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.

Grrrrr

Grrrrr

Grrrrr

Soldato
Joined
23 Oct 2002
Posts
5,719
Location
Various
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17312241&perpage=30&pagenumber=37
His 18.27 post.
/edit
Too slow.
To save me typing up all this stuff next time this comes around I knocked up this :
http://premium.uploadit.org/AlphaNumeric/Recurring.pdf
Sad, but I was bored, that and it taught me Latex :)
Click to expand...

Very nice :)

EDIT\\ Just reread and ^^ isn't meant to sound patronising. But i will say that 'Yes' that is quite sad even if you were bored... it even has a title page :p
 

AlphaNumeric

AlphaNumeric

AlphaNumeric

Soldato
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
6,782
Location
London
Thats the great thing about Latex, it generates all the nice formating, contents and titles by itself. Once you know the coding, you can type in the equations very quickly and not have to mess around with all the alignment and sizes as you would with Word, its all done by the program :)
 

w11tho

w11tho

w11tho

Associate
Joined
7 Dec 2002
Posts
2,188
Originally posted by Grrrrr
Very nice :)

EDIT\\ Just reread and ^^ isn't meant to sound patronising. But i will say that 'Yes' that is quite sad even if you were bored... it even has a title page :p
Click to expand...
Done automatically in LaTeX - just tell it to 'create titlepage'!
 

AlphaNumeric

AlphaNumeric

AlphaNumeric

Soldato
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
6,782
Location
London
Originally posted by daz
LOL, having a good saturday then? :p
Click to expand...
I had the dubious honour of being the only person in the CMS (maths centre) this afternoon at around 3.45pm, trying to do as much Electrodynamics as possible since it was due in tomorrow. I get home, check my email and its been postponed a week :eek: :rolleyes: Didn't have to worry!

Still, I had to learn Latex sometime to make my CATAM (computing) project look better and seemed like a decent reason.

Pretty sad I agree though, I'm going to go to the college bar......
 

Killerkebab

Killerkebab

Killerkebab

Soldato
Joined
27 Mar 2004
Posts
8,436
Location
Kent
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
Thats the great thing about Latex, it generates all the nice formating, contents and titles by itself. Once you know the coding, you can type in the equations very quickly and not have to mess around with all the alignment and sizes as you would with Word, its all done by the program :)
Click to expand...

Word has that too. Where you select font and etc, click the little logo on the left for the styles and formatting menu, where it remembers how you styled all your text. You can apply a series of settings all at once to different pieces of text :D
 

Cyro

Cyro

Cyro

Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
1,706
Location
Cambridge, UK
Originally posted by Killerkebab
Word has that too. Where you select font and etc, click the little logo on the left for the styles and formatting menu, where it remembers how you styled all your text. You can apply a series of settings all at once to different pieces of text :D
Click to expand...
To an extent, but LaTeX is even better. It works in a vaguely similar way to HTML in that it takes in code, in some form, and outputs nice elegant maths, like your web browser takes in code and outputs nice web pages, just maths notation can get complicated.

Edit: Instead of using the r Alpha, you might want to use
Code: 
\Dot{9}
which would let you use the notation I've been taught for recurrance. Nice collection of proofs there though.
 
Last edited:

daz

daz

daz

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
24,076
Location
Bucks
If you had 999r, then that would simply be infinite and as such it does not equal 1 trillion (the number you have written and attempted to equate it to.)
 

AlphaNumeric

AlphaNumeric

AlphaNumeric

Soldato
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
6,782
Location
London
Originally posted by RyanS
similar principal IMO
Click to expand...
You talk of finite expansion numbers, we talk of infinite expansions. Two completely different things.
Originally posted by Killerkebab
Word has that too. Where you select font and etc, click the little logo on the left for the styles and formatting menu, where it remembers how you styled all your text. You can apply a series of settings all at once to different pieces of text :D
Click to expand...
I've used Word loads of time to do maths equations, and its terribly slow, because each equation is usually different and you have to select, click, drop down menu, symbol etc and it takes you 5 minutes to do 1 line of complex algebra. Its takes me less than 30 seconds to do the same thing in Latex once I've learnt the codes and you don't have to worry about Word screwing up the format, or just looking ugly.
Originally posted by Cyro
Edit: Instead of using the r Alpha, you might want to use
Code: 
\Dot{9}
which would let you use the notation I've been taught for recurrance. Nice collection of proofs there though.
Click to expand...
I've seen that symbolism before, though not remembered till now. I think its a pretty "superfical" change, and makes it more obvious if you've got "r" instead. Otherwise someone might get confused with "time derivative", though they've nothing to do with this.
 
Last edited:

burns

burns

burns

Soldato
Joined
1 Nov 2002
Posts
3,709
This is one crazy thread. I must admit after reading it for about 2 hours now I gave up at about page 24, I may read the rest later but the thread's had the effect of reminding me I have some coursework on Laplace transforms in for next week which I haven't even started...

Well done for sticking with, it's worrying the number of people who seem to think they understand the idea of infinity, but aren't even close:(.
 

Borris

Borris

Borris

Caporegime
Joined
25 Oct 2002
Posts
30,409
A book that I've been reading recently (or more specifically, one chapter in the book) put me in mind of this thread.

The chapter deals with the rise of post-modernism and deconstructionist "mathematics".

To give you an example, the equation E=mc² is, according to deconstuctionist thought, to be a "sexed" equation, in that the masculine E is privileged over the overtly feminine c, and is therefore invalid as an equation.

My point being that refusal to accept that 0.9 recurring = 1, whilst belonging to a recognisable school of thought (albeit unwittingly, no doubt), is sheer folly verging on the blindly ridiculous.

What deconstructivism fails to address is that the very axioms it is pulling apart with its specious logic support far more than their own logic (ie. stating 1 + 1 != 2 has knock on effects when working out 2 + 2), without degenerating into further absurd logical constructs.

I'm sure that the mathematicians here can attest to the importance (and veracity) of 0.9r = 1 in other complex calculations.

/Edit

And that, lady's and gentlefolk, is why I normally lie in on Sunday mornings
 
Last edited:

Bodak

Bodak

Bodak

Soldato
Joined
22 Sep 2003
Posts
3,858
Originally posted by Wardie
Wait a second...

9.9r - 0.9r = 9?

9.9r - 1 = 8.9r?

:confused:

But 8.9r = 9 yes?
Click to expand...

Holy thread revival Batman!

0.9r in any form is 1.
So 9.9r is 9 + 0.9r = 9+1=10
9.9r - 1 = 10 - 1 = 9 = 8 + 1 = 8+0.9r

and so forth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom