0.999... = 1 debate

This is the place where all heated debates shall reside. Non-tech topics allowed. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. "Enter at your own Risk".

Moderator: The Mod Squad

0.999... = 1 debate

Postby hunter1801 » Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:04 pm

This part of the forum has seen more lively days, so I figured I'd bring this here. Hopefully it gets views.

Alright, so I'll start off by saying that I do in fact believe that 0.999...(repeating) is = to 1. They are the same thing.

If you don't believe the idea that 0.999...=1 just read up a little here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

Or google for proofs.

My ACTUAL question, or reason for this topic, is for someone to help me prove this to people who come back with the question of dividing a pie into equal portions. For example, I can tell someone the above is true, and mathematically prove it, but if they ask something like, "If I have 1 pie and I want to divide it equally for 9 kids, how much do I give each kid?" I can't answer it. Mathematically it comes to 11.111...% for each kid, which is is 0.111... which SHOULD be 1, but makes no sense in this form.

So ya, thoughts?
hunter1801
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1958
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 3:59 pm
Location: Orange County, California

Postby Hardware Junkie » Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:53 pm

Realistically you wouldn't. Some pieces of the pie would be smaller or larger depending.
Unless you cut your pie with a laser, a microscope and a computer to make the necessary calculations.
"Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality." -Jules de Gautier

Image
Hardware Junkie
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 19405
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2001 1:01 am
Location: 00000h - 0000Fh

Postby evasive » Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:27 pm

it is not 1. However small the difference (going NEAR zero but NEVER reaching zero) there is a difference.
We hate rut, but we fear change.
********************************
System error, strike any user to continue...
evasive
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 37389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 12:01 am
Location: Netherlands

Postby hunter1801 » Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:07 pm

evasive wrote:it is not 1. However small the difference (going NEAR zero but NEVER reaching zero) there is a difference.


then how would you argue against:

1/3 = 0.333...
3 x 1/3 = 3 x 0.333...
1 = 0.333...

or

x=0.999...
10x=9.999...
10x-x= 9.999... - 0.999...
9x=9
x=1

or any of the other proofs that the numbers are equal
hunter1801
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1958
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 3:59 pm
Location: Orange County, California

Postby Roach412 » Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:41 pm

hunter1801 wrote:then how would you argue against:

1/3 = 0.333...
3 x 1/3 = 3 x 0.333...
1 = 0.333...

or

x=0.999...
10x=9.999...
10x-x= 9.999... - 0.999...
9x=9
x=1

or any of the other proofs that the numbers are equal


simply by stating fractions are not always truly decimals and decimals are not always truly fractions. their inter-use is a convenience for us - but doesn't account for their actual exact value.

makes sense to me?

-Roach
Lian Li Lancool First Knight Series PC-K59W
Intel Core i7-960 Bloomfield 3.2GHz
EVGA X58 FTW3 132-GT-E768-TR
EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 FTW GAMING ACX 3.0
G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 12GB (3 x 4GB)
Crucial M4 128gb SATAIII SSD x2
Crucial M4 256gb SATAIII SSD
OCZ Saber 1000 960GB Enterprise SSD
Corsair Professional Series HX850 PSU
Dell UltraSharp U2713HM 27" w/drop ceiling mount
Logitech G930 7.1 Headset
DBPOWER RGB LED Keyboard
Logitech G402 Hyperion Fury
Roach412
Black Belt 2nd Degree
Black Belt 2nd Degree
 
Posts: 2718
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:33 pm
Location: Milwaukee - Wisconsin

Postby Roach412 » Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:47 pm

as a side-note....

a friend of mine, brilliant math genius, did a proof showing -1 = 1, basically as long as you accept that 0 has value.

chew on that fat for a while. :D

it goes along the same thought lines as 0.9999...., since you still need to make assumptions as to how you define value.

-Roach
Lian Li Lancool First Knight Series PC-K59W
Intel Core i7-960 Bloomfield 3.2GHz
EVGA X58 FTW3 132-GT-E768-TR
EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 FTW GAMING ACX 3.0
G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 12GB (3 x 4GB)
Crucial M4 128gb SATAIII SSD x2
Crucial M4 256gb SATAIII SSD
OCZ Saber 1000 960GB Enterprise SSD
Corsair Professional Series HX850 PSU
Dell UltraSharp U2713HM 27" w/drop ceiling mount
Logitech G930 7.1 Headset
DBPOWER RGB LED Keyboard
Logitech G402 Hyperion Fury
Roach412
Black Belt 2nd Degree
Black Belt 2nd Degree
 
Posts: 2718
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:33 pm
Location: Milwaukee - Wisconsin

Postby hunter1801 » Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:21 pm

Roach412 wrote:
hunter1801 wrote:then how would you argue against:

1/3 = 0.333...
3 x 1/3 = 3 x 0.333...
1 = 0.333...

or

x=0.999...
10x=9.999...
10x-x= 9.999... - 0.999...
9x=9
x=1

or any of the other proofs that the numbers are equal


simply by stating fractions are not always truly decimals and decimals are not always truly fractions. their inter-use is a convenience for us - but doesn't account for their actual exact value.

makes sense to me?

-Roach


The second example doesn't use fractions.

Oh and I doubt he had an actual WORKING proof for -1 = 1. More than likely he used a known proof involving square roots and the use of "i" that has a fallacy in it.
hunter1801
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1958
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 3:59 pm
Location: Orange County, California

Postby Roach412 » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:04 pm

hunter1801 wrote:The second example doesn't use fractions.

Oh and I doubt he had an actual WORKING proof for -1 = 1. More than likely he used a known proof involving square roots and the use of "i" that has a fallacy in it.


the second one still makes you believe in an assumption which makes an infinitely repeated value have a finite value. you can never add or subtract a infinitely repeated number by any other number. whether you "believe" otherwise is moot...it's impossible as the number's value doesn't exist until you end it, at which point it's not longer a repeating number.

as for the proof...i have no idea. he's too smart for his own good. he finished college math through weekly tests and correspondences by the time he was 15, received a full-ride scholarship to chicago's illinois institute of technology, and triple majored there in 4 years summa cum laude. he's been working for microsoft for a number of years now. brilliant guy...strange, but brilliant. he did that proof while on a family trip when we were still in middle school.

-Roach
Lian Li Lancool First Knight Series PC-K59W
Intel Core i7-960 Bloomfield 3.2GHz
EVGA X58 FTW3 132-GT-E768-TR
EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 FTW GAMING ACX 3.0
G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 12GB (3 x 4GB)
Crucial M4 128gb SATAIII SSD x2
Crucial M4 256gb SATAIII SSD
OCZ Saber 1000 960GB Enterprise SSD
Corsair Professional Series HX850 PSU
Dell UltraSharp U2713HM 27" w/drop ceiling mount
Logitech G930 7.1 Headset
DBPOWER RGB LED Keyboard
Logitech G402 Hyperion Fury
Roach412
Black Belt 2nd Degree
Black Belt 2nd Degree
 
Posts: 2718
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:33 pm
Location: Milwaukee - Wisconsin

Postby hunter1801 » Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:06 pm

Roach412 wrote:the second one still makes you believe in an assumption which makes an infinitely repeated value have a finite value. you can never add or subtract a infinitely repeated number by any other number. whether you "believe" otherwise is moot...it's impossible as the number's value doesn't exist until you end it, at which point it's not longer a repeating number.

-Roach


So then I guess you would be able to disprove the mathematicians that have provided research and proof of this concept for centuries. I don't see why you wouldn't be able to subtract or add infinite numbers. Numbers aren't a "process". It isn't like 0.xxx... is repeating over time. Written numbers are just symbols we use to represent a concept. 0.xxx... - 0.xxx... = 0 since you are subtracting two identical numbers.

On a side not, I'm not a high level math major or anything. Just a regular ol' business major. My questions and opinions are just what I see and understand based on what I read.
hunter1801
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1958
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 3:59 pm
Location: Orange County, California

Postby Roach412 » Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:55 am

hunter1801 wrote:So then I guess you would be able to disprove the mathematicians that have provided research and proof of this concept for centuries. I don't see why you wouldn't be able to subtract or add infinite numbers. Numbers aren't a "process". It isn't like 0.xxx... is repeating over time. Written numbers are just symbols we use to represent a concept. 0.xxx... - 0.xxx... = 0 since you are subtracting two identical numbers.

On a side not, I'm not a high level math major or anything. Just a regular ol' business major. My questions and opinions are just what I see and understand based on what I read.


the point is, these proofs require assumptions that must be accepted in order for the desired outcome to happen. if you don't "believe" in the assumption, then the proof is invalid. if you do believe in the assumption, then it is valid.

my point still remains, until you DEFINE the final value of a repeated number, you don't have a real number by which to do calculations from. they will never be the same, as their value can always be adjusted by repeating the number again...and again...and again... fractals are similar example.

0.9... could be: 0.9999999999999999999999999999999
0.9... could be: 0.999999999999999999999999999999
they can be any variation of these, more 9's fewer 9's...doesn't matter. until you say "there! that's how many 9's there are", you simply do not have a real number from which to do equations with - it's an undefined limit. you only have a number in theory - hence a proof that requires an accepted assumption.

if you do not make a point at which the number ends, then yes, it really does not end - ever...over any amount of time space or anything. it quite literally is a race to infinity. it is not a defined number, and therefore cannot be used in a REAL equation - unless you accept an assumption. in my case, i'm not accepting the assumption - so it doesn't. in your case, you are accepting the assumption - so it works.

right now i just decided to accept the assumption, i agree, it works.

i now refuse the assumption, it doesn't work.

:D

i'm also by no means a mathematician - far from it. i am however a logic addict. the above comes simply from my understanding of math theory, and my interpretation of it through my understanded/applied logic.

-Roach
Lian Li Lancool First Knight Series PC-K59W
Intel Core i7-960 Bloomfield 3.2GHz
EVGA X58 FTW3 132-GT-E768-TR
EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 FTW GAMING ACX 3.0
G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 12GB (3 x 4GB)
Crucial M4 128gb SATAIII SSD x2
Crucial M4 256gb SATAIII SSD
OCZ Saber 1000 960GB Enterprise SSD
Corsair Professional Series HX850 PSU
Dell UltraSharp U2713HM 27" w/drop ceiling mount
Logitech G930 7.1 Headset
DBPOWER RGB LED Keyboard
Logitech G402 Hyperion Fury
Roach412
Black Belt 2nd Degree
Black Belt 2nd Degree
 
Posts: 2718
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:33 pm
Location: Milwaukee - Wisconsin

Next

Return to The Hundred Year War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], YandexBot [Bot] and 2 guests