Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 homicidal_squirrel Oct 06, 2011 16:27:48	Does 0.999(repeating1) = 1? Why? _________________ 1 - I can't figure out how to do the little bar. If you know how, let me know.
#2 dirtyfrank Oct 06, 2011 16:31:06	Yes and no. Depends on how you look at it, what you need it for and what theory you use to analyze it. In general though it's equal to 1. In most cases. But at the same time it is infinity smaller than 1 as well.
#3 dirtyfrank Oct 06, 2011 16:42:46	He's not talking about 0.9. He's talking about 0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999..... so on and so forth. and well I think you get the idea. Hopefully.
#4 Mr_Miscellany Oct 06, 2011 17:08:02	Does 0.999(repeating1) = 1? Why? If you need accuracy out to 2,096 places (about what Dirty Frank wrote), then no, it doesn't equal 1. If you don't need accuracy out that far, then yeah, for all practical purposes it equals 1.
#5 pluisjen Oct 06, 2011 17:32:04	I'll just drop the proof that they're equal here. I'll leave the proof that they're not equal for someone else. They both exist as far as I know, considering it's an open problem in mathematics. 0.999-> = X multiply by 10 9.999-> = 10X substract X 9 = 9X divide by 9 1 = X Ergo, 0.999-> = 1 Things get wonky when you start working with infinity and infinitely long numbers. There's a reason mathematicians have been murdered in ages past for suggesting that such a thing as "irrational numbers" existed.
#6 draco1119 Oct 06, 2011 17:53:30	Does 0.999(repeating1) = 1? Why? I see what you did here...  Here's why I would say it equals 1: how, exactly, can you put a 1 after an infinite number of zeros?
#7 bone_naga Oct 06, 2011 20:08:14	I'll just drop the proof that they're equal here. I'll leave the proof that they're not equal for someone else. They both exist as far as I know, considering it's an open problem in mathematics. 0.999-> = X multiply by 10 9.999-> = 10X substract X 9 = 9X divide by 9 1 = X Ergo, 0.999-> = 1 Things get wonky when you start working with infinity and infinitely long numbers. There's a reason mathematicians have been murdered in ages past for suggesting that such a thing as "irrational numbers" existed. What? No! That's not how math works! If you subtracted x you would get 9.999 - X = 9X Basic algebra, whatever changes you apply to one side of the equal sign must also be applied to the other side.
#8 dirtyfrank Oct 06, 2011 20:22:29	.999 does not equal 1 .999 to infinity still does not equal 1 Only 1 can = 1 My God! Are you all morons?! It's math! Math can't lie! In math, something is either equal, or it is not equal. There are no degrees of equal. What the hell is going on here?!!? Not really. Like basic high school math sure but with actual math things can equal while also not being equal as well. Math is interesting that way.
#9 dirtyfrank Oct 06, 2011 20:29:36	There are quite a few proofs for .(9)1 = 1 Here are a couple: 1/9 = 0.(1) 9*1/9 = 9*0.(1) 1 = 0.(9) ----------- x = 0.(9) 10x = 9.(9) 10x-x = 9.(9) - 0.(9) 9x = 9 x = 1 _____________ 1(#) means that it repeats.
#10 jetshield Oct 06, 2011 20:51:17	An infinite decimal expansion 0.a1a2a3...an.... is defined as the limit of the sequence of partial sums of the series ∑n=1∞an10−n
#11 dirtyfrank Oct 06, 2011 21:10:34	Hidding numbers between parenthese to make them say what you want? What is this? Here: 2+2(1)=5. or here: 2+(2)1=5 With the way you wrote it [2+2(1)] it is actually something like 2 + infinity except that 2(1) is an infinity that is smaller than the general concept of infinity.
#12 pigknight Oct 06, 2011 22:05:09	For all intents and purposes you can safely make it 1. It is not equal to 1 though. 1 and only 1 number equals 1 and that number is 1.
#13 pigknight Oct 06, 2011 22:44:01	"There can only be one". -Highlander Highlander Pig.
#14 dirtyfrank Oct 06, 2011 22:57:15	Hidding numbers between parenthese to make them say what you want? What is this? Here: 2+2(1)=5. or here: 2+(2)1=5 With the way you wrote it [2+2(1)] it is actually something like 2 + infinity except that 2(1) is an infinity that is smaller than the general concept of infinity. First, infinity is represented by a horizontal 8, second your arguing that 0.9 to infinity is 1. That is just wrong man. You are correct about the notation that is used to represent infinity, however infinity in and of itself can be expressed in many ways. A number with an infinity of another number behind it [ 2(1) ] is (an) infinity. And there is not only one 1. 1 can be expressed in many ways and can equal quite a few different things. And if you want to really blow your mind there is in a sense a way to make 1 = 2 or rather one thing to become another in a very legit way. Or rather mathematically legit way which isn't necessarily a physically legit way. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tar...
#15 EscherEnigma Oct 06, 2011 23:01:11	Does 0.999(repeating1) = 1? That's funny, I was actually having a conversation relevant to this today. It ended up with a joke, about how a mathematician and a mechanic were both put in a room with a naked and willing woman at the other end.  They're told that with each step they can close the distance between them and the woman by half, but no more. The scientist exclaims "we'll never get there!" The mechanic snarks "we'll get close enough!" That is to say, while they're not the same, they are for most purposes.
#16 pluisjen Oct 07, 2011 1:20:50	So basically, we have a bunch of people coming with proof that they're the same, and a bunch of people saying (or screaming) that they're not without proof. Interesting. Also to the people saying that 1 is only ever 1 and no other number can be 1, I would like to say 2/2. Here's another one, to see if people really just don't get the concept of infinity or are shouting for the heck of it. Of which are there more? Positive whole numbers, or Positive + Negative whole numbers?
#17 dirtyfrank Oct 07, 2011 1:33:29	Positive + Negative Whole Numbers is a greater infinity than just Positive Whole Numbers but both have an infinit number set they are composed of or whatnot. More interesting though is that there are an infinite number of irrational numbers between any two rational numbers and that infinity of irrational numbers is larger than the set of the rational infinity.
#18 draco1119 Oct 07, 2011 5:58:15	So basically, we have a bunch of people coming with proof that they're the same, and a bunch of people saying (or screaming) that they're not without proof. Ahem.
#19 pluisjen Oct 07, 2011 6:10:57	That's not proof, it's a question. Thing is, you can't put a 1 after an infinite stream of 0. It's actually another proof of the whole thing: 1 - 0.99(9) = 0, because it can't be a line of zeroes with a 1 at the end, since that doesn't exist. There's also the more commonly accepted: 1/3 = 0.33(3) If you believe that one, then a simple multiplication gives you 3/3 = 0.99(9) by multiplying by 3. Since we already know 3/3 = 1, it's just a different proof of 0.99(9) = 1.
#20 zombie_babies Oct 07, 2011 8:50:04	Math is useless and stupid anway.
#21 pluisjen Oct 07, 2011 8:56:33	Math is useless and stupid anway. He said, on an internet message board :P
#22 zombie_babies Oct 07, 2011 9:05:31	I ain't usin' me no maths right now.  2+2=derp.
#23 pluisjen Oct 07, 2011 9:07:59	You just think that :P You can't seperate math from thought. Unless you're a Neanderthal, anyway. Everything that came after used math in daily thinking.
#24 homicidal_squirrel Oct 07, 2011 9:28:44	According to this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HkGHhFylsw .999 != 1
#25 Cpt_Micha Oct 07, 2011 9:32:48	Bah. You are all wrong anyway.
#26 homicidal_squirrel Oct 07, 2011 9:37:11	Bah. You are all wrong anyway. I'm never wrong. Watch. 0.999 (repeating) = 1 Proof Because I said so!
#27 pluisjen Oct 07, 2011 9:40:01	According to this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HkGHhFylsw .999 != 1  Actually he just proved that you can write 9/9 as 0.99(9), not that it's not the same as 1 :P
#28 LFK Oct 07, 2011 9:56:49	I find it hilarious, but not surprising, that Cracked runs an article about topics guarenteed to start flame wars (declawing cats, 0.9r=1, tipping, veganism, circumcision, and dog poop) and most of them show up on the board the next day. As far as the math problem is concerned, the mechanic/scientist approach is the correct one: in some circumstances you can't treatit as 1 because it would be inaccurate, but in many, many other practical applications you can. See, there's this fairly basic math concept called "rounding" that's used pretty much all the time when you don't need accuracy beyond a few decimal places. Of course it's funny, and no doubt infuritating, that no matter how accurate you're trying to be it will always round up to 1 meaning you either end up using 1 or have to work with the irraitonal notation.
#29 Klirshon Oct 07, 2011 10:33:16	What nonsense. Only 0 and 1 make sense; 0.999... is rubbish.
#30 Maxperson Oct 07, 2011 10:45:31	I find it hilarious, but not surprising, that Cracked runs an article about topics guarenteed to start flame wars (declawing cats, 0.9r=1, tipping, veganism, circumcision, and dog poop) and most of them show up on the board the next day. I see two of them here.  Six were in Cracked.  Two is not most of six.  Work on your math!!!!! ;) As far as the math problem is concerned, the mechanic/scientist approach is the correct one: in some circumstances you can't treatit as 1 because it would be inaccurate, but in many, many other practical applications you can. See, there's this fairly basic math concept called "rounding" that's used pretty much all the time when you don't need accuracy beyond a few decimal places. I'm perfectly find with rounding.  It's useful and a lot of the time it doesn't really change anything.  But, rounding doesn't change the number you are rounding into the new number.  It just assumes that it is close enough.  .999 is not 1
#31 trappedslider Oct 07, 2011 11:12:36	I find it hilarious, but not surprising, that Cracked runs an article about topics guarenteed to start flame wars (declawing cats, 0.9r=1, tipping, veganism, circumcision, and dog poop) and most of them show up on the board the next day. That was my fault,i should have realized that some users would want to test it out here...*sighs* live and learn
#32 pluisjen Oct 07, 2011 11:57:33	There's no rounding involved. They are literally exactly the same. See my proof. I don't round anything and yet you can conclude 1 = 0.99(9) from it.
#33 zombie_babies Oct 07, 2011 12:41:36	You just think that :P You can't seperate math from thought. Unless you're a Neanderthal, anyway. Everything that came after used math in daily thinking. I guess you're right.  I did, after all, end my last response with '2+2=derp'.  Math.  And useful, too.  Yay math.
#34 dirtyfrank Oct 07, 2011 13:44:45	1/1=1 and 0.9/1=0.9 1x1=1 and 0.9x1=0.9 0.9x0.9=0.98 1-1=0 and 1-0.9=0.1 It is with this sort of lazy botched math (0.9=1) that you arrive at scientist breaking the speed of light with neutrinos. The speed of light! The fasted speed we could come up with! It is a very good example of why taking short cuts like this 0.999=1 will re-write the rules of the universe as we know and put it at risk of imploding! This has got to be about one of the worst attempts of doing any sort of math proofs I've seen. Not to mention that it seems to have nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're discussing 1=0.(9) and not 1=0.9. To be more specific that is 1=9/9 as opposed to 1=9/10. According to this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HkGHhFylsw .999 != 1  What he doesn't seem to realize is that a decimal is not an exact answer (well as far as answers from computers are concerned) and so basically what he is saying is that the approximate solution is exact and that the absolute true representation of the solution is wrong. There is no more of a way to be more exact than use rational numbers. Converting to decimals (even if it can be expressed in continual repeating digits) is considered to be approximate in most cases. Or more simply faulty logic is faulty.
#35 jetshield Oct 07, 2011 16:10:38	You just think that :P You can't seperate math from thought. Unless you're a Neanderthal, anyway. Everything that came after used math in daily thinking. This, I find interesting. I would like to see some evidence that (1) neanderthals didn't use math, and (2) everything that came after neanderthals did use math daily.
#36 pluisjen Oct 07, 2011 16:28:38	gonitsora.com/the-history-of-counting/ Here's a brief history of counting. I was fairly accurate, it seems :D Although they're not entirely sure.
#37 LFK Oct 07, 2011 17:18:28	See, I just thought that the point of the "he says on the internet" comment was that the internet (as an extension of computers) is basically nothing but math underneith.
#38 pluisjen Oct 08, 2011 6:38:03	See, I just thought that the point of the "he says on the internet" comment was that the internet (as an extension of computers) is basically nothing but math underneith. Actually that was the original intent, but either Z_B missed it or decided to ignore it :P I'm guessing it's the last.
#39 pigknight Oct 08, 2011 8:31:53	So basically, we have a bunch of people coming with proof that they're the same, and a bunch of people saying (or screaming) that they're not without proof. Interesting. Also to the people saying that 1 is only ever 1 and no other number can be 1, I would like to say 2/2. Here's another one, to see if people really just don't get the concept of infinity or are shouting for the heck of it. Of which are there more? Positive whole numbers, or Positive + Negative whole numbers? 2/2 is another way of writing 1 broski.
#40 draco1119 Oct 08, 2011 8:42:59	See, I just thought that the point of the "he says on the internet" comment was that the internet (as an extension of computers) is basically nothing but math underneith. Prove your claim. It is not ok to invent stuff on the fly just because you're on the internet. Al Gore invented the internet.
#41 pluisjen Oct 08, 2011 9:22:25	Also to the people saying that 1 is only ever 1 and no other number can be 1, I would like to say 2/2.   2/2 is another way of writing 1 broski. Yeah, and so is 0.999(9) ;) Different ways to write the same value.
#42 Qube Oct 08, 2011 12:40:42	you guys ever heard of wikipedia?
#43 homicidal_squirrel Oct 08, 2011 12:45:12	you guys ever heard of wikipedia? Not peer reviewed. Not good enough.
#44 LFK Oct 08, 2011 13:31:06	See, I just thought that the point of the "he says on the internet" comment was that the internet (as an extension of computers) is basically nothing but math underneith.   Prove your claim. It is not ok to invent stuff on the fly just because you're on the internet.
#45 Qube Oct 08, 2011 13:55:59	you guys ever heard of wikipedia? Not peer reviewed. Not good enough. Peer review doesn't determine truth value. Wikipedia contains a number of proofs. - dependant on your intelligence, pick one you understand. (see the fallacy I used?)
#46 homicidal_squirrel Oct 08, 2011 14:02:02	you guys ever heard of wikipedia? Not peer reviewed. Not good enough. Peer review doesn't determine truth value. Wikipedia contains a number of proofs. - dependant on your intelligence, pick one you understand. (see the fallacy I used?) You fail at getting jokes. Loser.
#47 LFK Oct 08, 2011 14:31:37	Wikipedia is a source of misinformation financed by the world government. Nice try. They might have got to you, but not to me. Meh, boring troll is boring. You've done better. Staying in character is good, but you blocked with pure lunacy too soon. We could have gone at least another page or two before you had to resort to stupid-crazy in order to bulwark your "point."
#48 draco1119 Oct 08, 2011 16:16:26	Wikipedia is a source of misinformation financed by the world government. Nice try. They might have got to you, but not to me. Meh, boring troll is boring. You've done better. Staying in character is good, but you blocked with pure lunacy too soon. We could have gone at least another page or two before you had to resort to stupid-crazy in order to bulwark your "point." I am mostly tired and it is hard to argue against the true/common sense. I am not a member of the TP. He's more an "Occupy Sesame Street" kinda guy.