Poll: Does 0.99 Recurring = 1
- Thread starter Pious
- Start date
- Status
Don
>sigh<
Jokester
Jokester
Ok, if you insist on having a nonsensical poll, I'll join in.
I vote yes, because it's the correct answer.
I vote yes, because it's the correct answer.
Soldato
Incredible. Would the ~70% of you that voted 'no' have a look at the numerous mathematical proofs posted in the other thread, then come back and tell us?
Soldato
My faith in humanity is dropping as it rises I think.
With a logical argument like that, I can't beleive I didn't see it before! Can I change my vote to "No", now that I've read such airtight reasoning?
[/sarcasm]
Soldato
x=0.999999r
10x=9.999999r
9x=9
x=1
Therefore 0.9r = 1
10x=9.999999r
9x=9
x=1
Therefore 0.9r = 1
Man of Honour
Why do you guys have to be so aggressive?
Is it because those that aren't blinded by the reasoning of your betters don't believe them? Or is it because we're questioning the thing you set so much stock in? Your faith, if you will.
Is it because those that aren't blinded by the reasoning of your betters don't believe them? Or is it because we're questioning the thing you set so much stock in? Your faith, if you will.
This is a totally meaningless poll.
If the no vote wins, does that really mean that 0.9r is not equal to 1?
If the yes vote wins, does that really mean that 0.9r = 1?
What if it ends up as a tie?
If the no vote wins, does that really mean that 0.9r is not equal to 1?
If the yes vote wins, does that really mean that 0.9r = 1?
What if it ends up as a tie?
Soldato
Before you vote, please read this. I think Alpha quite elegantly sums up several proofs that 0.9r does in fact equal 1.
Soldato
Wow a lot of people here either haven't read any of the proof or just don't understand it, in which case they shouldn't be voting.
All this thread does is show how many poeple don't understand maths behind it or don't care
All this thread does is show how many poeple don't understand maths behind it or don't care
Soldato
Faith? Things we've defined don't need "faith", its like my parents saying "Are you sure you're called George. We did name you George, but are you sure?". They called me George, I'm George. You could argue otherwise, but since by definition, I'm George, it'd be a mute point.
I just think its somewhat insulting a bunch of GCSE and A Level students, and a load of people with no experience in such things think they know more about these things than the last 2000 years worth of mathematicians. Bit presumptive isn't it?
Like me coming into your workplace and telling you you're not setting the network right, your VB code is wrong and thats not how to rewire a PSU (all 3 things I don't have any idea on). You'd say I was being a presumptive, perhaps arrogant person, wouldn't you?
What a silly, silly game we’re playing here. This thread fails even to address the key problem with the previous one, whether or not we are talking mathematically. Given there is nothing in the question to suggest otherwise; we are voting on a mathematical formula, I presume we are talking mathematically, where it has been proven than 0.99r =1. There is no debate, just a surprising number of people voting against mathematical proof.
This is no question of faith, or anything of that nature; this is just dumb logic and foolish stubbornness. If you want to talk philosophically say so, we can have a go at deciding whether or not an infinitesimally recurring decimal can occur, before we start to consider what it is equal to, but this hasn’t been presented as a philosophical debate.
This thread is a waste of time and effort, and has by design already detracted into a handbags match. Shame, I would have quite enjoyed going at the philosophical side of this argument.
This is no question of faith, or anything of that nature; this is just dumb logic and foolish stubbornness. If you want to talk philosophically say so, we can have a go at deciding whether or not an infinitesimally recurring decimal can occur, before we start to consider what it is equal to, but this hasn’t been presented as a philosophical debate.
This thread is a waste of time and effort, and has by design already detracted into a handbags match. Shame, I would have quite enjoyed going at the philosophical side of this argument.
Man of Honour
Hardly the same. It'd be like you coming on here and doing it, surely? Given that this is a place for discussion and sharing of views, whereas the workplace is a place for work.
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.
Go for it then. At least it appears that you're willing to agree that this debate has a purpose other than a mathematical one. You're the first.
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.
Go for it then. At least it appears that you're willing to agree that this debate has a purpose other than a mathematical one. You're the first.
Soldato
Surely it's a fact that 0.9r = 1 as has been proven many different ways.
Why don't the people that vote 'no' prove otherwise, rather than just say 'it can't equal 1' or something smiilar.
Why don't the people that vote 'no' prove otherwise, rather than just say 'it can't equal 1' or something smiilar.
Man of Honour
Where did I say a defenition was wrong?
Man of Honour
Must make a refreshing change from recording train designations at the local station.
Soldato
1 is 1, 1.0 is 1.0
so .99r is .99r
- Status