0.999 = 1
- Started
- Last post
- 52 Responses
- Bryce
FACT
(~ = repeating)
1/3 + 2/3 = 1, right?
1/3 = 0.333~ right?
2/3 = 0.666~ right?so.. if you add 0.333~ + 0.666~ you get 0.999~
so 0.999~ = 1
- jimzyk0
it's so true.... you're always right Bryce... always.
- omgitsacamera0
God?
- boobs0
You must really be fascinating to be around.
- johndiggity0
not true. take a fucking math class.
- prove me wrong, and show a proof pleaseBryce
- i showed you 2 of them to support my claimBryce
- here's my proof:
1≠.9999~johndiggity
- Bryce0
how can this not blow your minds?
this shakes the foundation of everything that numbers represent
- what do numbers represent exactly?Witt
- in your formula you state 1/9 = 0.111. It doesn'tPromotionalUseOnly
- KwesiJ0
i think this has something to do with the abstract idea of infiniti...the .111... only goes on infinitly hypothetically. its a fundemental flaw in axiomatic number theory.
- ismith0
Fractions aren't numbers, they're operations.
- but they're just being used in the proofBryce
- they're rational numbersKwesiJ
- No they're not. Although a number can only be rational if it can be expressed as a fraction (quotient).ismith
- The fraction itself is not a rational number.ismith
- so if a number is expressed as a fraction its raitonal but the fractions arn't rational numbers?KwesiJ
- Right. The fractions themselves are an operation. The format of a fraction was invented as shorthand for a common operator (÷)ismith
- operator (÷).ismith
- well shit ... : OKwesiJ
- The number may still be perfectly rational, but the fractional representation would be an unsimplified expression.ismith
- All I'm saying doesn't matter much to most people, but it's important if you want to get your premises straight in number theory or any kind of mathematical analysis.ismith
- number theory or any kind of mathematical analysis.ismith
- sure i hear you. i read up a little on the history/philosophy of math, interesting stuff i don't get all of it thoughKwesiJ
- omgitsacamera0
1/3 = 0,33333333333333333333333333333 (and on and on and on)
- omgitsacamera0
use a two column proof
- Bryce0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.9…
"the notations "0.999..." and "1" represent the same real number. The equality has long been accepted by professional mathematicians and taught in textbooks. Various proofs of this identity have been formulated with varying rigour, preferred development of the real numbers, background assumptions, historical context, and target audience."
- ismith0
I've done a two-column proof of this sort of thing, and there are tons of anomalies in mathematics like this. All it tells me is this: 1) schools compromise too easily on what they teach students (by overlooking these imperfections) and 2) we're still only human if we haven't figured out how this happened.
- I do think though that the initial premise is a fallacy given the nature of infinite "numbers".ismith
- mikotondria30
The amount which you are choosing to ignore is called the infinitesimal and represents the smallest imaginary number. It called also be written as 1/infinity. It is for all practical purposes zero, but it's existence allows for the paradox with which Bryce has so forcefully chosen to illuminate our evening.
- Bryce0
very interesting
- ukit0
This sort of throws everything into question.
- MrDinky0
this explains why when i put a line on a particular grid, it doesnt always align there
- omgitsacamera0
math teacher got asked this and said, "Well you round (ffs)."
- ukit0
This means that it's futile to strive for perfection
