.999999999999... = 1 ?
#281
Posted 16 February 2007  02:30 AM
It must be true then that 0.99999999999.... equals 1.
#282
Posted 26 February 2007  10:48 PM
Moving onwards, I believe that it is pointless to further discuss whether 0.999...=1 since it cannot be incontrovertibly proven/unproven (though this discussion has been interesting, to say the least).
#283
Posted 27 February 2007  08:33 AM
TacoFred, on Feb 26 2007, 01:48 PM, said:
#284
Posted 27 February 2007  02:16 PM
kucalc, on Feb 16 2007, 02:30 AM, said:
It must be true then that 0.99999999999.... equals 1.
Can you show me the matamatical evidence?
#285
Posted 27 February 2007  05:37 PM
3x1/3=1,0
3x0,333333333>infinite=0,9999999999>infinite
but that is no evidence, it is just why fractions are invented in the first place
#286
Posted 28 February 2007  07:04 AM
TacoFred, on Feb 27 2007, 06:48 AM, said:
Here is why :
http://www.casiocalc...amp;#entry37287
As said by Kucalc, it has been proven that 0.999...=1 is true in several different ways, but not once that it is false.
Yet, people won't admit it.
#287
Posted 31 March 2007  11:55 PM
i must admit that i was wrong (but i?m still not sure), 0.999999999............=1, but take this "proof"
and "definition" (of course, i know they are not matematically rigorous )
definition: 2 real numbers are the same if they decimal representation are the same ( )
but:
1=0.99999999999.........
1=1.00000000000.........(why not?)
then 1=1 if 0.999999999......=1.00000000000.....
but 0.9<>1.0, 0.99<>1.00,........, 0.999999......<>1.000000000......then 0.99999999.....<>1!!??
then, can you explain me, please, where is my failure suposing that 0.9999999<>1???
bye people, and.....what do you think of a version of a megaman game on casio??? (i?m triying to program it........so post any coments
protoman no one
#288
Posted 02 April 2007  07:28 PM
You wrong.
#289
Posted 03 April 2007  01:57 AM
protoman no one, on Mar 31 2007, 03:55 PM, said:
Lol.
protoman no one, on Mar 31 2007, 03:55 PM, said:
Well, of course 0.9999999 absolutely does not equal 1. I think however you mean to put 0.9999999... You forgot the .... to represent the infinite.
protoman no one, on Mar 31 2007, 03:55 PM, said:
Start a thread for this in the CASIO CFX/AFX/FX subforum. If you would like, may I join your Mega Man project? I can help you program the game in C for the AFX. Are you good in doing graphics?
#290
Posted 03 April 2007  11:12 PM
kucalc, on Apr 2 2007, 09:57 PM, said:
Well, of course 0.9999999 absolutely does not equal 1. I think however you mean to put 0.9999999... You forgot the .... to represent the infinite.
Start a thread for this in the CASIO CFX/AFX/FX subforum. If you would like, may I join your Mega Man project? I can help you program the game in C for the AFX. Are you good in doing graphics?
answering to your mega question: yup, if you want . i dragged some sprites, but i?m having problems with stagemaps (i think they are very bigger (memory talking, of course) and i?m learning (slooooooower, take that on mind) programing in x86 assembly language (i understand that nec v30mx instruction set is compatible with intel x86 ). sooooooo, what do you think?? maybe we need to do some "level packs", and improve a savestate system, because you know, megaman levels are loooong, and calc?s memory is notttt
and, i?m thinking on some cinema displays for the game......
for vanhoa:
in my proof i said: "SUPOSING that 2 real numbers have the same decimal representation"
NOTE THAT I?M SUPOSING, I?M NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT IS TRUE
of course, i?m not a dummie (or hippie, yuppie, sleepie, stupidie or any kind of "ie" you could think )
bye bye
#291 Guest_Guest_*
#292
Posted 28 June 2007  01:17 AM
#293
Posted 08 August 2007  07:30 AM
I think you should make a Megaman game (I love Megaman it is wicked!) and maybe you could release a ClassPad version? (as that is the only casio calc I have)
#294
Posted 08 August 2007  07:30 PM
kevinator9, on Aug 8 2007, 03:30 PM, said:
kevinator9, on Aug 8 2007, 03:30 PM, said:
#295
Posted 08 August 2007  08:37 PM
#296
Posted 09 August 2007  11:13 PM
kevinator9, on Aug 8 2007, 03:30 AM, said:
I think you should make a Megaman game (I love Megaman it is wicked!) and maybe you could release a ClassPad version? (as that is the only casio calc I have)
have a nice day
#297
Posted 10 August 2007  12:21 AM
I'll try to help and do my best in putting Megaman for the AFX and fx9860. Have you finished drawing the sprites?
#298
Posted 12 August 2007  12:22 AM
#299
Posted 13 August 2007  11:32 PM
kucalc, on Aug 9 2007, 08:21 PM, said:
Quote
see you later.......when my first demo is finished........
#300
Posted 28 August 2007  02:21 AM
#301
Posted 30 August 2007  02:38 PM
think of it this way
.999999999.....
= 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000.....
so you could say each term equals
Tn = (9/10)*(1/10)^n
which is a simple geometric sequence for which the sum to infinity is
Soo = (9/10) * (1/(11/10))
Soo = (9/10) * (10/9) = 1
or for you casio engineers you could of course throw the sum into your classpad from 0 to infinity, and it will also tell you 1
#302 Guest_anonimus kid called me_*
Posted 20 May 2008  04:43 PM
1/3=0.33..... FACT
1/3x3=1
3x3=9
so 0.33...x3=1 AND 0.99... QED
OR
Tell me what do you to add to 0.99... to make it 1?
if u say 0.00...1 such a number is imposable because the 1 never comes
#303
Posted 21 May 2008  12:10 AM
There's already so much evidence proving that 0.99999... = 1 and it's just getting repeated over and over again.
#304 Guest_Mad Mathematician_*
Posted 21 May 2008  05:54 PM
One cat has one more tail than no cat. This is a fact and does not require a further proof. No cat has eight tales. This is also a fact which doesn't need a further proof, too. Therefore we know, that one cat has nine tails as it has exactly one more tail than no cat. But as we also know that one cat has only one tail (obviously), we can conclude, that one equals nine.
Now let us generalize this:
Zero cats have zero tails  obviously. This means, that zero cats do not have one or more tails. Thus, we can say
a(n+1) = a(n) and false
where a is a boolean progression, a(n) states whether zero cats have n tails or not and a(0) = true. Be, in contrast, b the set which contains as it's elements the numbers of tails that one cat has. If a(n) is true, we know that n is not part of this set, as zero cats and one cat can not have the same number of tails in common.
Therefore, all n are part of this set that meet the condition a(n) = false. Or, in other words, b is defined as follows:
b = {n  a(n) = false}
As we know now that a(n) is false for all n > 0, we also know that b matches the set of natural numbers except 0, which means
b = N\{0}
Therefore, we know that all natural numbers except 0 are the same. qued.
#305 Guest_fubar_*
Posted 09 September 2008  07:02 PM
kucalc, on Feb 16 2007, 02:30 AM, said:
It must be true then that 0.99999999999.... equals 1.
I don't know if this counts, but...
Let x be 0.99...
100x = 99.99...
100xx = 99
x(1001) = 99
x = 99/(1001)
x = 99/99
x = 1
#306 Guest_fubar_*
Posted 09 September 2008  07:04 PM
#307
Posted 11 September 2008  06:01 PM
kucalc, on Feb 15 2007, 09:30 PM, said:
It must be true then that 0.99999999999.... equals 1.
Oh... OK, let's see if our Casios can provide us with an answer.
Use any scientific casio that has hyperbolic functions.
Type INV HYP TAN 0.9999999999999999.... (as many nines as you want)
Type = or EXE, whatever is there. You will get an answer.
Now, Type INV HYP TAN 1
Type = or EXE, whatever it has. You will get "E", "Math Error" (on my fx991ES) or similar.
Is this mathematical enough ?
1 is NOT equal to 0.9999.... no matter the number of 9's.
#308
Posted 12 September 2008  02:53 AM
verena, on Sep 11 2008, 10:01 AM, said:
... means going on forever, always repeating the 9's never stop.
verena, on Sep 11 2008, 10:01 AM, said:
verena, on Sep 11 2008, 10:01 AM, said:
#309
Posted 12 September 2008  03:42 AM
the inverse hyperbolic tangent of (0.9999999...) = infinity
the inverse hyperbolic tangent of (1) = undefined
Is this mathematical enough, then ?
#310
Posted 12 September 2008  05:43 AM
verena, on Sep 11 2008, 07:42 PM, said:
verena, on Sep 11 2008, 07:42 PM, said:
The inverse hyperbolic tangent of 1 is also infinity, NOT undefined.
Go to this page, scroll down and look at equation 6: http://mathworld.wol...licTangent.html
Who taught you that the atanh of 1 is undefined? Did you use a calculator? I already said don't use the calculator.
The mistakes you're doing are just adding more proof that 0.9999999... does equal 1 which has already been proving numerous times.
#311
Posted 12 September 2008  01:31 PM
kucalc, on Sep 12 2008, 12:43 AM, said:
When x goes to infinity, tanh(x) approaches 1 but it is never equal to 1.
Do you believe what someone else wrote on the internet, as "proof" ?
This is all about confusing limits with equalities. Shortcut type of american "science".
It is just as easy to find a reference that says that tanh^1 is undefined for x=1
#312
Posted 12 September 2008  03:11 PM
verena, on Sep 12 2008, 05:31 AM, said:
verena, on Sep 12 2008, 05:31 AM, said:
The definition of tanh^1 of x = 0.5[ln(1+x)ln(1x)]. Every source says that.
Thus if you plug in 1, 0.5[ln(2)ln(0)]. ln(0) is negative infinity, but because of subtracting becomes positive infinity which is why tanh^1 = infinity.
ln(0) is not undefined. It's negative infinity:
http://answers.yahoo...11104832AAWDqJ1
http://answers.yahoo...05123007AAMtOCj
http://mathforum.org...a...40&tstart=0
and I could cite another 20 textbooks written from around the world and get another 300 web pages confirming this.
#313
Posted 12 September 2008  11:17 PM
kucalc, on Sep 12 2008, 10:11 AM, said:
2) show us the proof.
3) The definition of tanh^1 of x = 0.5[ln(1+x)ln(1x)]. Every source says that.
4) ln(0) is negative infinity,
http://answers.yahoo...11104832AAWDqJ1
http://answers.yahoo...05123007AAMtOCj
http://mathforum.org...a...40&tstart=0
and I could cite another 20 textbooks written from around the world and get another 300 web pages confirming this.
1) Believing you can do in the church. Wolfgang seems the kind of authority that a couple hundred years ago put people in prison for saying that the earth is not flat. He should go back to school to freshen his knowledge about limits up. Please give him my greetings and send him: "Hallo Du Wolfgang, geh mal zurueck in die Realschule um Deine Limitenmathematik wieder aufzufreschen !"
2) I did, with a simple transformation using the arctangent hyperbolic, stated that
ATANH (0.99999....) = infinity, and ATANH(1) = undefined, therefore 1 <> 0.99999...
3) OK..
4) Wrong again. The limit of ln(x) with x going to 0 is negative infinity, that doesn't mean that ln(0) equals negative infinity, even when half the world thinks so in order to "fill the hole". Again, shortcut type of american "science". Oversimplification.
You are familiar with infinity, but you seem to have trouble to accept the concept of "undefined".
For your information:
ln(0) is Undefined. Ain't There. Does Not Exist.

I on my part, still have to see proof that 1 equals 0.999999.....
All I have seen presented is some crackpipe math using nonreal numbers as real numbers, and drawing fantasy conclusions from it.
"10 x 0.999999999... = 9.9999999 etc. " is nonsense math, you cannot operate on mixed real and nonreal numbers and then present calculations with them as real numbers.
"1/3 = 0.33333333... and 3 x 1/3 = 1 = 3 x 0.33.... = 0.99.... etc. thus " also nonsense, the 0.3333... is never equal to 1/3, just an approximation, and also a nonreal number.
Actually, presenting a nonreal number (0.99999...) and then stating that is is equal to a real number (1), is nonsense by itself. And that is the bottom line.
#314
Posted 13 September 2008  12:47 AM
verena, on Sep 12 2008, 03:17 PM, said:
Have you not been reading the links I've been showing you? It's Wolfram, not Wolfgang. And he's still alive and he's a famous mathematician. Read before you argue and make a fool out of yourself.
Stephan Wolfram is a British mathematician (NOT a American), physicists and creator of the legendary Mathematica Computer Algebra System (which is used by professional engineers and scientists). He's done work in theoretical particle physics, cosmology, cellular automata and in complexity theory.
His company, Wolfram Research International (which includes hundreds of mathematicians, scientists, engineers and physicists around the world) publishes their information and notes at Wolfram Online/MathWorld (again here is the link: http://mathworld.wol...licTangent.html). That's why I trust that source. Plus you can also verify by looking and reading the books listed below. Even the GNU Foundation (look up atanh()) and also the IEEE (the largest engineering society in the world) accept tanh^1 of 1 to be infinity.
Read about him: http://en.wikipedia....Stephen_Wolfram
So who should we trust? You (verena) or 300+ mathematicians at Wolfram Research + IEEE + GNU + millions of mathematicians around the world? I don't think Stephan Wolfram needs to go back to highschool, you do. He's contributed more to mathematics than you have ever done in your life.
verena, on Sep 12 2008, 03:17 PM, said:
EDIT: Talking with a couple of friends, it seems that you are using the small number line system, versus the Extended Real Number Line System (Click Here) which adds negative infinity or infinity. Because of this tanh^1 behaves differently depending on which number line system is being used. However, you are still wrong because you mixed the two different number systems in order to make it look like 0.999999... does not equal 1. You have to choose one number system and stick to it. The correct values depending on what number system is used:
Elementary real number line (infinity does not exist):
tanh^1 (0.99999....) = undefined
tanh^1 (1) = undefined
ln (0) = undefined
Extended real number line (infinity is added):
tanh^1 (0.999999....) = infinity
tanh^1 (1) = infinity
ln (0) = negative infinity
Thus still proving that 0.999999... = 1.
Plus another problem is not only do you assume that 0.9999... does not equal 1, you think 0.999999.... is less than 1. The problem is, you must first prove 0.999999... is less than 1 before plugging it into a function (such as tanh^1). You can't just say "oh since I'm assuming that 0.99999... is less than 1, when I plug in 0.99999.... into tanh^1 the answer is different than tanh^1 of 1" Of course they will be different if you assume 0.99999.... is less than 1. But, how do you know 0.99999... is less than 1? You must first prove that 0.9999.... is less than 1, which again, has never been shown. Until you have proven 0.999999... is less than 1, you can't show that tanh^1 of 0.99999.... is different than tanh^1 of 1, because it's possible that 0.99999... is equal to 1 unless shown that 0.9999.... is less than 1.
#315 Guest_Math Freak_*
Posted 13 September 2008  04:46 AM
Kucalc has pointed the problems
1) verena is confused with different number line systems
2) verena already assumes that 0.9999999999... is less than 1 but has no proof of that yet. verena thinks the inverse hyberbolic tangent of 0.9999999999... is different than of 1 because he already assumes 0.9999999999... is less than 1. he has to prove first that 0.9999999999... is less than 1. becuase of this verena has come to a wrong conclusion.
3) verena needs to go back to school (j/k )
a good example of how verena is thinking
"2+0.9999999999... = 2.9999999999...
2+1 = 3"
verena would immediately jump to the conclusion that this shows 0.9999999999... does not equal 1 but as you can see we have just come around in full circle and we still have the same problem. you first have to show that 0.9999999999... is less than 1.
This must be one of those rare moments where an American is right j/k
BTW I live in France
#316
Posted 14 September 2008  05:45 AM
kucalc, on Sep 12 2008, 07:47 PM, said:
Stephan Wolfram is a British mathematician (NOT a American), physicists and creator of the legendary Mathematica Computer Algebra System (which is used by professional engineers and scientists). He's done work in theoretical particle physics, cosmology, cellular automata and in complexity theory.
His company, Wolfram Research International (which includes hundreds of mathematicians, scientists, engineers and physicists around the world) publishes their information and notes at Wolfram Online/MathWorld (again here is the link: http://mathworld.wol...licTangent.html). That's why I trust that source. Plus you can also verify by looking and reading the books listed below. Even the GNU Foundation (look up atanh()) and also the IEEE (the largest engineering society in the world) accept tanh^1 of 1 to be infinity.
Read about him: http://en.wikipedia....Stephen_Wolfram
So who should we trust? You (verena) or 300+ mathematicians at Wolfram Research + IEEE + GNU + millions of mathematicians around the world? I don't think Stephan Wolfram needs to go back to highschool, you do. He's contributed more to mathematics than you have ever done in your life.
Oh, I see. Wolfram is English. That explains a lot. The English are well known for their great sense of humour, and they appreciate a good comic with a clever joke.
And I also see now, that one of Wolfram's contributions is to recognize infinity as a 'extended' real number. According to him, infinity exists, and you can work with it. Then, ln(0) is simply equal to minus infinity. And thanks to him, now 'zero' is added to the logarithmic scale.
You see, the type of math that I learned, teaches that infinity is not a real number, it does not exist, and can never be reached. It requires socalled 'abstract thinking'. You have to imagine something that does not exist, that you go towards, and that you never reach. Also, that math says that some things simply do not exist, but can only be approached. Like the logarithm of zero. You can only go towards it, but never reach it. And because infinity is not accepted as a real number, you can not say "ln(0)=∞", because it is considered illegal to equate a real number (0) to a something not real (∞). Therefore, ln(0) is "undefined"  yet another hard thing to understand. "You mean, you can get almost infinitely close to zero, but you have to exclude zero itself ?" Many people gave up on math because of these difficult mental requirements.
But now, thanks to Wolfram, 'abstract thinking' is no longer required, and there is a lot less 'undefined'. He really brings the "fun" back in mathematics. Infinity can just be treated like any other real number. Now, you can just say, well, the logarithm of zero is equal to minus infinity.
This implies, by the way, that e^(∞)=0, apparently "Wolfram's definition of zero".
I wish I had witnessed the introduction of this new definition of zero at the British Royal court. "My Mind" oracled Wolfram, "My Mind... has reached.... Infinity! Not only, Positive Infinity,  but also... Negative Infinity! And, guess what  Both Infinities Exists ! They Are Real !!". At which point the younger British princes started giggling and snickering they had just learned in school that you can never reach infinity, and understood the concept.
Wolfram continued: "And, Your Highnesses, at Negative Infinity, which is even further away than New Zealand at the other side of the Earth, at Negative Infinty  my Mind received the insight, that when you take the 'Exponent' of negative infinity..." (here, also prince Charles started laughing out loudly, because he already had an idea what was coming) "...when you exponentiate negative infinity, you get a number that is sooooo frikkin' unbelievably small...... that it is essentially, absolutely, I'm tellin' ya, definitely and simply, equal to...... zero !!!!"
At this point, the entire British Royal court started shaking with laughter so loud that the windows in Buckingham Palace were rattling. The tears were rolling over Queen Elizabeth's cheeks as she thought "What a NONSENSE  that guy is FUNNY, Wolfram is just the best court jester I have ever seen!"
Correction, not the entire British court was amused. Princess Diana seemed to be in some kind of shock and was talking to her butler: "Paul, that blithering idiot is just declaring the utmost horrible mathematical nonsense, and they are all LAUGHING about it, they think it it FUNNY ! It is Terrible ! Get me a ticket to Paris and call Dodi that I'm on my way, I need to see some normal people and can't wait to get away from this craziness."
(will be continued)
#317
Posted 14 September 2008  06:28 AM
verena, on Sep 13 2008, 09:45 PM, said:
I also find your long story making fun of Wolfram disrespectful, useless and of no mathematical value to the topic or conversation. All I did was explain why MathWorld was a trustable source, because Wolfram is a well known mathematician and you doubted it.
Now let's talk about math and no more of this race stuff:
Forgot about the infinity thing, it doesn't have anything to do with proving 0.999999..... does not equal 1. What matters is that no matter what number system we are using, tanh^1 (0.99999....) DOES equal tanh^1 (1). Show us the proof that 0.999999... is less than 1 first. If you prove 0.9999999... is less than 1, then you prove that tanh^1 (0.99999....) does not equal tanh^1 (1). You can't go the other way around, because you haven't determined what 0.9999999.... is yet (is it 1 or not? less than 1 or equal?). The only proof available shows that 0.999999... is not less than or greater than 1, thus it must be 1.
Whether we use the basic real number line (which you use): tanh^1 (0.999999.....) = tanh^1 (1) = undefined
Or the extended real number line (which everyone else uses): tanh^1 (0.99999999.....) = tanh^1 (1) = infinity
Also, Wolfram wasn't the first guy to add infinity to the number line. It was already thought of even before calculus, hundreds of years ago. In fact, some believe that by doing so, it helped lead to the creation of calculus.
I'm getting the impression that you aren't taking a look at the links and text I have listed. The stuff you're saying is just ridiculous. You've proven already that you have a very limited understanding of basic math. You say 0.33333... is not a real number? It is a real number. Even a 6 or 7 year old child knows that: Real Numbers Also, you didn't even know what the extended real number line is.
So I'll ask this only once again, show us first that 0.999999... is less than 1.
#318
Posted 15 September 2008  11:23 AM
This is perfectly legitimate in the basic real number line, because both 0.9999... and infinity are nonreal numbers. No mixing of number types.
2) About 0.333333....: I only meant to say that 0.333333 is not a PURE real number. It is only a RATIONAL real number.
Back in the 17th century, when 0.33333... was introduced as a APPROXIMATION of the real number 1/3, the 'real number' mathematicians had trouble accepting it into the collection of real numbers, because it essentially is a NONREAL NUMBER  it never ends, just 3s towards infinity. After some discussion, and being reasonable (rational) people, they did allow to to exist along with the PURE real numbers (like: 8, 18.4, 1/7), but only in the SUBSET of RATIONAL numbers. "SUB" means "LOWER" and "RATIONAL" means "REASONABLE". Being in the "SUB" set, 0.33333.... is always inferior to the fraction 1/3 (Now, you are going to call me racist again aren't you?). Also, because it is a RATIONAL number you have to excersize REASON (=use your brain) to work with it in a responsible way. The 17th century mathematicians gave us plenty of warnings and "caution" flags along with 0.33333.... to signal that it is NOT exactly equal to 1/3, but it goes in its own class as its own type of number. You understand ?
ONLY WHEN your brain works at the level of the dollar store calculator,
(you know, 1 / 3 x 3 = [0.9999999]) will you use 0.3333... x 3 as 'proof' that 0.9999... = 1. Just conveniently ignore that, as a mathematician, your duty is to use *good reasoning* to perform calculations with this rational number 0.33333...... rather than with the 'pure' real number 1/3.
3) Quote kucalc "you didn't even know what the extended real number line is."
No, and I'm very happy with that, I see that Wolfram has introduced a lot of nonsense to math. And I'm having a lot of fun pointing out the consequences of his 'work'.
4) Quote kucalc: "So I'll ask this only once again, show us first that 0.999999... is less than 1."
I already have told you that 0.9999999.... is a nonreal number, and 1 is. They are not equal. You have not provided any argument against my statement.
To answer your question, and only because it is the last time you ask it:
(proof start) You know that 0.9 + 0.1 = 1, and that 0.9999999 + 0.0000001 = 1.
As you add nines to the one term of this equation, you have to insert zeroes into the other term of the equation.
As certain as you will NEVER reach infinity (keep adding nines) you will ALWAYS insert zeroes and there will ALWAYS be a little difference between 0.9999..... and 1.
(proof end).
In your 'modern' extended number line, once you reach infinity, all of a sudden "OOPS' the difference is gone ! Now, we have 1.0 which is essentially exactly the same as the dollar store calculator's 0.9999999 !!!
5) I know that you have been DYING for me to say "there is no number between 0.999999.... and 1" because you would have jubilantly jumped up and said "SEE? there is nothing between them, therefore you have just said yourself that they are equal because the difference is nothing, zero" but I cannot say that because infinity is never reached, and I would be comparing a nonreal number to a real number. What I CAN say is that 0.999999 extended to infinity is as close to 1 as you can get, without ever reaching 1.
6) Also I know that you have been WAITING all along for me to say "um, the difference between 0.999999... and 1 is simply 10^(∞) "
because 10^(∞) is the SECOND and IMPROVED Definition of ZERO by Wolfram !!! Remember I already have pointed out the idiocy of his first definition of zero e^(∞) with my little story about its introduction at the British Royal Court above. 10 is bigger than e, so zero is 'reached' even faster with 10^∞ than with e^∞. You can show this on any scientific calculator, but mathematically, ha ha what a nonsense !
7) Bottom line: Thank you for introducing me to the 'extended number line' and the socalled "improvements" of math by Wolfram. Thanks to Wolfram, 0.9999999 is now equal to 1, so no child is left behind, even when they can only afford a dollar store calculator.
Thanks to Wolfram, and you have made it perfectly clear to me, all you need now to become a mathematician like you, is a dollar store calculator brain.
#319
Posted 15 September 2008  02:28 PM
verena, on Sep 15 2008, 03:23 AM, said:
As certain as you will NEVER reach infinity (keep adding nines) you will ALWAYS insert zeroes and there will ALWAYS be a little difference between 0.9999..... and 1.
(proof end).
verena, on Sep 15 2008, 03:23 AM, said:
verena, on Sep 15 2008, 03:23 AM, said:
This is perfectly legitimate in the basic real number line, because both 0.9999... and infinity are nonreal numbers. No mixing of number types.
verena, on Sep 15 2008, 03:23 AM, said:
verena, on Sep 15 2008, 03:23 AM, said:
(you know, 1 / 3 x 3 = [0.9999999]) will you use 0.3333... x 3 as 'proof' that 0.9999... = 1. Just conveniently ignore that, as a mathematician, your duty is to use *good reasoning* to perform calculations with this rational number 0.33333...... rather than with the 'pure' real number 1/3.
verena, on Sep 15 2008, 03:23 AM, said:
#320
Posted 15 September 2008  05:23 PM
(proof start)
You know that 0.9 + 0.1 = 1, 0.99 + 0.01 = 1, and that 0.9999999 + 0.0000001 = 1, etc.
As you add nines to the first term of this equation, you insert zeroes into the second term of the equation. The sum always being 1.
As certain as you will NEVER reach infinity (keep adding nines) you will ALWAYS insert zeroes and there will ALWAYS be a little difference between 0.9999..... and 1.
(proof end).
Here is kucalc's reaction:
kucalc, on Sep 15 2008, 09:28 AM, said:
I have never criticized anyone for being abstract. Actually I would appreciate if you would show to be capable of some abstract thinking.
Your story throughout this thread looks like, and please correct me if I'm wrong:
"once I have inserted "infinity" zeroes between the decimal point and the "1" of the second term, that annoying little "1" to the right or at the end of the infinity zeroes will be beyond the infinity zeroes and essentially have disappeared and we can forget about it".
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users