« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 29   Go Down

.99999 does not equal 1

  • 856 Replies
  • 151085 Views
?

DigCamara

  • 13
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #330 on: August 16, 2008, 05:07:50 PM »
Quote from: Hara Taiki on August 16, 2008, 04:51:35 PM
Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 04:50:21 PM
Quote from: Hara Taiki on August 16, 2008, 04:47:29 PM
Quote from: narcberry on August 16, 2008, 04:42:10 PM
Please write out 0.99999... fully and I will be satisfied.

Since there is no such thing as infinity, and by extension infinite 9's, let's just save the effort and pretend you guys didn't make such asses out of yourselves.

Watch my video narc. And learn. Instead of being stubborn and just posting the same bullshit. Provide some actual feedback on what you observed and then tell me the calculator is wrong.
your calculator is wrong

http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=1f79qe&s=4
Full disclosure: I haven't watched your video yet. However:

1. Arguing that the behavior of a certain calculator shows something doesn't actually prove anything. You could hack your calculator's software, you could alter (photoshop) the images and that, in itself wouldn't show anything
2. Calculators, like all human-created machines have internal representations of human concepts. And those, by themselves, could be wrong. Remember how certain Intel processors were shown to calculate certain formulas wrongly?
3. All other precepts being right (no alteration of the video, and no alteration of the software and the software itself being correct), it could still show the wrong outcome. If the premises of its creators were wrong (i.e., if one of them didn't know the concept of Repeating Decimals), it still could show results that wouldn't represent the "correct" mathematical outcome

It seems like your calculator works right. However, look at the "google code jam" that took place, recently. You were asked to give the result, if I remember it correctly, of a simple operation: ((3 + 2^(1/2))^n) mod 100 . (the mod operation gives us the remainder of an operation. 199 mod 100 = 99)

Simple, isn't it? Well, calculate the result using your machine, when n=1,000,000,000. Try doing the same by hand. The result of your machine is, quite probably 00. The correct result is completely different. A calculator, by itself, takes shortcuts. Even the best of machines tries to represent big numbers as best it can. And it still will err when the numbers are big/small enough.

« Last Edit: August 16, 2008, 05:12:12 PM by DigCamara »
Logged
*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #331 on: August 16, 2008, 05:08:20 PM »
This just in: no such thing as infinite 9's.
Logged
?

DigCamara

  • 13
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #332 on: August 16, 2008, 05:13:28 PM »
Quote from: narcberry on August 16, 2008, 05:08:20 PM
This just in: no such thing as infinite 9's.
This just in: mathematician, long, long ago, invented a notation to represent indefinitely repeating numbers.

This representation is 0.(n)
or
0.n...

There are other ways to write it. The concept is still the same.
Logged
*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #333 on: August 16, 2008, 05:19:02 PM »
So if I invented a notation that is defined to mean, "you are wrong" then you are wrong?

'e' I dub thee, "you are wrong"
Logged
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #334 on: August 16, 2008, 05:26:40 PM »
Quote from: narcberry on August 16, 2008, 05:19:02 PM
So if I invented a notation that is defined to mean, "you are wrong" then you are wrong?

'e' I dub thee, "you are wrong"

e
Logged
?

DigCamara

  • 13
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #335 on: August 16, 2008, 05:29:32 PM »
Quote from: narcberry on August 16, 2008, 05:19:02 PM
So if I invented a notation that is defined to mean, "you are wrong" then you are wrong?

'e' I dub thee, "you are wrong"
Well... you would need to publish a peer-reviewed paper, and use the concept somewhere to have it predict the behavior of something. But yes, in concept it could work.

However, the concept you are struggling against is ingrained in the concept of mathematics. It's necessary, believe it or not.

And it will be used, long after this thread (and you and I) have died. Regardless of your acceptance.

Sorry about that.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2008, 05:31:21 PM by DigCamara »
Logged
*

Taters343

  • Official Member
  • 11963
  • Pope/Tater/Robot with flower girl capabilities!
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #336 on: August 16, 2008, 07:42:52 PM »
Quote from: DigCamara on August 16, 2008, 05:29:32 PM
Quote from: narcberry on August 16, 2008, 05:19:02 PM
So if I invented a notation that is defined to mean, "you are wrong" then you are wrong?

'e' I dub thee, "you are wrong"
Well... you would need to publish a peer-reviewed paper, and use the concept somewhere to have it predict the behavior of something. But yes, in concept it could work.

However, the concept you are struggling against is ingrained in the concept of mathematics. It's necessary, believe it or not.

And it will be used, long after this thread (and you and I) have died. Regardless of your acceptance.

Sorry about that.

Please italicize or boldify, don't underline. I hate clicking on things that aren't links.
Logged
?

[][][]

  • 554
  • Man of science.
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #337 on: August 16, 2008, 08:38:26 PM »
God damn, 18 pages already! Nice job Narc, this reminds me of the Floating Oceans Thread. You even have a couple "mini trolls" arguing alongside (or they might just be clueless, who knows). You are a god among trolls.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2008, 08:40:33 PM by [][][] »
Logged
The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us. -Some Frenchy
*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #338 on: August 16, 2008, 08:42:24 PM »
Big difference is this is mathematically proveable.
You cannot write 9 enough times to make it 1.
If you could, you'd have infinite 9's, so you'd have infinity.
Logged
?

[][][]

  • 554
  • Man of science.
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #339 on: August 16, 2008, 08:47:15 PM »
Quote from: narcberry on August 16, 2008, 08:42:24 PM
Big difference is this is mathematically proveable.
You cannot write 9 enough times to make it 1.
If you could, you'd have infinite 9's, so you'd have infinity.

Well, you can't without the creative use of a decimal point.
Logged
The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us. -Some Frenchy
?

Bushido

Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #340 on: August 16, 2008, 08:54:52 PM »
0.99.... does equal 1. click " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">here for an MIT lecture.
Logged
*

Taters343

  • Official Member
  • 11963
  • Pope/Tater/Robot with flower girl capabilities!
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #341 on: August 16, 2008, 09:00:28 PM »
Or just go back and look at what I said about how there has to be an infinite amount of numbers between 2 numbers for them to be different numbers. Or just read this post.
Logged
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #342 on: August 16, 2008, 09:14:58 PM »
Or look at my vid. Or read my proof. Or understand basic math's.
Logged
?

Oscar Wilde

  • 3781
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #343 on: August 16, 2008, 09:16:47 PM »
Or get an action figure of Edgar Allen Poe and an infinite number of Oscar Wilde action figures and experience it first hand...
Logged
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #344 on: August 16, 2008, 09:31:46 PM »
Quote from: Oscar Wilde on August 16, 2008, 09:16:47 PM
Or get an action figure of Edgar Allen Poe and an infinite number of Oscar Wilde action figures and experience it first hand...

It should be the other way around, one Oscar Wilde and an infinite set of Poe's, since Oscar is superior. Get the drift?
Logged
?

Oscar Wilde

  • 3781
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #345 on: August 16, 2008, 09:33:13 PM »
Poe represents the zero, whereas the Wildes are the nines (9 > 0).

Didn't you see my diagram on page seven?
Logged
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #346 on: August 16, 2008, 09:52:48 PM »
Quote from: Oscar Wilde on August 16, 2008, 09:33:13 PM
Poe represents the zero, whereas the Wildes are the nines (9 > 0).

Didn't you see my diagram on page seven?

Oh, that's right. I forgot about that. I am tired, and not thinking clearly at random moments.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #347 on: August 16, 2008, 10:18:17 PM »
Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 04:09:19 PM
This is the problem with teaching kids math by only using calculators

Can anybody say "irony"?
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #348 on: August 16, 2008, 10:30:25 PM »
Guys, I'm sorry you haven't convinced me yet. All you've shown is that 0.88888... = 0.9999...
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #349 on: August 16, 2008, 10:31:47 PM »
Quote from: narcberry on August 16, 2008, 10:30:25 PM
Guys, I'm sorry you haven't convinced me yet. All you've shown is that 0.88888... = 0.9999...

Can you please explain how anything anyone has said in this thread has given that conclusion?
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

Oscar Wilde

  • 3781
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #350 on: August 16, 2008, 10:34:10 PM »
I can: narc is a troll.
Logged
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #351 on: August 16, 2008, 10:34:15 PM »
I can sum this up in one post:

Quote from: Hara Taiki on August 16, 2008, 04:40:34 PM
(1/3) = .33333333...
(1/3)*3=1
(1/3)+(1/3)+(1/3)=1
(.3333333...)+(.3333333...)+(.3333333...)=1
(.3333333...)+(.3333333...)+(.3333333...)=(.999999...)
(.9999999...)=1

Quote from: Everyone Else
LALALALALA
ICANTHEARYOU
LALALALALA
Logged
*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #352 on: August 16, 2008, 10:36:40 PM »
ORLY?

If
1/3 = 0.33333...
Why does
2/3 = 0.66666...6667

Please explain the 7.

Doesn't that mean that 3/3 = 1.000...0001 ?
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #353 on: August 16, 2008, 10:38:42 PM »
Quote from: narcberry on August 16, 2008, 10:36:40 PM
ORLY?

If
1/3 = 0.33333...
Why does
2/3 = 0.66666...6667

Please explain the 7.

Doesn't that mean that 3/3 = 1.000...0001 ?

2/3 does not equal 0.666666666...666666666667. It equals 0.66666666... . It just so happens that when a calculator (which has a finite number of bits to store the result of the calculation, as well as a finite display) tries to approximate this decimal value, it needs to round off one of the sixes, and since six is greater than five, it rounds up to seven.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #354 on: August 16, 2008, 10:39:40 PM »
Quote from: Robosteve on August 16, 2008, 10:38:42 PM
Quote from: narcberry on August 16, 2008, 10:36:40 PM
ORLY?

If
1/3 = 0.33333...
Why does
2/3 = 0.66666...6667

Please explain the 7.

Doesn't that mean that 3/3 = 1.000...0001 ?

2/3 does not equal 0.666666666...666666666667. It equals 0.66666666... . It just so happens that when a calculator (which has a finite number of bits to store the result of the calculation, as well as a finite display) tries to approximate this decimal value, it needs to round off one of the sixes, and since six is greater than five, it rounds up to seven.

Exactly. I pointed this out to Raist myself on YIM earlier tonight.
Logged
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #355 on: August 16, 2008, 10:45:38 PM »
Quote from: narcberry on August 16, 2008, 08:42:24 PM
Big difference is this is mathematically proveable.
You cannot write 9 enough times to make it 1.
If you could, you'd have infinite 9's, so you'd have infinity.

0.(9) does not equal infinity.

0.(9) is not 9 + 9 + 9 + 9.  That's stupid.

0.(9) = 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 + ..., which does not equal infinity.  It equals one.  This can be shown via basic arithmetic and limits.  0.(9) = 1.  Period.  If you don't accept it, you must throw repeating decimals out the window.  Which is again, stupid.  0.(3) = 1/3.  Period.  It's not an approximation.  With a finite stream of decimals, then it would be an approximation.  But it has an infinite stream of decimals.  This DOES NOT mean that it is infinite, it's still a finite number.  It just can't be shown without repeating decimals.  It can't be divide evenly.  An infinite stream of numbers is not always an infinite number.
Logged
*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #356 on: August 16, 2008, 10:48:11 PM »
Than you must agree that 2/3 = 0.666...6667 something that the previous two posters said is absurd!
Logged
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #357 on: August 16, 2008, 10:49:24 PM »
Quote from: narcberry on August 16, 2008, 10:48:11 PM
Than you must agree that 2/3 = 0.666...6667 something that the previous two posters said is absurd!

No strawmen allowed, Cpt. Douchebag.
Logged
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #358 on: August 16, 2008, 10:53:27 PM »
Quote from: narcberry on August 16, 2008, 10:48:11 PM
Than you must agree that 2/3 = 0.666...6667 something that the previous two posters said is absurd!

Did you read my post?  0.(6) = 2/3
Logged
*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« Reply #359 on: August 16, 2008, 10:54:41 PM »
Do you or don't you believe that:
2/3 = 0.666...667?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 29   Go Up
« previous next »