|
|
Post by masterplan200 on Jul 14, 2007 4:48:29 GMT -5
Heard a few arguements from a few people so is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by caro on Jul 14, 2007 8:07:27 GMT -5
strictly talking it's not  cos it's 0.999999 cant be 1 at the same time, can it? |
|
|
|
Post by eva on Jul 14, 2007 8:34:04 GMT -5
but in fact if you draw the limits it's the same. I say yes just to probe caro wrong ;D |
|
|
|
Post by caro on Jul 14, 2007 8:41:01 GMT -5
the limit is always gonna get closer to the line 1 but it's never gonna touch it dont make me say something unice |
|
|
|
Post by eva on Jul 14, 2007 8:44:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by eva on Jul 14, 2007 8:45:03 GMT -5
btw, I win ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by caro on Jul 14, 2007 8:48:17 GMT -5
er... 0.9999.......=1 cos the "..." mean and infinity of "9"s so 0.999 is not 1 so i win maths are about exactitude |
|
|
|
Post by eva on Jul 14, 2007 8:53:26 GMT -5
but if you click on the link you will see that 0.9999... can be represented as a sum and eventually the proof is that that sum is .9/(9/10) and that equals 1
|
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Jul 14, 2007 9:00:10 GMT -5
but in fact if you draw the limits it's the same. I say yes just to probe caro wrong ;D You want to probe caro ?  |
|
|
|
Post by eva on Jul 14, 2007 9:01:40 GMT -5
ok, there might be some sort of typo ;D i'm too lazy to find a dictionary. you know what I mean
|
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Jul 14, 2007 9:02:54 GMT -5
ok, there might be some sort of typo ;D i'm too lazy to find a dictionary. you know what I mean No, but I bet wyman does |
|
|
|
Post by caro on Jul 14, 2007 9:07:29 GMT -5
LOL ;D well eva just dont do that |
|
|
|
Post by Guigs on Jul 14, 2007 23:51:22 GMT -5
0.9999 recurring is so close to 1, that it is pretty much 1. If you were to use it in any computer, the computer would return it as 1 because most floating point numbering systems will just round up to 1.
Even something like .999 is so close to 1 that it should be probably considered as 1.
|
|
|
|
Post by caro on Jul 15, 2007 2:03:37 GMT -5
sorry but ive been taught that there are no parallel lines and no perfect circle so 0.9999 is not 1 |
|
|
|
Post by mimmihopps on Jul 15, 2007 3:26:50 GMT -5
No
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2007 8:33:03 GMT -5
No
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 15, 2007 13:50:47 GMT -5
No.
Where would you draw the line then...?
by that rational:
0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999998 = 0.99 recurring,
if 0.99 recurring = 1 then on the premise of substitution, 0.99999999999999999999999999998 = 1
...
THEN 0.999999999999999999997 = 0.9999999999999999998 = 0.999999999999999 reecurring = 1
Every number like that would equal 1 then....seems rather stupid to me.
1=1. 'nuff said
|
|
|
|
Post by feckarse on Jul 16, 2007 16:10:26 GMT -5
by that rational: 0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999998 = 0.99 recurring, if 0.99 recurring = 1 then on the premise of substitution, 0.99999999999999999999999999998 = 1 How so do you assume that, by that rationale? ---------------------------------------- The question exploits the inherent flaw in conventional maths not being able to fully handle infinity as a number. If you accept that 0.3r = 1/3, then by logic you are accepting that 0.9r = 1 However it's impossible to determine, in terms, if 0.3r=1/3 as maths as we understand it can't quantify things that approach infinity properly. Another exploitation of this is Let B = infinity (saves me writing infinity lots in an equation!) B = B+1 (by the definition we're giving it, this is what we're allowing for - infinity is not the "biggest" number, it's a number that goes on forever... There is a conceptual difference) B-B = 1 0 = 1 which just isn't right. But that's infinity for ya! |
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Jul 16, 2007 16:21:20 GMT -5
who gives a rats bollock? Feck - get your arse onto your universe thread where you can discuss matters of infinity that have some actual relevance |
|
|
|
Post by feckarse on Jul 16, 2007 16:24:02 GMT -5
who gives a rats bollock? Feck - get your arse onto your universe thread where you can discuss matters of infinity that have some actual relevance I was discussing eternity in my thread! (Which in turn I argued leads to infinite possibilities........ OK ok, I'll be there in a minute! |
|
|
|
Post by Guigs on Jul 16, 2007 23:26:54 GMT -5
Well to those saying no, she provided a great link that you should probably read through. And i still say yes because I'll go with real mathematicians. Just because a bunch of 9s don't look like a 1 (unless you are on some wacky drugs), doesn't mean they are different. You have think outside of the box with this one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2007 18:02:56 GMT -5
by that rational: 0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999998 = 0.99 recurring, if 0.99 recurring = 1 then on the premise of substitution, 0.99999999999999999999999999998 = 1 How so do you assume that, by that rationale? ---------------------------------------- The question exploits the inherent flaw in conventional maths not being able to fully handle infinity as a number. If you accept that 0.3r = 1/3, then by logic you are accepting that 0.9r = 1 isn't that just cos there is no way or writing 1/3 as a decimal where as 1 can be written. |
|
|
|
Post by LDD- Angelic Child on Jul 18, 2007 9:44:58 GMT -5
right..
if .999 is 1
there wouldn't be a .999, it would just be one.
They're fucking close but they aren't the same number.
just as 1.999 isn't 2!
|
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jul 18, 2007 9:51:43 GMT -5
you lot need to get out more |
|
|
|
Post by feckarse on Jul 18, 2007 12:54:32 GMT -5
right.. if .999 is 1 there wouldn't be a .999, it would just be one. They're fucking close but they aren't the same number. just as 1.999 isn't 2! I think most people get that .999 isn't =1.... The difference is 0.001 What's being talked about is 0.9r, which is the 9s going on for infinity. |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5