea, try in scar

    SCAR Code:
    program New;
    var
      i: Extended;
    begin
      i := 0.9999999999999999;
      WriteLn(FloatToStr(i));
    end.
    Hup Holland Hup!

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    3,487
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    SCAR automatically adds 1 to the last decimal place.

    SCAR Code:
    Program New;
    Var
      I : Extended;

    Begin
      I := 0.9999999999999999;
      WriteLn(FloatToStr(I - 0.1111111111111111));
    End.
    [CENTER][img]http://signatures.mylivesignature.com/54486/113/4539C8FAAF3EAB109A3CC1811EF0941B.png[/img][/CENTER]
    [CENTER][BANANA]TSN ~ Vacation! ~ says :I Love Santy[/BANANA][/CENTER]

    [CENTER][BANANA]Raymond - Oh rilie? says :Your smart[/BANANA][/CENTER]

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,089
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Quoted
    43 Post(s)

    Default

    It does that because it thinks the 0.999~ is one.

    SCAR Code:
    program New;
    var
      i : Extended;
    begin
      i := 0.99999999999;
      WriteLn(FloatToStr(i - 0.11111111111));
    end.
    Hup Holland Hup!

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in Idaho
    Posts
    480
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Santa_Clause View Post
    All the proofs are incorrect, due to incorrect implementation of the method used to find the fraction of a recurring decimal. Pseudomathematics, in my opinion.
    Ok, prove the proofs wrong. There was more then one there. Give me a counter example that proves there is a difference. especially the 10x It is a very common way of finding out the fraction of a repeating number. For example .333333... = x, 10x = 3.333333...., 9x = 3, x = 1/3. Gee, it works with that case perfectly. In fact, it works with every case perfectly as long as it is implemented correctly.

    All of the math world has accepted .99999... = 1 as true. If you have taken calculus you know this. If you want to say it is not true then You need to provide an example which shows a difference between the two. If you can't provide one then your opinion of it being psuedomath is a wrong one.

    Heres an easy way to explain this problem verbally. .9999... is infinitely close to 1. Because it is infinitely close, there is no difference in the two numbers, and now difference can be give. But wait, you may say, what about 0.0...01 Heres the problem with that, how many zeros are there? An infinite amount you say? Well then, that 1 doesn't exist because there will never be an end to the number of zeros. So as it turns out the difference between 1 and 0.99999.... is in fact 0.

    Don't believe me? Ok take 1, and take .99999.... How do you get the difference of two numbers? You subtract the one from the other. So 1 - 0.99999... Do that one until you pound it through you head that there is no difference. If you somehow magically put a 1 at the end, you haven't written enough 0's.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Williston, ND
    Posts
    3,106
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    My math teacher said that 0.999999999999..........=1
    My college math teacher, I guess I should say professor.
    With a Ph.D in mathematics....
    Proud owner of "Efferator" my totally boted main account!
    "You see, sometimes, science is not a guess" -Xiaobing Zhou (my past physics professor, with heavy Chinese accent)

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,593
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    It does in fact prove that it is 1.

    If you can't go from .9999... to 1, then how is it a different number?

  10. #35
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,140
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quoted
    266 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheVoiceInYourHead View Post
    It does in fact prove that it is 1.

    If you can't go from .9999... to 1, then how is it a different number?
    The answer is, "it's not". There's such a minuscule difference, that they are literally the same.

    If you have two identical twins, you might say "they're exactly the same!", but there will always be an unnoticeable difference.
    <3

    Quote Originally Posted by Eminem
    I don't care if you're black, white, straight, bisexual, gay, lesbian, short, tall, fat, skinny, rich or poor. If you're nice to me, I'll be nice to you. Simple as that.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,593
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    There is no difference between .99999... and 1, .555555 and .6, etc.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in Idaho
    Posts
    480
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheVoiceInYourHead View Post
    There is no difference between .99999... and 1, .555555 and .6, etc.
    .5555... is not equal to .6, it is equal to .55555... .5999999... is equal to .6

    Quote Originally Posted by ;473163
    The answer is, "it's not". There's such a minuscule difference, that they are literally the same.

    If you have two identical twins, you might say "they're exactly the same!", but there will always be an unnoticeable difference.
    Your analogy is broken. You could, by the same logic, argue that x = 1 and y = 1 is really a different 1 because you are using x and y, therefor there is a difference.

    As previously stated, the difference is 0, not unnoticeably small, but 0. Until you stop looking at infinity as finite you'll never agree, but the fact of the matter is that infinity is not finite, it is, well, infinite. There is no difference (see my previous post).

  13. #38
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Here :p
    Posts
    194
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    the only true way for me to discribe it is .9 recuring is < 1 and is > 0.9 recuring altough maths tells me:
    x = 0.9'
    10x = 9.9'
    9x = 9
    9/9 = 1/1 = 1

    but look at it algabraicly
    y = .9'
    x = y
    10x = 10y
    10x - 1x = 10y - y
    9x = 9y
    x = y
    y = .9' so x = .9'

    i hope ive confused enough people XD

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,593
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Exactly right boberman.

    Infinite does not end.
    Which is why it's expressed as a loop:

    It has no beginning, nor end.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in Idaho
    Posts
    480
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bazzbarrett View Post
    the only true way for me to discribe it is .9 recuring is < 1 and is > 0.9 recuring altough maths tells me:
    x = 0.9'
    10x = 9.9'
    9x = 9
    9/9 = 1/1 = 1

    but look at it algabraicly
    y = .9'
    x = y
    10x = 10y
    10x - 1x = 10y - y
    9x = 9y
    x = y
    y = .9' so x = .9'

    i hope ive confused enough people XD
    your "algabraic" proof is nothing more then saying "x = y", "x = .9999.." so y = .99999..

    It proves nothing. In order to prove that .99999 is not 1 you need to use the value in a situation that give a different result then if you use 1. Good luck trying to find one.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,593
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default


  17. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Norway.
    Posts
    1,938
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheVoiceInYourHead View Post

    x = 0.999 ..n
    9x = 9 * 0.999 ..n
    9x = 8,999[..]1


    And this was taken from wikipedia?
    Hmm.
    I'm really stupid, and EVEN I found it to be wrong.
    Gah.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,593
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    You obviously didn't use an infinite number -.-

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in Idaho
    Posts
    480
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilChicken! View Post
    x = 0.999 ..n
    9x = 9 * 0.999 ..n
    9x = 8,91


    And this was taken from wikipedia?
    Hmm.
    I'm really stupid, and EVEN I found it to be wrong.
    Gah.
    Yes, yes you are dumb... 9 * .99999 is not equal to 8.9991 but 8.999999... Gee, that looks familiar. You could argue that there is a one on the end, but since it is infinite the 1 is never presented there (yay infinity). Now, since 10x does equal 9.999.... and 9x equals 8.999999.... and also 9 (as proven before using subtraction...). Well, thanks for yet another proof that .9999... = 1. Good job!

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Banville
    Posts
    3,914
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Quoted
    98 Post(s)

    Default

    Anything equals itself. Why would it equal something different?
    The jealous temper of mankind, ever more disposed to censure than
    to praise the work of others, has constantly made the pursuit of new
    methods and systems no less perilous than the search after unknown
    lands and seas.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    818
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    im with r0b0t. something cant equal something else, thats just not how it works!

    1x = 2x ? NO unless x = 0

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,593
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Yes it can.

    To go from 1 to .9999..., you simply can't do it. Therefore, it is the same thing.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    818
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheVoiceInYourHead View Post
    Yes it can.

    To go from 1 to .9999..., you simply can't do it. Therefore, it is the same thing.
    thats like saying paper = plastic, because you cant change one to another..

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,593
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Paper being compared to plastic has nothing to do with this conversation.

    In the field of mathematics, you can't go from .99999... to 1.
    Unless you can prove me otherwise, they are the same number.
    Just ask any polynomial expert, mathematics professor, anyone who deals with polynomial math on a daily basis.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in Idaho
    Posts
    480
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheVoiceInYourHead View Post
    Paper being compared to plastic has nothing to do with this conversation.

    In the field of mathematics, you can't go from .99999... to 1.
    Unless you can prove me otherwise, they are the same number.
    Just ask any polynomial expert, mathematics professor, anyone who deals with polynomial math on a daily basis.
    Amen. Argue all you like, .9999... = 1. End of story. There are many proofs out there but ultimately, if you have had math that touches calculus at all, then you should know that 0.999... = 1. You won't find anyone with a higher level knowledge of math that will say otherwise because it is like saying "Yeah, I know nothing about the all the math that I have done."

    These are fun just because the average joe just doesn't want to accept that there are two ways to write the same number.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •