By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - 0.9999.... = 1.0

 

Are you convinced?

Yes 34 58.62%
 
No 20 34.48%
 
not sure 1 1.72%
 
Total:55
Barozi on 29 April 2013
AbbathTheGrim said:
Barozi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:

Ok, so let me get this straight, if we apply this rule to actual daily life, if a man feels like a woman, behaves like a woman and looks like a woman but still is missing a vagina that still makes him 1 woman.

The things which make a woman to a woman are finite so that example is not a good one, especially since you mentioned feelings, behaviour and looks, which are subjective anyway. According to your logic a woman who likes to watch Hockey, American Football etc. or has her head shaved (ignoring cancer) is a man and not a woman, even though she would still be a lot closer to the value 1 (which you define as woman), than any man could ever become.

Nope, cuz a woman can watch Hockey, American Football and be bald womanly.

Which confirms that the points you were making (feelings, behavior and looks) are mood points when defining women.



Around the Network
AbbathTheGrim on 29 April 2013
Barozi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
Barozi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:

Ok, so let me get this straight, if we apply this rule to actual daily life, if a man feels like a woman, behaves like a woman and looks like a woman but still is missing a vagina that still makes him 1 woman.

The things which make a woman to a woman are finite so that example is not a good one, especially since you mentioned feelings, behaviour and looks, which are subjective anyway. According to your logic a woman who likes to watch Hockey, American Football etc. or has her head shaved (ignoring cancer) is a man and not a woman, even though she would still be a lot closer to the value 1 (which you define as woman), than any man could ever become.

Nope, cuz a woman can watch Hockey, American Football and be bald womanly.

Which confirms that the points you were making (feelings, behavior and looks) are mood points when defining women.

Nope, cuz I am not the one that sees a limit (finite) to what makes a woman. Watching Hocke, AF, and being bald won't make a woman a man, they do it womanly.



Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1

walsufnir on 29 April 2013
pezus said:
MDMAlliance said:
Talal said:

Not to sound arrogant, but it's a pretty established fact that 0.999.. equals 1.


I think we're using the word "fact" wrong if it is contested.  In pretty much any math equation you will ever come by, it will equal 1.  However, it is not a fact that .999... itself is actually 1.  Every time I see someone trying to prove it, it keeps showing me that they are either using circular logic, or are approximating, then claiming they are the same thing.

It is a fact and can be easily proven in many ways. One of the ways was in the OP last I checked.

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

And therefore: 0.999... = 1


I call this invalid as you can't really subtract infinite nu,bers from another. If you subtract it has to be a finite number.



walsufnir on 29 April 2013
pezus said:

I think reading the wikipedia page about this could really do some people good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

Especially the "Skepticism..." section. Example: 

 

Students of mathematics often reject the equality of 0.999... and 1, for reasons ranging from their disparate appearance to deep misgivings over the limit concept and disagreements over the nature of infinitesimals. There are many common contributing factors to the confusion:

  • Students are often "mentally committed to the notion that a number can be represented in one and only one way by a decimal." Seeing two manifestly different decimals representing the same number appears to be a paradox, which is amplified by the appearance of the seemingly well-understood number 1.[35]
  • Some students interpret "0.999..." (or similar notation) as a large but finite string of 9s, possibly with a variable, unspecified length. If they accept an infinite string of nines, they may still expect a last 9 "at infinity".[36]
  • Intuition and ambiguous teaching lead students to think of the limit of a sequence as a kind of infinite process rather than a fixed value, since a sequence need not reach its limit. Where students accept the difference between a sequence of numbers and its limit, they might read "0.999..." as meaning the sequence rather than its limit.[37]
As part of Ed Dubinsky's APOS theory of mathematical learning, he and his collaborators (2005) propose that students who conceive of 0.999... as a finite, indeterminate string with an infinitely small distance from 1 have "not yet constructed a complete process conception of the infinite decimal". Other students who have a complete process conception of 0.999... may not yet be able to "encapsulate" that process into an "object conception", like the object conception they have of 1, and so they view the process 0.999... and the object 1 as incompatible.

 

 

Exactly what I said in my second post in this thread. Infinity is brainfuck for most people and the fact that you can't really do calculations with it doesn't really help :(



luiaots on 29 April 2013
pezus said:
walsufnir said:
pezus said:
MDMAlliance said:
Talal said:

Not to sound arrogant, but it's a pretty established fact that 0.999.. equals 1.


I think we're using the word "fact" wrong if it is contested.  In pretty much any math equation you will ever come by, it will equal 1.  However, it is not a fact that .999... itself is actually 1.  Every time I see someone trying to prove it, it keeps showing me that they are either using circular logic, or are approximating, then claiming they are the same thing.

It is a fact and can be easily proven in many ways. One of the ways was in the OP last I checked.

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

And therefore: 0.999... = 1


I call this invalid as you can't really subtract infinite nu,bers from another. If you subtract it has to be a finite number.

But that's the thing, I am not subtracting infinite numbers from another. 

Here's another proof from Wikipedia: 

If you couldn't subtract "infinite" numbers ( wrong use of the word, you dont mean infinity, you mean numbers whose decimal expression doesn't end) then you couldnt add or subtract pi, e, or most fractions  from anything.

Edit: For example, you couldnt do .666666... -.3333333..., but we can, since we can write it as 2/3-1/3=1/3



I am a nintendo fan, not a nintendo fanboy

Around the Network
walsufnir on 29 April 2013
pezus said:
walsufnir said:
pezus said:
MDMAlliance said:
Talal said:

Not to sound arrogant, but it's a pretty established fact that 0.999.. equals 1.


I think we're using the word "fact" wrong if it is contested.  In pretty much any math equation you will ever come by, it will equal 1.  However, it is not a fact that .999... itself is actually 1.  Every time I see someone trying to prove it, it keeps showing me that they are either using circular logic, or are approximating, then claiming they are the same thing.

It is a fact and can be easily proven in many ways. One of the ways was in the OP last I checked.

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

And therefore: 0.999... = 1


I call this invalid as you can't really subtract infinite nu,bers from another. If you subtract it has to be a finite number.

But that's the thing, I am not subtracting infinite numbers from another. 

Here's another proof from Wikipedia: 

This one is of course legit and the exact example I gave in my second post.



walsufnir on 29 April 2013
luiaots said:
pezus said:
walsufnir said:
pezus said:
MDMAlliance said:
Talal said:

Not to sound arrogant, but it's a pretty established fact that 0.999.. equals 1.


I think we're using the word "fact" wrong if it is contested.  In pretty much any math equation you will ever come by, it will equal 1.  However, it is not a fact that .999... itself is actually 1.  Every time I see someone trying to prove it, it keeps showing me that they are either using circular logic, or are approximating, then claiming they are the same thing.

It is a fact and can be easily proven in many ways. One of the ways was in the OP last I checked.

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

And therefore: 0.999... = 1


I call this invalid as you can't really subtract infinite nu,bers from another. If you subtract it has to be a finite number.

But that's the thing, I am not subtracting infinite numbers from another. 

Here's another proof from Wikipedia: 

If you couldn't subtract "infinite" numbers ( wrong use of the word, you dont mean infinity, you mean numbers whose decimal expression doesn't end) then you couldnt add or subtract pi, e, or most fractions  from anything.

Edit: For example, you couldnt do .666666... -.3333333..., but we can, since we can write it as 2/3-1/3=1/3


It depends on your representation. Of course I can subtract ratios but in this special case we subtract the decimal presentation of periodic numbers which is definitely different to pi.



Barozi on 29 April 2013
AbbathTheGrim said:
Barozi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
Barozi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:

Ok, so let me get this straight, if we apply this rule to actual daily life, if a man feels like a woman, behaves like a woman and looks like a woman but still is missing a vagina that still makes him 1 woman.

The things which make a woman to a woman are finite so that example is not a good one, especially since you mentioned feelings, behaviour and looks, which are subjective anyway. According to your logic a woman who likes to watch Hockey, American Football etc. or has her head shaved (ignoring cancer) is a man and not a woman, even though she would still be a lot closer to the value 1 (which you define as woman), than any man could ever become.

Nope, cuz a woman can watch Hockey, American Football and be bald womanly.

Which confirms that the points you were making (feelings, behavior and looks) are mood points when defining women.

Nope, cuz I am not the one that sees a limit (finite) to what makes a woman. Watching Hocke, AF, and being bald won't make a woman a man, they do it womanly.

You already named examples, just go on and you will see that it will stop (pretty quickly actually).
If you look for chromosomes on the other hand, XX is female, XY is male.



dsgrue3 on 29 April 2013
pezus said:

But that's the thing, I am not subtracting infinite numbers from another. 

Here's another proof from Wikipedia: 

This should make it explicitly clear.

Now go investigate the sum of 1+2+3+...+n and realize it sums to -1/12. Much more interesting and unsettling.



Alphachris on 29 April 2013

I wonder if there is one single case where this discussion would made an impact...

So the problem is that people think that

0.999999999999.....9 + 0,00000000000.....1 = 1

And this equation is true. But this 0.99999....9 is simply not 0.9 period!