.999999999999... = 1 ?
#241
Posted 24 October 2006 - 08:00 PM
why you don?t solve the question: who was first, chiken or egg???
in my opinion, 0.999999...............99999999........ is not equal to 1, but this point is justified by the real number axiomatic.....
have a nice day
protoman no one
#242
Posted 25 October 2006 - 01:39 AM
Biology gave the answer long time ago. But it is not the topic here...why you don?t solve the question: who was first, chiken or egg???
#243
Posted 25 October 2006 - 03:05 AM
#244
Posted 25 October 2006 - 04:39 AM
Neither, learn about evolution and the gradual process that brought diversity of life.why you don?t solve the question: who was first, chiken or egg???
in my opinion, 0.999999...............99999999........ is not equal to 1, but this point is justified by the real number axiomatic.....
have a nice day
protoman no one
How can I have a nice day when someone doesn't believe that 0.9999.... equals 1? In fact you ruined my day, but brought me a great idea. You know what, I'm going to start an mathematical organization that will finally declare once and for all that 0.9999... equals 1. This may happen or it may not... If I do this, who will join me?
#245
Posted 25 October 2006 - 04:55 AM
- Who are we?
- Where are we? Where did we come from?
- Why do we live?
#246
Posted 25 October 2006 - 04:03 PM
Sorry, you wrong.
Yeah, that was a constructive answer
#247
Posted 25 October 2006 - 11:07 PM
Sorry if I am spam. But there are more question:
- Who are we?
- Where are we? Where did we come from?
- Why do we live?
What are you talking about? Are you talking about evolution? If so I'm sorry to bring up that topic...
#248
Posted 26 October 2006 - 05:48 AM
#249
Posted 26 October 2006 - 03:28 PM
i was only joking with my question of the chicken, but i have a theory, if evolution was succed really as we know, it could be taked (sorry, my english is in experimental phase ) more time that we estimated. so we only can speak about microevolution in species........the macroevolution can not be proved. it?s the same point when you trying to probe god?s existence....you can?t....but it is only my opinion. if i hurted somebody with my coments, please excuse me
errrr.........bye
protoman no one
sorry for the brain-cleaner message , i will not follow you
and there is another question, why chicken crossed the road??????
#250
Posted 27 October 2006 - 01:40 PM
we will join you, we are a brotherhood, we will join you, we are a brotherhood, we will join you, we are a brotherhood, we will join you, we are a brotherhood, we will join you, we are a brotherhood, we will join you, we are a brotherhood..............join our brotherhood, join our brotherhood!!!!! join kucalc.......join kucalc......join us....join us (sugestive message)
LOL
sorry for the brain-cleaner message , i will not follow you
What a put-down. You had my hopes up... It seems you ruined another day for me.
and there is another question, why chicken crossed the road??????
Why would a chicken cross a road? I thought domestic chickens were kept in farms.
- "Knock, Knock"
- You reply: "Who's there?"
- You look and it's the chicken!
Obviously the chicken crossed the road to get to your house where you live in fairy tale land. Hahahaha! Oh, wait I just realized that joke was lame....
#251
Posted 27 October 2006 - 03:56 PM
and......errr..cofff cofff.....sorry, that flu is horrible (i?m kidding) .
i will use my super-duper computer (mark 2) to probe that 0.9999999..........<>1
why you don?t join me? ......join me.....join me......the math.....join it.....join it...follow us....(another sugestive message)
see you later
protoman no one
#252
Posted 28 October 2006 - 02:57 AM
i will use my super-duper computer (mark 2) to probe that 0.9999999..........<>1
why you don?t join me? ......join me.....join me......the math.....join it.....join it...follow us....(another sugestive message)
OK, let's get serious now.
protoman, why don't you show us some math that shows 0.99999... does not equal 1? I don't think I have seen any math that disproves 0.9999... equals 1. How come? There's a lot of math showing that 0.9999.... equals 1. If 0.9999... does not equal 1, surely there should be a mathematical procedure to show this to be true? If you can't back your ideas with concrete facts, then what is your point in arguing? Are you saying that mathematics is wrong itself? 2+2 does not equal 4? 0.9999... does not equal 1? Show me the mathematics!!! Show me an example in math that 0.999.... does not equal one! Show me a proof! (Don't just say 0.9999....<>1!)
Thus, if you can't show that it is false mathematically, then it must be true mathematically.
#253
Posted 28 October 2006 - 06:42 AM
No. it might be true. Mathematically it is a "We don't know".Thus, if you can't show that it is false mathematically, then it must be true mathematically.
Anyways, I agree with the rest of your post. If 0.999... =/= 1, I want a mathematical proof. Something solid, not some vague considerations about infinity. A real demonstration.
#254
Posted 28 October 2006 - 02:12 PM
don?t be angry kucalc (or the correct word is hungry? i can?t remember,excuse my english),
be serious, ok i will............
protoman no one
#255
Posted 28 October 2006 - 06:06 PM
Exactly!Anyways, I agree with the rest of your post. If 0.999... =/= 1, I want a mathematical proof. Something solid, not some vague considerations about infinity. A real demonstration.
ok, i will probe. can i submit a pdf or a word document to the forum? because i can?t print math symbols here......
don?t be angry kucalc (or the correct word is hungry? i can?t remember,excuse my english),
be serious, ok i will............
protoman no one
If you want protoman, you can submit your file to my site at: http://kucalc.frih.net
Place the file under the Misc section.
#256
Posted 06 November 2006 - 10:29 PM
I'm french, so sorry for my bad english...
I have a comment on that topic:
The expression 0.9999... is false.
If you want to pose correctly the problem we say that 0.999... is the sum of k=1 to k=n of 9.10^-k
=9.10^-1*(1-10^(-n-1))/(1-10^-1)=1-10^(-n-1)
When n-->+infinite, the sum=1.
#257
Posted 07 November 2006 - 07:36 AM
I agree with your proof, but I don't consider 0.999... being incorrect. It's a writing convention like any other and recognized.
#258
Posted 07 November 2006 - 09:24 AM
We can write (0,1,...10) 0.999...9 but we can't write 0.999...
ps:TyYann tu es fran?ais?
#259
Posted 07 November 2006 - 10:12 AM
(btw. I change my opinion. I agree that 0.999... is 1. There is too much proof (most convincing beeing the definition of real numbers)
#260
Posted 07 November 2006 - 10:45 AM
I have to ask my mathematics' professor
#261
Posted 07 November 2006 - 02:36 PM
ok, i will probe. can i submit a pdf or a word document to the forum? because i can?t print math symbols here......
don?t be angry kucalc (or the correct word is hungry? i can?t remember,excuse my english),
be serious, ok i will............
protoman no one
If you want protoman, you can submit your file to my site at: http://kucalc.frih.net
Place the file under the Misc section.
protoman, where have you gone? Why are you so quiet now? Where's the mathematical proof that shows 0.999.... does not equal 1? I told you already, you can upload it to my site.
#262
Posted 08 November 2006 - 09:22 PM
Yes, I've seen that in university. And I find university less obsessed with rules than high school, as long as they stay clear, they don't bother too much : they emphasis the spirit where in high school they emphasis conventions.You have already seen 0.999... in university??
ps:TyYann tu es fran?ais?
And Oui, je suis fran?ais.
#263
Posted 09 November 2006 - 10:59 AM
It's the contrary for me So you are luckyYes, I've seen that in university. And I fint university less obsessed with rules than high school, as long as they stay clear, they don't bother too much : they emphasis the spirit where in high school they emphasis conventions.
#264
Posted 12 November 2006 - 01:27 AM
#265
Posted 17 November 2006 - 08:21 PM
i?m studiying for my exams, so i?m sorry for the late!
i have not a "really, really" probe (i will explain why later), but i have some math comments about real number decimal representation ( and definition of it) that says i?m right (they were made by an expert and i think that is right) so i will sent a copy to the forum (if administrators give me permission) and to your homepage, but you must wait, i?m bussy.
please understand me, i?m really bussy now
see you later
protoman no one
if you saw it at university, i saw it at highschool
bye
and.....i forget something: you must ask betoe for a translation, because my english level is bad, so i will write it in spanish.
#266
Posted 18 November 2006 - 08:55 AM
But I'm sure you didn't hear about the definition of real numbers at highschool. As far as I remember then if you define x.9999 as x+1 you do essentially disprove the definition of real numbers. Do you really think that your knowledge you got in high-school is good enough for this?
(btw ... if you're american your high schools do aren't really the standard of education. A friend of mine is in the US for a year. He got a 3-4 (grade C-D) in germany in maths and now he is in the US, took the most difficult maths course offered and still is among the best of the year ... (just as a comment))
#267
Posted 18 November 2006 - 07:20 PM
my intention is not to get you or others with me (i used icon because i can?t remember the word that means when you get furious).
so, be patient with me, i will sent this probe later, when i finish my exams.
have a nice day.
protoman no one
#268 Guest_Guest_*
Posted 27 November 2006 - 06:05 AM
But, i thought that as you keep taking on 9s, that the amount needed to make that " .9 or .99 ect." would just get smaller thus the amount or number needed to make .99999999999...... = 1 will become as infininetly smaller. If you dont know what im saying let me see if i can right it out with numbers and such
.9 + .1 = 1
.99 + .01 = 1
.999 + .001 = 1
.9999 + .0001 = 1
ect.
I have heard form so many people (Math teachers) that .999...... = 1 but i just dont see how even .999 to infinity can equal 1 with out infinetly smal .00000.....1 qualifier.
****I think that the human atemp to try to assign a variable to infinity is flawed in that as humans, we can never ever ever ever know that infinity is achevable. I mean, the consept is real enuf but i think the math is bad.****
STOP WRITING EQUATIONS WITH INFINITY AS A VARIABLE ITS IS A CONSEPT!
#269
Posted 27 November 2006 - 07:28 AM
And by the way, pi, e, and even 0, 1 etc. are also concepts.
I WILL continue to write equations with infinity as a variable, as long as I define what I am talking about.
#270
Posted 27 November 2006 - 11:12 AM
AND, INFINITI NUMBER ARE DEFINED VERY WELL NOW, TO SAY IT IS WRONG, YOU MUST GIVE THE REASON!
--Sorry, my English isnt very well
#271
Posted 28 November 2006 - 05:24 PM
#272
Posted 28 November 2006 - 07:11 PM
#273
Posted 29 November 2006 - 02:40 AM
ok, i will probe. can i submit a pdf or a word document to the forum? because i can?t print math symbols here......
don?t be angry kucalc (or the correct word is hungry? i can?t remember,excuse my english),
be serious, ok i will............
protoman no one
I've been waiting for a month now...
#274
Posted 05 January 2007 - 07:50 PM
well, i said that i will send a "probe", so now i will send. the document will be in spanish (because my english is in performing mode), so the people who want a traduction must ask betoe or another forum translator. i need a little more time to write it (i was studying for my exams, remember that human?s life does not consist only in forum posts! )
so, sorry for the late. i will send it as faster i can .
see ya again people.
protoman no one
#275
Posted 06 January 2007 - 03:03 AM
however when using such a number practicaly, it might as well be 1 but in theory it is not
and the egg came before the chicken
my basis for this is evolution and genetics. somthing that wasnt geneticly a chicken (but very close geneticly to) layed and egg that through genetic mutations and meiosis was geneticly a chicken.
#276
Posted 06 January 2007 - 07:05 AM
Really ? What is your proof ? Your arguments ?0.99999999999999......... does not equel 1, it approaches 1 but does not equel 1
however when using such a number practicaly, it might as well be 1 but in theory it is not
It approaches 1 ? How close ?
A limit does exist and is reached.
If anybody has a doubt about it, I can give you a good example to make this point.
#277
Posted 13 January 2007 - 03:12 AM
It's been months now...ok, i will probe. can i submit a pdf or a word document to the forum? because i can?t print math symbols here......
don?t be angry kucalc (or the correct word is hungry? i can?t remember,excuse my english),
be serious, ok i will............
protoman no one
Hm ... then show us this proof as soon as you have time.
But I'm sure you didn't hear about the definition of real numbers at highschool. As far as I remember then if you define x.9999 as x+1 you do essentially disprove the definition of real numbers. Do you really think that your knowledge you got in high-school is good enough for this?
(btw ... if you're american your high schools do aren't really the standard of education. A friend of mine is in the US for a year. He got a 3-4 (grade C-D) in germany in maths and now he is in the US, took the most difficult maths course offered and still is among the best of the year ... (just as a comment))
protoman_no_one, is most likely not American as you can see in his postings (His English is not really good). In parts of America, I think the level of education differs. Your friend was probably most likely using a CASIO, which would out-perform most American students who uses TIs, as CASIO calculators tend to be better for mathematics (rather than gaming, etc., as that is was I believe).
By the way, right now I'm taking AP (AP=College Level) Physics, AP Western Civilizations, AP Computer Science and also Pre-Calculus in my second year of highschool.
#278
Posted 05 February 2007 - 01:01 PM
1/3=0.3333333333
1/3+1/3+1/3=0.999999999999
1/3+1/3+1/3=3/3=1
1=0.99999999999
maybe someone wrote this already I didn't read the whole thread
#279
Posted 06 February 2007 - 07:33 PM
2.) Simple algebraic #2:
1/3 = 0.333333333...
(1/3)*3 = 0.99999... or 1
3.) Simple algebraic #3:
1/11 = 0.09090909...
+ 10/11 = 0.90909090...
= 11/11 = 0.99999999...
4.) Simple arithmetic #4:
2/7 = 0.2857142857...
+ 5/7 = 0.7142857142...
= 7/7 = 0.9999999999...
Yes, someone wrote it already.
#280 Guest_Mauritz_*
Posted 15 February 2007 - 10:00 PM
say the a number equals another if they are not really the same?
So 1+1 is not equal to 2?
First, what do we mean by 0.999... ? A reasonable meaning is that we mean
limes of 0.9, 0.99, 0.999,.. which will be =1.
If we by 0.999 ? mean the infinite process of adding yet another 9, each step taking a finite time, then it will newer reach 1, but then it is on the other hand not math but instead programming or physics. 0.9999?, seen as a limit, will not become 1, it is equal to 1 by the very definition of real numbers.
It is not stranger that we could have two different representation of 1 than that 1/3 = 2/6.
I think a lot of this discussion is due to the mixing up of programming, a dynamic process where things do change, and mathematics, which is inherently static.
And by the way, everything is not logic. You can not (as Russels famous failure with Principa Mathematica shows) define math using logic alone, you need more axioms that does not contradict the logic, but add extra information. You can not prove that 0.999? =1 using for example predicate logic, because real numbers, and the rules governing them, is not included in the predicate logic. But the rules for the reals does not (as far as we know) contain any contradictions.
(G?del has proven that we can not prove that it indeed does not contain contradictions).
One can not use pure logic to prove or disapprove that I look at a red rose right now. Logic is not everything.
I do not know why I write this, because it seems useless. Those who ?believe? that 0.999? is not (using a mathematical, reasonable definition of this) =1, simply does not accept the axioms used to define the reals, and the standard interpretation of 0.999? That person have though the difficult task of defining, in mathematical terms (not as ?adding yet another 9, over and over again?) in a reasonable way.
You could actually define a king of hyperreals where 0.999? is not equal to 1, but that would indeed be a new kind of math. It is not stranger than if one would define a new kind of chess which the knights per side. It would though NOT be chess.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users