Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ ¹ ² ³ °
 

You are not logged in. #1026 20120629 01:04:33
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?Quote: "1 / 0 is not 1. It is undefined to divide by 0." #1027 20120629 01:40:42
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?I am afraid that is not what 1 / 0 means. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #1028 20120629 03:23:26#1029 20120629 06:56:55
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?1/0 is not anything. It is undefined. You cannot split an apple into no pieces. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #1030 20120629 07:37:13
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?Hi TESTU; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #1031 20120629 22:19:39
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?Well! If you draw a curve of y=1/x, you would see that y would be infinite as x approaches 0 but it would never touch yaxis indicating infinite value of y. Same with the so called 0.99999..recurring, if you draw a curve of y=0.9999..recurring..you would see, even if x approaches infinity y will never intersect line y=1. I bet to differ with many people regarding infinity. For example, in mathematics, to make sure it is true not enough to prove it up to billions or trillions terms but should be all term even up to infinity. This is why mathematicians developed method of induction. When you prove x=0.9999..recurring=1, you simply multiply it with 10 and then minus the original one. Before we talk it to the infinity why not we talk it on a finite scale. Lets say n=decimals points, when you have like n=1 trillion decimals and multiplying 0.999..recurring(up to 1 trillion decimals after 0) with 10, you will get 9.99..recurring( 1 trillion minus 1 point of decimals after first digit 9). Then, by subtracting the ten fold of x with original x, you will get 9x=8.999..(recurring 9 and ends with digit 1). Solving the equation, you will never get x=1. Now, consider infinite recurring 9, when you multiple x with 10, you take infinity as an integer yet you contradict the basic fundamental of math dealing with numbers. When you multiple a number with 10, you simply shifted a decimal point forwards and leaving the trailing digit as zero. For example, when you have x=0.9999 and multiply by 10, you will get 10x=9.9990 because a decimal point had being shifted forwards yet in proving 0.9999..recurring=1 you simply abuse the basic mathematics as if x=0.9999 and multiply by 10=10x=9.9999 (The last digit should be zero and not 9). The same thing happens in the infinite series, if you want to take it as a number not as a concept then you have to obey the fundamental of mathematics operations. If you obey this fundamental you will get 10xx=9x=8.9999999..(recurring) ends with 1. Thus x/=1. When people talk about infinite series, they simply abuse it. To them infinity1 is equal to infinity even though it is one less. Yet they simply multiply infinite series with integer and do basic mathematical operation without considering it could be false. This is how Euler linked his prime numbers with Riemann's Zeta Function or how Ramanujan got 1+1+1....=1/12 or 11+11+1...=1/12 because people don't believe in even or odd infinity yet they believe infinite series could be multiplied by integers to suit their ideas. If they could abuse it, then why not I say, Riemman's Zeta function C(2)=4 not (pi^2)/6. The value of 1/0 could be defined on certain circumstances because the creation of this universe after the big bang tells us a different thing, at t=0, the volume of universe is zero with infinite density or density=mass/volume=>density=mass x 1/0 from this relationship we get the existence of this entire universe. Indicating that 1/0 is not undefined because it created something which we could see or perceive now as observable universe! Machines have simple lives, they only knows 1 and 0 and when they see 1/0, the simply say error:) Last edited by Stangerzv (20120629 22:21:01) #1032 20120629 23:14:48
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?Hi Stangerzv The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #1033 20120630 19:32:53
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?1/0 is No Different to 10 or 1x0 or 1+0 Nothing is being Calculated into the Start Value of 1 Last edited by TESTU (20120630 20:22:28) #1034 20120630 22:51:22
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?Math is like a language. Everyone agrees on certain rules. 1 / 0 has a specific meaning. You can not In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #1035 20120701 07:33:14
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?Nothing to do with What You Call Something!...It's Logic to Understand How Things/Math Works! #1036 20120701 07:33:47
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?Like what for instance? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #1037 20120701 07:36:52#1038 20120701 07:38:41
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?You can not just define 1 / 0 anyway you like. Not if you expect to communicate In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #1039 20120701 07:40:12#1040 20120701 07:40:44
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?Hi;
Oh, I get it. A Math Genius! Well, when he comes in have him sign up as a member. He can explain it to you better than I can. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #1041 20120701 18:54:26#1042 20120701 18:56:00
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?Learning what? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #1043 20120701 19:05:49#1044 20120701 19:07:39
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?Learning what? Can you be specific? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #1045 20120701 19:08:58#1046 20120701 19:17:59
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?That is what I thought you would say. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #1047 20120702 15:23:38
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?Quote: "But .99999999... still equals 1" #1048 20120702 18:50:47
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?Yes, the geometric sum. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #1049 20120702 20:16:54
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?posts #999 and 1001. You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei #1050 20120702 20:40:50
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?The good things about maths is that you can argue about anything and maths progress through debates. Great mathematicians in the past also made many mistakes and their theories either refuted or become theorems. Euler's conjecture was refuted when someone found the counterexamples which was not possible to be calculated during his time. Lame made a mistake in his attempt to proof Fermat's Last Theorem. We know for sure the summation of 11+11.. is either one or zero for odd and even terms respectively but this Grandi's series could be 1/2 and it depends on how people interpret it. Of course, 0.99999..recurring could be 1 but I beg to differ even when 0.999999..recurring=3x0.3333333..recurring or 3 x 1/3=1. By the way God particle has being found and scientists are 99.99995% sure about finding it at CERN. Maybe they need to be 99.9999%..recurring sure before it could be accepted:) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article2167188/GodparticleScientistsCernexpectedannounceHiggsbosonparticlediscoveredWednesday.html Last edited by Stangerzv (20120702 20:54:15) 