.99999999~ = 1!!!!

2006-11-30 09:50:44

#151

Gawwad: My way or Haddaway!; +212|6943|Espoo, Finland

Marinejuana wrote:
hmm, i guess im wrong now that i read the post again.

i didnt realize ~ denoted "recurring". i thought it meant "approximately." serves me right going 3 years without a math class.

can a number with infinitely recurring digits be proven to represent anything that actually exists? Isn't it impossible to determine if something is infinite? even though infinity is a clear theory im confused at how we could ever assign it as a value to something in the real world.

.333~ = 1/3

The problem is the system that is used. 1/3 is easy to understand where as a 0 followed by an infinite ammount of .333 is a lot harder.

2006-11-30 09:52:01

#152

Kurazoo: Pheasant Plucker; +440|6943|West Yorkshire, U.K

what a silly thread

2006-11-30 10:02:25

#153

Gawwad: My way or Haddaway!; +212|6943|Espoo, Finland

10973 wrote:
even wiv all this algerba proof i still think 0.99~ isnt 1 if its recurring the 9s never stop therefore it will all ways be adding and 9 and will not end. 0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999... isnt 1 because it will always keep going and wil not end. anything u add after the decimal point will never make the number go up unless u round. it will be very very close to one but never one. it cant be 1

1/3 = 0.333~ Correct?
3x 0.333~ = 0.999~ Correct?
3x 1/3 = 3/3 = 1 Correct?
0.999~ = 3/3 -> 0.999~ = 1 Correct?

Math is a science that is based on agreements. The way our mathematics work was invented and developed.
It is agreed that
1/3 = 0.333~
and
3x 0.333~ = 0.999~
if
3x 1/3 = 1
then
3x 0.333~ = 1
because
1/3 = 0.333~

2006-11-30 10:44:38

#154

jimmanycricket: EBC Member; +56|6914|Cambridge, England

10973 wrote:
0.33~ isnt 0.34 right... so y is 0.99~ eaqual to 1.00?

no, 0.33999999~ = 0.34
0.989~ = 9.99
7.5789~ =7.579
0.99~ =1

there is no argument here its maths you cannot argue maths

2006-11-30 10:49:16

#155

hurricane2oo5: Do One Ya Mug !!!; +176|7023|mansfield

instaed of talking about maths can we go and play battlefield?

2006-11-30 10:56:22

#156

Gawwad: My way or Haddaway!; +212|6943|Espoo, Finland

jimmanycricket wrote:
10973 wrote:
0.33~ isnt 0.34 right... so y is 0.99~ eaqual to 1.00?
no, 0.33999999~ = 0.34
0.989~ = 9.99
7.5789~ =7.579
0.99~ =1

there is no argument here its maths you cannot argue maths

Just to clear up. ~ is used to represent an infinite ammount of the 9's and 3's on this thread.

0.333~ is not aproximately 0.333 it's 0.333...3
^infinity of 3's

~ is often used to represent 'aproximately', but not on this thread.

Last edited by Gawwad (2006-11-30 11:10:23)

2006-11-30 11:30:58

#157

Talon: Stop reading this and look at my post; +341|7019

Ok, there's a much simpler way to do this:

10 - 9.99999* = ?

The answer is 0. infinite 0s, followed by 1.

You can't follow an infinite number of digits by a one, as its infinite! You'd run out of space in the universe. Thus, 0. inifinite 0s followed by 1 doesn't exist, so 10-9.9* = 0

2006-11-30 12:14:42

#158

Gawwad: My way or Haddaway!; +212|6943|Espoo, Finland

Talon wrote:
Ok, there's a much simpler way to do this:

10 - 9.99999* = ?

The answer is 0. infinite 0s, followed by 1.

You can't follow an infinite number of digits by a one, as its infinite! You'd run out of space in the universe. Thus, 0. inifinite 0s followed by 1 doesn't exist, so 10-9.9* = 0

Much simpler to just replace that 9.999~ with 30/3 (3.333~ = 10/3)
And better yet, use .999~ instead of 9.999~ (=3/3 [1/3 = .333~])

2006-11-30 12:17:37

#159

therealnicoli: Member; +5|6936

Onionpaste wrote:
If you subtract x from 10x, you get 9.00000~, as in the equation 10x - x = 9.00000~

Your problem is here, If x = .9999999 the 10x -x = 10.00000 not 9.00000

2006-11-30 12:19:16

#160

Stormscythe: Aiming for the head; +88|6808|EUtopia | Austria

Gen. Payne wrote:
I remember there was something out there that could prove 1=2. I gotta try to find that.

Found it (it is, in fact, false; try to find the error, you may get karma)

a = b
ab = b²
- (ab) = - (b²)
a²-ab = a² - b²
a(a-b) = (a+b) (a-b)
a = a+b
a = 2a
1 = 2

If a = b, then a² - b² necessarily means a² - a² = 0.
From now on we see that 0 = 0.

Has someone posted this before me?
I don't know.

As for the 0,999999~ thing...

After the comma, we got an infinite number of 9s - let's call that number "n"
By multiplying with 10, we move the comma for one decimal place which means that there are only "n-1" 9s behind the comma, followed by a 0 (means 9,9999~~0)
The solution is now 8,9999~1 (n-2 times 9 in between).
If you divide this by 9 again, you get back to 0,9999~ (n times 9 at the end).

This is the easiest solution. Get comfortable with the feeling that, as far as maths are concerned, "infinite minus one" indeed makes sense.

2006-11-30 12:28:37

#161

Jenspm: penis; +1,716|6991|St. Andrews / Oslo

There WAS a fault in your reasoning:

when you multiply a number with 10, you get one less decimal.

Example
x = 0.9999
10x = 9.999
9x = 8.9991 (9,999 - 0,9999)
x = 0.9999

no matter how many 9's you have after zero, you will always have one less when multiplying by 10. Therfore X = 0.9999~ no matter what.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png

2006-11-30 12:35:55

#162

Stormscythe: Aiming for the head; +88|6808|EUtopia | Austria

Hey, just something else came to my mind...

The real problem is that we do not have a digit in a number to show it's decreasing status - i mean we can define a number that basically never reaches 1 from a lower number like 0,9~ on - but can we do otherwise?
Why can't we, in this case, count backwards?

I'm puzzled.

Oh and what I have to add - since mathematics ain't nothing but an INVENTION of human beings, of course human beings set the rules.

Yes, and before I forget it - fractions are there for a reason - and there's also a reason why infinte numbers are called "irrational". People will never be able to use their ratio (, rationis) to understand them.
So to say, 0.9~ does not even exist.

2006-11-30 12:36:57

#163

Gawwad: My way or Haddaway!; +212|6943|Espoo, Finland

Jenspm wrote:
There WAS a fault in your reasoning:

when you multiply a number with 10, you get one less decimal.

Example
x = 0.9999
10x = 9.999
9x = 8.9991 (9,999 - 0,9999)
x = 0.9999

no matter how many 9's you have after zero, you will always have one less when multiplying by 10. Therfore X = 0.9999~ no matter what.

1/3 = 0.333~
and
3x 0.333~ = 0.999~
if
3x 1/3 = 1
then
3x 0.333~ = 1
because
1/3 = 0.333~

Correct me if you see a mistake.

2006-11-30 12:38:45

#164

Gawwad: My way or Haddaway!; +212|6943|Espoo, Finland

Stormscythe wrote:
Hey, just something else came to my mind...

The real problem is that we do not have a digit in a number to show it's decreasing status - i mean we can define a number that basically never reaches 1 from a lower number like 0,9~ on - but can we do otherwise?
Why can't we, in this case, count backwards?

I'm puzzled.

Oh and what I have to add - since mathematics ain't nothing but an INVENTION of human beings, of course human beings set the rules.

Yes, and before I forget it - fractions are there for a reason - and there's also a reason why infinte numbers are called "irrational". People will never be able to use their ratio (, rationis) to understand them.
So to say, 0.9~ does not even exist.

Quoted for effect.

2006-11-30 12:41:54

#165

jimmanycricket: EBC Member; +56|6914|Cambridge, England

Lets get one thing straight.

Infinity isnt a number

Infinity-1=Infinity

infinity/10 = infinity

infinity^2 = infinity

0.999* x 10 = 9.9999* as just because it may seem like there is one less 9 there is still an infinite number of them.

9.999* = 10 end of Argument.

LOCK ANYONE ?

2006-11-30 12:42:17

#166

Jenspm: penis; +1,716|6991|St. Andrews / Oslo

Gawwad wrote:
Jenspm wrote:
There WAS a fault in your reasoning:

when you multiply a number with 10, you get one less decimal.

Example
x = 0.9999
10x = 9.999
9x = 8.9991 (9,999 - 0,9999)
x = 0.9999

no matter how many 9's you have after zero, you will always have one less when multiplying by 10. Therfore X = 0.9999~ no matter what.
1/3 = 0.333~
and
3x 0.333~ = 0.999~
if
3x 1/3 = 1
then
3x 0.333~ = 1
because
1/3 = 0.333~

Correct me if you see a mistake.

the problem is... 1/3 is not the same as 0.333~

0,333~ = 3,33~/10 = 33,333~/100 witch again is not the same as 1/3

2006-11-30 12:44:15

#167

obstacle02: Member; +3|6775

Onionpaste wrote:
Dunno if this has already been covered, if so, sorry for the spam, not intended.

So:

Let's call .99999~ (that's a decimal followed by an infinite number of 9's) a variable x.

So that means that x = .9999~

So by that logic, 10x = 9.9999~

If you subtract x from 10x, you get 9.00000~, as in the equation 10x - x = 9.00000~

This means 9.0000~, or just 9 (I put the 0's there to show that all the 9's after decimal went away), equals 9x.
9x = 9

Divide each side by 9, and you get x = 1.

That means that x is equal to .99999~ and 1 at the same time. Therefore, .99999~ = 1!

If any math majors have found some sort of error in this reasoning, do not hesitate to reply so I can debate it with you

-Onion

i like your thinking

2006-11-30 12:45:14

#168

Sgt_Sieg: "Bow Chicka Bow Wow." The correct way.; +89|7033

Unfortunately infinities aren't that simple. The Laws surrounding infinty don't just allow addition and subtraction like that. Your logic = broken.

2006-11-30 12:46:02

#169

jimmanycricket: EBC Member; +56|6914|Cambridge, England

Jenspm wrote:
Gawwad wrote:
Jenspm wrote:
There WAS a fault in your reasoning:

when you multiply a number with 10, you get one less decimal.

Example
x = 0.9999
10x = 9.999
9x = 8.9991 (9,999 - 0,9999)
x = 0.9999

no matter how many 9's you have after zero, you will always have one less when multiplying by 10. Therfore X = 0.9999~ no matter what.
1/3 = 0.333~
and
3x 0.333~ = 0.999~
if
3x 1/3 = 1
then
3x 0.333~ = 1
because
1/3 = 0.333~

Correct me if you see a mistake.
the problem is... 1/3 is not the same as 0.333~

0,333~ = 3,33~/10 = 33,333~/100 witch again is not the same as 1/3

Urm yes it is. 33.333*/100 = 11.111*/33.333* = 10/30 = 1/3

2006-11-30 12:50:04

#170

Reject_Wolf: Former Karkand Addict; +32|6841|Windsor, Ontario, Canada

.999~ = 1, I am sure you can prove this with limits, but I don't have the time to explain this to people. Anyway, .999~=1, and if you don't believe it you are uneducated in math and should learn more before you speak.

2006-11-30 12:53:54

#171

Jenspm: penis; +1,716|6991|St. Andrews / Oslo

jimmanycricket wrote:
Jenspm wrote:
Gawwad wrote:

1/3 = 0.333~
and
3x 0.333~ = 0.999~
if
3x 1/3 = 1
then
3x 0.333~ = 1
because
1/3 = 0.333~

Correct me if you see a mistake.
the problem is... 1/3 is not the same as 0.333~

0,333~ = 3,33~/10 = 33,333~/100 witch again is not the same as 1/3
Urm yes it is. 33.333*/100 = 11.111*/33.333* = 10/30 = 1/3

Urm, no it is not.

look at it this way -

When you divide 100 by 33.333 you get 3,0003 something something (aka not a whole number).
When you divide 33.333 by 11.111 you get 3. a whole number; no infinities.

1/3 means that the "bottom number" is exactly 3 times as big as the "top number" (sorry, can't remember the names for these in english). 33.333 is exactly 3 times as big as 11.111. As I said above, 100 is not exactly three times as big as 3.33333~

2006-11-30 13:37:33

#172

Gawwad: My way or Haddaway!; +212|6943|Espoo, Finland

Jenspm wrote:
jimmanycricket wrote:
Jenspm wrote:

the problem is... 1/3 is not the same as 0.333~

0,333~ = 3,33~/10 = 33,333~/100 witch again is not the same as 1/3
Urm yes it is. 33.333*/100 = 11.111*/33.333* = 10/30 = 1/3
Urm, no it is not.

look at it this way -

When you divide 100 by 33.333 you get 3,0003 something something (aka not a whole number).
When you divide 33.333 by 11.111 you get 3. a whole number; no infinities.

1/3 means that the "bottom number" is exactly 3 times as big as the "top number" (sorry, can't remember the names for these in english). 33.333 is exactly 3 times as big as 11.111. As I said above, 100 is not exactly three times as big as 3.33333~

Why would you want to change the number we're talking about completely?
100/33.333~ can never equal to 1/3 nor 0.333~ or 3.333~

And 1/3 is 0.333~

I would like to know where you get your facts.

2006-11-30 13:40:31

#173

Jenspm: penis; +1,716|6991|St. Andrews / Oslo

Gawwad wrote:
Jenspm wrote:
jimmanycricket wrote:

Urm yes it is. 33.333*/100 = 11.111*/33.333* = 10/30 = 1/3
Urm, no it is not.

look at it this way -

When you divide 100 by 33.333 you get 3,0003 something something (aka not a whole number).
When you divide 33.333 by 11.111 you get 3. a whole number; no infinities.

1/3 means that the "bottom number" is exactly 3 times as big as the "top number" (sorry, can't remember the names for these in english). 33.333 is exactly 3 times as big as 11.111. As I said above, 100 is not exactly three times as big as 3.33333~
Why would you want to change the number we're talking about completely?
100/33.333~ can never equal to 1/3 nor 0.333~ or 3.333~

And 1/3 is 0.333~

I would like to know where you get your facts.

I was trying to show that 33.33333~ x 3 IS NOT 100 and therfore 33.3333/100 IS NOT 1/3

2006-11-30 13:41:47

#174

FALLOUTBOMB: Member; +6|6786|northern virginia, US

who cares?

2006-11-30 13:45:22

#175

jimmanycricket: EBC Member; +56|6914|Cambridge, England

if 33.3* recuring is what we aretaking about right, if you are taking about 33.33333 then that is whjere you are going wrong,

33.3333333 recuring x 3 =99.9999 recuring

and as aready proved in many, many ways 99.9999recuring =100

=> 33.3 recuring x 3 = 100

BF2S Forums .99999999~ = 1!!!!

Marinejuana wrote:

10973 wrote:

10973 wrote:

jimmanycricket wrote:

10973 wrote:

Talon wrote:

Onionpaste wrote:

Gen. Payne wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Stormscythe wrote:

Gawwad wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Onionpaste wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Gawwad wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

jimmanycricket wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Gawwad wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

jimmanycricket wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Gawwad wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

jimmanycricket wrote:

Board footer