a mathmatical question i have been pondering, does .9999 reapeting eventually round up to equal 1?
-
YES!17% Voted for by ExpensiveThinker, judo monkey, Makessenseright, pnktrky, intangableenigma.
Here's the Proof:
Let x = .9999 repeating
10x = 9.9999...
10x = 9 + x
10x - x = 9
9x = 9
x = 1 -
yes and no13% Voted for by eightball, DryIce808, Kei-Aira, Molzahn.
consider the fraction 1/3, when made into a decimal, it equals .3333 repeating, and 2/3 equals .6666 repeating. When you add 1/3 and 2/3, you get 3/3, which is 1, but when you add .3333 repeating and .6666 repeating, you get .9999 repeating.
-
Yes and no10% Voted for by Dark-Scorpion, Forty-Two, Kei-Aira.
No. Mathamitically speaking, they are not the same value, and hence, not truely the same amount. The differeance between the two ammounts is infinitly small, and can not be truely understood, only accepted as existing, but the differance still remains.
And Yes. For any real use, they are exactly the same, you would never nitpick over a differance of that infinitly small space between the two values.
So technically no, but in the working world, yes, they're the same bloody number. Now I have a new question.
Is it really worth discussing, or aren't there better things that we could do with out time? Quite honestly, that was what I was posting to say. There are more pertinant questions out there to be thought on.
-
Yes it does10% Voted for by judo monkey, dewbee, ExpensiveThinker.
0.9999999 recuring means that the 9s go on for ever, not for like a really long time, for EVER, so there is no point where there can be a 0.000001 however far along the line. in terms of probability then ther wouldn't be ANY one in a million bilion chance
-
No10% Voted for by Red Death, Kei-Aira, Oral Fixation.
Although the further along the nines went the closer they would get to being one, they will never actually reach one.
-
no!6% Voted for by drastic plastic, Kei-Aira.
Your theory contradicts the mathmatical law that says any real number can only equal one numerical value (aka the reflexive property of equality: every value is equal to itself).
This law has been proven numerouse times. You have not proven your theory. You have only given an example in favor of your theory, however if there is one example that contradicts your theory then it is wrong.
For example if you say x=.9999... and multifly both sides by .5 you end up with .9999... as your ending x value. In this case .9999... did not equal 1 so the theory is wrong.
-
What are you people talking about?6% Voted for by Wolf Heart, Kei-Aira.
.9999 is not equal to one for a reson. It is a very slim chance however .9999 gives a a .0001 trial for error meaning it probubly won't happen but disstalntly somehow mirical like possiblely could.
-
Well, .9999(infinite) does not technically exist, so....6% Voted for by keyman7, Jackymania.
Yes and no. Both 1 and .9999 (infinite 9s) are capable of being used in the exact same way in terms of math. Thus they seem to be equal. But 1 is a definite number. .9999 (infinite 9's) is an infinite number. That makes the latter a theoretical number in that it can never be truly actualized. On the other side, 1 is an actual number. But why argue? It really does not make that much difference. When the answer is .9999 (infinite 9's), your TI-84 or whatever calculater you use is going to round the number to 1.
-
Proof .9999... Does NOT equal 1Counting 1 takes one second. Counting .9999... takes eternity.6% Voted for by Brew Kline, Jackymania.
finite seconds NOT EQUAL TO infinite seconds -
infinately small thingsVoted for by dewbee.
>>>>>that infinitly small space between the two values.>>>
does not the world hang by a thread????
(excuse the pun)
-
calculators estimate: 1/3 does not equal 0.33*1/3 does not equal 0.333(repeat). This is why we call it irrational number.... IRRATIONAL.... is not equivlent.. 0.999* = 1 because 0.999* only reflects an irrational interpretation that would otherwise rationally would be 1Voted for by Molzahn.





Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
March 1, 2006
Edit | Reply
March 16, 2006
Edit | Reply
ExpensiveThinker
March 31, 2006
Edit | Reply
enlighten me
tell me what's so obviously wrongApril 5, 2006
Invalid proof
Well, for one: 10 times .9999 equals 9.999, *not* 9.9999. That difference between .999 and .9999 is what this whole question is about. The remaining .0009 that you included renders the rest of your proof void. Second, repeating decimals are considered *irrational* numbers, and you cannot use a *rational* proof to prove an irrational number is equal to a rational number.ExpensiveThinker
April 10, 2006
Edit | Reply
ExpensiveThinker
May 5, 2006
Edit | Reply
pnktrky
November 22, 2006
Dwn
December 9, 2006
Edit | Reply
8.0001 = 8.0001
ExpensiveThinker
January 13, 2007
Edit | Reply
Murderous Toast
January 16, 2007
Edit | Reply
Molzahn
January 17, 2007
Edit | Reply
Nathan Explosion
January 26, 2007
Edit | Reply
Jackymania
January 30, 2007
Edit | Reply
Wrong Calculations!!!!
I'm not a mathmatician, however i see the flow of arithmatics differently. The proof at first seems to be correct, but is a mere illusion. Lets see why?At the stage where
9X = 9
in the so called proof equations
the expression should be correctly read as follows
9 x(multiply) 0.99999...... (for it was given that X = 0.99999.....
Thus this equals = 8.9999999......
In a 10 digit calculator, you get an answer as 8.999999991
Therefore the conclusion in the 'proof' statement above, that X = 1, is incorrect.
X is not equal to 1
I think, the 'proof' equation is a clever way of making an arithmatical expression into an algebric one.
ExpensiveThinker
February 1, 2007
Jackymania
February 2, 2007
Edit | Reply
Infinity?
Hi friendI think I know where you are heading...
Yes we need to be careful here....
By the means of using logic...we can come to different answers using different arguments. Arguments in this case are Mathematical equations.
Your quote above: "Yes on a 10 digit calculator. Infinity is not described as an nth-digit, it goes on forever".....
.....Does not disprove my basic contention that for an arithmatical equation, you have very deftly, either deliberately or unknowingly, introduced an Algebraic (symbolic expressions) equation. I hope you get this right.
If you agree to my disagreement to your 'Proof Statement/Equation' as you have described it, than Of course we can discuss about infinity.
Infinity = ?
There are two meanings (we should not confuse one with the other)
INF.1: the state of being boundless or endless
INF.2: In maths it is an expression to suggest 'infinite quantity'
Quantity = ?
Quantity means : the property of things which can be measured, eg size, weight, number (Oxford's Advanced Dictionary)
If we say the measurement is unknown, that doesnot mean it is 'infinity' per se. It is INFINITE MEASUREMENT'. So in maths infinity is a SYMBOL of 'measurement that is unknown' or the extended meaning can be 'that which cannot be measured'.... Now you may agree that this 'infinity' is a limitation of the human mind. That which is not comprehensible!
So again, by your quote above: "..... Infinity is not described as an nth-digit, it goes on forever"...... may not be entirely correct..... there is an assumption here, may be it is reasonable, but can it be logical too?
There is a possibility that one may use 'infinite' and 'infinity' very loosely. Although i do appreciate your spin. The advertisement world is full of such spins. And people tend to believe them.
ExpensiveThinker
February 2, 2007
Edit | Reply
<
Holy damn, I am a programmer. What do you want to chat about? what's your favorite text editor? I like VI.Jackymania
February 28, 2007
Edit | Reply
April 19, 2007
Edit | Reply
Durnil
You realize that "irrational" means "not able to be expressed as a ratio of two numbers", right. 1/3 is most definitely a rational number.Molzahn
April 25, 2007
Edit | Reply
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free