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.
Permabanned
Joined
22 Oct 2004
Posts
116
0.9r is the same as 0.99999999r is the same as 0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999r

It all means the same thing.

0.9r means, if you will, that all possible "9"s are added onto to the end. It doesn't just mean "you keep adding 9 to the end", it means, every possible "9" has been added; that's the definition.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Oct 2003
Posts
4,772
Location
London
Originally posted by Inquisitor
That's kinda leaving the mathematical side behind (which I assume this thread was intended to discuss) :o

The analogy he created relates to the mathematics and I was trying to pursue it further. :)

Afterall, isn't mathematics just what we humans created to define numbers which do not exist in any real sense. So if enough people define it differently, can maths not be changed?

(Yes, I realise that mathematically for 0.99r to not equal 1 it would require lots of other maths to be changed too).
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Jul 2003
Posts
3,428
Location
<---
Originally posted by Gilly
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 ;)

Now, there's lumping me with a perceived 'maths crew' and then there's forgetting my name, I am very upset. :mad:
 
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
12,926
Originally posted by jokester
We have a winner!

Yes you are indeed correct.

:)

Jokester


hmm interesting cos on the same principle I would say that neither of them were right

I would say

0.09r = 0.09r not 0.1
0.19r = 0.19r not 0.2

there is a difference in my view however small it maybe.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
95,522
Location
I'm back baby!
Originally posted by Matt Wood

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.

Indeed, and that would be the discussion at hand where the maths heads able to join in.

Originally posted by Matt Wood
Infinity doesn't exist other than in maths. It's a concept which can't be quantified.

So the theories that the Universe is infinite are...?
Originally posted by nige
Now, there's lumping me with a perceived 'maths crew' and then there's forgetting my name, I am very upset. :mad:

Hahaha, well you and Daz are rather similar. Apologies once more good sir ;)
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
6,782
Location
London
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.
Birth certificate? I'm George in my head, so I'm George. People can call me what they like (that isn't an open invitation DF ;)) I'll still be George.

Suffice to say that my patience for talking with people who have no ability to weild to logical argument (which is what maths is) has been reached. I now can't be bothered to try and tell anyone else. Proofs have been posted, answers been given. If any of you wish to go through your days labouring under false pretenses, go ahead, I'm happy in the knowledge my PoV is a correct one, and that there are enough people around who do realise this is a "No two ways about it" concept that not everyone here has their heads "clogged". With what, I'd probably best not say.
 
Man of Honour
Man of Honour
Joined
1 Sep 2003
Posts
2,358
Originally posted by nige
I..... I would debate the philosophical side but this thread isn’t about that, it’s a poll on the accuracy of a mathematical proof: i
But is it?

The starter of the original thread didn't specify, and the very first response (warHawk) said that it would get philosophical. I would therefore argue that the philosophical line of debate is at least as valid as the mathematical one ...... and far more interesting, since the mathematical proofs as provided by Alpha are patently and obviously correct.

The real issue, therefore, is whether the assumptions on which those proofs rely are valid and, if they are, whether they're the whole story. Which I'm not going to say more about here (I heard that collective sigh of relief :)) because it's all in the other thread.


I'm not voting here, because there is no option that says "both". It is true, if you accept the assumptions implicit in Alpha's proof, but it isn't if you don't.
 
Associate
Joined
7 Dec 2002
Posts
2,188
If someone said:

3 x 8 = 24

I could say - but is it [/b]really[/b]? You think I was daft for asking, because you're all used to the concept of addition, and you've BEEN TAUGHT that 3x8=24. If someone wanted to prove it, then it would come down to showing that it agrees the the peano axioms - which are a set of rules we defined! Now this is very similiar, you are disputing 0.9r=1. This has boiled down to a discussion of the infinite - a notion which is defined in such a way that 0.9r=1.

Come on guys - think about it! :)
 

Guv

Guv

Soldato
Joined
24 Oct 2002
Posts
3,257
Location
Warwickshire
Originally posted by memphisto
hmm interesting cos on the same principle I would say that neither of them were right

I would say

0.09r = 0.09r not 0.1
0.19r = 0.19r not 0.2

there is a difference in my view however small it maybe.

seem correct to me.

x=0.0999999r
10x=0.999999r
9x=0.9
x=0.1

same principle applies to x=0.19r = 0.2.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Apr 2004
Posts
11,788
Location
Somewhere
It's difficult to keep up with this thread, people are posting almost faster than I'm reading :eek:

edit: when I started writing this post I was looking at page 3, but the post is on page 4 :D
 
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
95,522
Location
I'm back baby!
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
Birth certificate? I'm George in my head, so I'm George. People can call me what they like (that isn't an open invitation DF ;)) I'll still be George.

Suffice to say that my patience for talking with people who have no ability to weild to logical argument (which is what maths is) has been reached. I now can't be bothered to try and tell anyone else. Proofs have been posted, answers been given. If any of you wish to go through your days labouring under false pretenses, go ahead, I'm happy in the knowledge my PoV is a correct one, and that there are enough people around who do realise this is a "No two ways about it" concept that not everyone here has their heads "clogged". With what, I'd probably best not say.

And I still can't believe you had the cheek, nay, the gall to call ME closeminded.


I'M ALPHA AND MY ANSWER IS RIGHT SO I'M NOT LISTENING!!!!
 
Associate
Joined
7 Dec 2002
Posts
2,188
Originally posted by Crispy Pigeon
(Yes, I realise that mathematically for 0.99r to not equal 1 it would require lots of other maths to be changed too).
Everything would change - and I mean EVERYTHING. I could start telling you that 1=2, and 4x0=345. It's a closed system, there are no holes. Change one defenition - and it all changes.

:)
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Jul 2003
Posts
3,428
Location
<---
Originally posted by Harley
But is it?

The starter of the original thread didn't specify, and the very first response (warHawk) said that it would get philosophical. I would therefore argue that the philosophical line of debate is at least as valid as the mathematical one ...... and far more interesting, since the mathematical proofs as provided by Alpha are patently and obviously correct.

The real issue, therefore, is whether the assumptions on which those proofs rely are valid and, if they are, whether they're the whole story. Which I'm not going to say more about here (I heard that collective sigh of relief :)) because it's all in the other thread.


I'm not voting here, because there is no option that says "both". It is true, if you accept the assumptions implicit in Alpha's proof, but it isn't if you don't.

Although the debate may have two sides the vote, by definition, is speaking mathematically, and I can certainly appreciate why under such circumstances you wouldn’t vote. ;)

I maintain that this a non-topic and we’d be far better starting a new one if we want to talk about the philosophy of infinity, i.e. its existence in practical terms, but this is more a discussion of the human ability to comprehend such concepts than it is their actual existence.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Apr 2003
Posts
9,372
Location
London
Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
Suffice to say that my patience for talking with people who have no ability to weild to logical argument (which is what maths is) has been reached. I now can't be bothered to try and tell anyone else. Proofs have been posted, answers been given. If any of you wish to go through your days labouring under false pretenses, go ahead, I'm happy in the knowledge my PoV is a correct one, and that there are enough people around who do realise this is a "No two ways about it" concept that not everyone here has their heads "clogged". With what, I'd probably best not say.

Oh, are you off then Mr Sensitive? :p

Hang on, don't go. I wanted to ask you what your position on infinity is? Is it purely just a concept, or can it be tangible in some way? :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom