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

You are not logged in. #976 20120623 16:13:58
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?hi Stefy, You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei #977 20120623 21:29:22
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?What I mean is that we cannot use the concept of 0.999... in mathematics. We know that every rational number has a unique decimal representation, so we cannot have both 1.000... And 0.999... 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 #978 20120623 22:08:06
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?Hi;
That is not correct.
Your statement should be, "Every irrational number has a unique and non terminating decimal expansion." 1 is not irrational. 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. #979 20120623 22:23:13
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?It seems that guy is stating the exact opposite thing from me. I said that 0.999... cannot exist because every number has a unique decimal representation and he says that not every number has a unique decimal representation because 0.999... exists. 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 #980 20120623 22:27:13
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?Hi; 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. #981 20120623 22:37:03
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?And why is that? 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 #982 20120623 22:40:53
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?To me .999999999... is this That is really all you need from a practical viewpoint. 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. #983 20120623 22:51:36
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?No, I asked you why you think 0.999... has to exist? "exists" is an already defined concept. 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 #984 20120623 22:54:52
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?I do not think it has to exist. I just can find no reason why I can not write that sum in post #983. Or why I can not sum it to 1. 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. #985 20120623 23:03:36
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?You can. But that doesn't mean you can represent it as 0.999... . 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 #986 20120623 23:07:02
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?.9+.09+.009+.0009+.00009+...+ 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. #987 20120623 23:12:29
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?Okay. I was trying to see the problem from the eyes of my prof. It would seem that he is wrong. 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 #988 20120623 23:13:41
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?Are you saying your professor does not think .999999... = 1? 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. #989 20120623 23:17:01
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?He thinks that 0.999... doesn't exist or something like that. 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 #990 20120623 23:20:37
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?Here is what I say. There are many skeletons in the mathematics closet. As a discretist I tell you about them everyday. But I have never given the validity of .999... = 1 a thought. It just seems too obvious. There are more important concepts to be argued than this one. In my opinion your prof. is wasting his time. 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. #991 20120623 23:24:54
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?No, he isn't obsessed with the 0.999...=1 discussion. It is just his opinion that 0.999... doesn't exist. Last edited by anonimnystefy (20120623 23:25:11) 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 #992 20120623 23:30:19
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?
Opinions are sort of like bedbugs. They can bite ya. 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. #993 20120623 23:33:35
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?I know. 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 #994 20120624 00:03:23
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?Hi anonimnystefy; 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. #995 20120624 00:37:49
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?Yes, I am. 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 #996 20120624 11:15:44
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?0.9999999.... or 3x (1/3) doesn't exist in our human limited understanding. It is like partitioning a unit into 3. The divided units (1/3) only exist in the mathematics and not in the real world. This is what we call irrational numbers, same with the diagonal length of a square with a unit sides. We can see these irrational numbers in our life even though they actually don't exist on their own. Can you measure 1/3 or square root of 2? Square root of 2 does exist in a square but can you measure it? Never ever because they don't exist in the real world. In other words, irrational numbers only exist as complementary to others but when you take them out on their own, they do exist as a form which can't be quantify exactly into decimal system because they are endless into infinity. This is why you can never say 0.99999.....=1 because somewhere in the infinity there is a residue left when 10.9999....it is endless. #997 20120624 11:45:45
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?You remind me of George Y. Mathematics isn't dependent on the real world. Just because we cannot see something doesn't mean it is not there. 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 #998 20120624 18:05:05
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?hi all,
I don't think you can 'see' any number in this sense. You can no more 'see' a 3 than you can 'see' √3.
Humans have invented various numbers for our convenience and mathematicians have tried to make those inventions consistent and logical. If you can call √1 a number then you can call 0.9999999............ a number. Then you can investiagte its properties. You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei #999 20120624 21:55:32
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?Did you acrually read all posts from yesterday and today? 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 #1000 20120624 22:46:29
Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?Yes I did. You have said your prof says it doesn't exist. You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei 