Tulane Skins Fan Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 This thread, while intellectually impressive, reeks of virgins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

jnhay Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Being that they're two different numbers, they don't equal each other. I can't think of a situation where .9 repeating actually exists, but it's still a number. I think it's probably used most often to specifically say that a function will never equal 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Zhouse Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 So the question is: can you reach infinity? My answer is no. So .9 (9 repeating infinitely) does not equal 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Larry Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Being that they're two different numbers, they don't equal each other. According to your philosophy, 1/4, 4/16, .25, 0.25, and .250 are all distinct and unique numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

GibbsFactor Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 According to your philosophy, 1/4, 4/16, .25, 0.25, and .250 are all distinct and unique numbers. But is .250 equal .2501 and .2499? Didn't know that they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

jpillian Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 But is .250 equal .2501 and .2499?Didn't know that they were. I took from it that .9 repeating == 1. Therefore, .2509 9's repeating would equal .2501, and .249 9's repeating would equal .250. Of course, I also agree with Zhouse on the concept of infinity. Seems like Man's attempt to simplify deal with horrendously large numbers. Doesn't seem to have a basis in reality. And then you'll get Mathematicians talking about how some infinite sets are BIGGER than other infinite sets. Seems to me that it's a good way for us to wrap our mind around certain concepts, but I'm not convinced that anything in existence actually exhibits the property of belonging to an infinite set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Tulane Skins Fan Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 The real question is does 36C, repeating = 36D? Or is 36CC different then 36D? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

greenspandan Posted April 3, 2009 Author Share Posted April 3, 2009 mathematics is an abstract concept. whether an "infinite set" "exists in nature" is completely irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

jpillian Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 mathematics is an abstract concept. whether an "infinite set" "exists in nature" is completely irrelevant. How do you figure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

PokerPacker Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 This thread, while intellectually impressive, reeks of virgins. guilty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

greenspandan Posted April 3, 2009 Author Share Posted April 3, 2009 How do you figure? the mathematical concept in trigonometry of a "point" (which is itself *infinitely* small) is nonetheless absolutely fundamental, necessary, valid, etc. i'd like to see someone write a modern video game, for example, without being able to use coordinates, or indeed any other abstract math concepts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Tulane Skins Fan Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 A line is breadthless width. - Euclid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

PeterMP Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I took from it that .9 repeating == 1. Therefore, .2509 9's repeating would equal .2501, and .249 9's repeating would equal .250. Of course, I also agree with Zhouse on the concept of infinity. Seems like Man's attempt to simplify deal with horrendously large numbers. Doesn't seem to have a basis in reality. And then you'll get Mathematicians talking about how some infinite sets are BIGGER than other infinite sets. Seems to me that it's a good way for us to wrap our mind around certain concepts, but I'm not convinced that anything in existence actually exhibits the property of belonging to an infinite set. What is bigger than infinity? infinity+1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Ignatius J. Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 This isn't a philosophical question as some here make it out to be. You have to know what the definition of a real number is, and then it is as clear as day that .999999 repeating does in fact equal one. So, for beginners, how do we construct the real numbers? 1) Start with the counting numbers, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 2) add in zero and the negative numbers to get the integers. 3) Define the rational numbers. These are formed by the set of all combinations (a, where a and b are integers subject to the condition that (a, = (c,d) if there exists an integer g such that (ga =c and gb = d) or (gc = a and gd = . So (2,4) = (1,2) just as you would expect. I'll assume you know how to multiply, divide add and subtract these numbers. 4) Define cauchy sequences. Given a sequence of rational numbers (a_i, b_i), the sequence is cauchy if for every rational number epsilon there exists a counting number n such that (a_i, b_i) - (a_(i+1), b_(i+1)) is less than epsilon for all i larger than n. 5) Given two cauchy sequences of rational numbers (a_i, b_i) and (c_i, d_i) , we say that two sequences are equivalent if and only if the difference between the two sequences approaches zero. Formally, (a_i, b_i) = (c_i, d_i) if and only if: for every epsilon in the rational numbers there exists an n in the counting numbers such that (a_i d_i - c_i b_i, b_i d_i) is less than epsilon for all i greater than n. 6.) the real numbers are defined to be the set of all cauchy sequences subject to the above equivalence. ********************* So, with that in mind, what is the real number 1? it is the cauchy sequence (1,1,1,1,1,1,1.....) etc. What about .999999999.... ? It's cuachy sequence is .9, .99, .999, .999, .9999, .99999 etc It is quite clear that the difference between the elements of these two cauchy sequences approach 0, therefor they are the same real number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Zhouse Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 This isn't a philosophical question as some here make it out to be. You have to know what the definition of a real number is, and then it is as clear as day that .999999 repeating does in fact equal one.So, for beginners, how do we construct the real numbers? 1) Start with the counting numbers, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 2) add in zero and the negative numbers to get the integers. 3) Define the rational numbers. These are formed by the set of all combinations (a, where a and b are integers subject to the condition that (a, = (c,d) if there exists an integer g such that (ga =c and gb = d) or (gc = a and gd = . So (2,4) = (1,2) just as you would expect. I'll assume you know how to multiply, divide add and subtract these numbers. 4) Define cauchy sequences. Given a sequence of rational numbers (a_i, b_i), the sequence is cauchy if for every rational number epsilon there exists a counting number n such that (a_i, b_i) - (a_(i+1), b_(i+1)) is less than epsilon for all i larger than n. 5) Given two cauchy sequences of rational numbers (a_i, b_i) and (c_i, d_i) , we say that two sequences are equivalent if and only if the difference between the two sequences approaches zero. Formally, (a_i, b_i) = (c_i, d_i) if and only if: for every epsilon in the rational numbers there exists an n in the counting numbers such that (a_i d_i - c_i b_i, b_i d_i) is less than epsilon for all i greater than n. 6.) the real numbers are defined to be the set of all cauchy sequences subject to the above equivalence. ********************* So, with that in mind, what is the real number 1? it is the cauchy sequence (1,1,1,1,1,1,1.....) etc. What about .999999999.... ? It's cuachy sequence is .9, .99, .999, .999, .9999, .99999 etc It is quite clear that the difference between the elements of these two cauchy sequences approach 0, therefor they are the same real number. :gus: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

jpillian Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Interesting stuff, much food for thought. I still disagree with the mathematical concept of the infinite, but I've really run out of time to discuss it. My time's not infinite you know ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

PokerPacker Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 the difference between y<1 and y <=1 is the same as the difference between .99999 repeating. The difference is infintessimally small and cannot be recorded in a discreet manner, but it the distinction does exist. .9999999 repeating to infinity is a solution for the inequality y<1. 1, however is not a solution for such inequality, it is a solution for the inequality of y<=1. Since they cannot be used interchangeably, they are not the same number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

greenspandan Posted April 3, 2009 Author Share Posted April 3, 2009 what is the second-closest number to 1 then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Tulane Skins Fan Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 what is the second-closest number to 1 then? mindblow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

PokerPacker Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 what is the second-closest number to 1 then? there's no such thing. We don't live in a discreet world. We live in a continuous world where there's an infinite amount of points between any two points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Spec138 Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 the difference between y<1 and y <=1 is the same as the difference between .99999 repeating. The difference is infintessimally small and cannot be recorded in a discreet manner, but it the distinction does exist..9999999 repeating to infinity is a solution for the inequality y<1. 1, however is not a solution for such inequality, it is a solution for the inequality of y<=1. Since they cannot be used interchangeably, they are not the same number. .999... is not a solution for that inequality because it does, in fact, equal 1. No one really comprehends infinity, there is no end, which we can't imagine. x=.999... 10x = 9.999... 10x-x= 9.999... - .999... 9x=9 x= 1 .999...= 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

laurent Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 1/9 = 0.1111111... 9*1/9 = 1 Seems to me like 0.9999... is indeed 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

PokerPacker Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 question: the area of the function y<x is equal to the area of the function of y<=x. Does that mean that y<x == y<=x? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Larry Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 The real question is does 36C, repeating = 36D? Or is 36CC different then 36D? Useless without pics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

TheDoyler23 Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Pi is exactly THREE! :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts

## Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.