0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

Ricky · 2007-05-31 08:54:02

Plus the Lack of Power from Any known Computer!.................................

Reminds me of a quote from a computer science professor:

"All we ask the engineers for is a finite sized chip with an infinite amount of transistors, and they can't even do that!"

luca-deltodesco · 2007-05-31 09:10:50

Thats most certainly true Ricky, when i was only using Flash, it uest to be that it wasnt fast enough for what i wanted to do, practicly ANYTHING i do in flash now, Flash is not powerful enough.

The problem is, i've moved over to C++ now and sure it's alot more powerful, but it's still not powerful enough for what i want to do with it.

So now i've moved onto GPU programming aswell, like my fragment programming for ray-tracing quaternion julia set fractals, but even that's not fast enough for me now.

I need a super computer, but not even they would be fast enough for what i want to do, because the things i do, require the power of the universe to do, like when i tried to create an appliance that would take static world geometry and re-create it with mega dense particle meshes so that everything would be a soft body including the ground, ofcourse it ran at like 1fps so i didnt bother continuing with it.

Anthony.R.Brown · 2007-06-01 00:29:57

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INFINITE/RECURRING : THE FINAL CONCLUSION : By Anthony.R.Brown 01/06/07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) All Infinite/Recurring Number/Values have a Start Value the reason being it has to be known what are being Infinitely/Recurred before a Number/Value can be Infinitely/Recurred.

(2) All Infinite/Recurring Number/Values that Start with Zero then a Decimal point will always have a Value less than One Example: 0.(n) < 1

(3) All Infinite/Recurring Number/Values that Start with One or Greater than One! then a Decimal point will always have a Value Greater than One Example: 1.(n) > 1

(4) Exception to (2) & (3) above All Infinite/Recurring Number/Values that Start with One then a Decimal point will always have a Value Equal to 1 where (n) has Infinite/Recurring Zero's Example: 1.(000...) = 1

(5) The Infinite/Recurring Number/Value for (n) regarding size! Does not decide if the Infinite/Recurring Number/Value is > 1 or < 1 except (4) above where (n) are Zeros

(6) Infinite/Recurring Example ( 1 / 0.9 ) x ( 0.9 ) = 0.( 999...) or as 0.(n) < 1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maelwys · 2007-06-01 00:53:15

Anthony.R.Brown wrote:

(2) All Infinite/Recurring Number/Values that Start with Zero then a Decimal point will always have a Value less than One Example: 0.(n) < 1

Why will they? You haven't shown your proof for this statement.

Anthony.R.Brown wrote:

(6) Infinite/Recurring Example ( 1 / 0.9 ) x ( 0.9 ) = 0.( 999...) or as 0.(n) < 1

But remember, we have to know what the "start value" for the numbers is, where they "came from". So 0.9 came from 9/10. So we could rewrite that as

Anthony.R.Brown · 2007-06-01 01:00:58

To Maelwys

A.R.B

From your so called Start? 0.9 has to be Infinitely/Recurred Only!! as 1.111...x 0.9

which equals 0.999...

Maelwys · 2007-06-01 01:04:46

Anthony.R.Brown wrote:

To Maelwys
A.R.B
From your so called Start? 0.9 has to be Infinitely/Recurred Only!! as 1.111...x 0.9

Why? Why aren't I allowed to perform grade 4 math on the equation to come up with a valid answer? Why must the only possible answer to that simple equation be the complex one?

Anthony.R.Brown · 2007-06-01 01:08:28

To Maelwys

Quote:" Why? Why aren't I allowed to perform grade 4 math on the equation to come up with a valid answer? Why must the only possible answer to that simple equation be the complex one? "

A.R.B

Example N = 9.2837163847 now N / N = 1 to show how you can make any Number = 1

Maelwys · 2007-06-01 01:12:16

Anthony.R.Brown wrote:

To Maelwys
Quote:" Why? Why aren't I allowed to perform grade 4 math on the equation to come up with a valid answer? Why must the only possible answer to that simple equation be the complex one? "
A.R.B
Example N = 9.2837163847 now N / N = 1 to show how you can make any Number = 1

Yes, N/N=1. Any 10 year old can tell you that. What's the question? Are you meaning to imply that I artificially created the 90/90 situation to force the answer to =1? Somehow I manipulated the formula unfairly to get the answer I wanted? Can you point to the part of that calculation where I inserted any value that wasn't already in the formula that you stated? All I performed was basic fractional algebra, nothing complex, nothing sneaky. If you were to forget for a moment your assumption that the result of that formula HAD to be 0.999... and that 0.999... HAD to be less than 1, and you were to just look at that formula with no bias, you'd probably tell me that it was "obviously 1" as well.

mikau · 2007-06-01 04:05:09

Anthony.R.Brown wrote:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INFINITE/RECURRING : THE FINAL CONCLUSION : By Anthony.R.Brown 01/06/07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) All Infinite/Recurring Number/Values have a Start Value the reason being it has to be known what are being Infinitely/Recurred before a Number/Value can be Infinitely/Recurred.
(2) All Infinite/Recurring Number/Values that Start with Zero then a Decimal point will always have a Value less than One Example: 0.(n) < 1
(3) All Infinite/Recurring Number/Values that Start with One or Greater than One! then a Decimal point will always have a Value Greater than One Example: 1.(n) > 1
(4) Exception to (2) & (3) above All Infinite/Recurring Number/Values that Start with One then a Decimal point will always have a Value Equal to 1 where (n) has Infinite/Recurring Zero's Example: 1.(000...) = 1
(5) The Infinite/Recurring Number/Value for (n) regarding size! Does not decide if the Infinite/Recurring Number/Value is > 1 or < 1 except (4) above where (n) are Zeros
(6) Infinite/Recurring Example ( 1 / 0.9 ) x ( 0.9 ) = 0.( 999...) or as 0.(n) < 1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

stop making up your own rules.

(2) All Infinite/Recurring Number/Values that Start with Zero then a Decimal point will always have a Value less than One Example: 0.(n) < 1

oh? Even in the infinite case? And just who's theorem/postulate/axiom is this?

My bet... its yours.

LQ · 2007-06-01 06:19:52

Infinity is full. Any S independent of size, does not contain a value higher then inf
In the same way, there can not exist any 0, instead, 1 is the smallest number,
since a number smaller then 1 would insinuate that there is a number higher then infinity.
In the same way you can't take infinity + 1 you cannot take 1-1, since you cannot take something from itself.

You cannot take it from it.

hence .999... does not exist.

Last edited by LQ (2007-06-01 06:30:40)

Ricky · 2007-06-01 07:01:45

I have one apple, and I lose it. How many apples do I have?

LQ, do you mean that to be serious? Or is it sarcasm being lost in text?

LQ · 2007-06-01 07:39:02

How many 1/inf sized apples does it take to fill infinity? the answer is higher then infinity, hence implying that infinity is not measured in apples and a universe measured in apples would if existing, contain more then infinity. Which is not possible.

Every singular part of the apple is itselfs, any owners right is juridical. You canot take a singular part from itself.

mikau · 2007-06-01 08:47:56

Anythony, would you agree that we could find the value of 0.9999.... if we used infinity + 1 digits? or would that be one too many?

Last edited by mikau (2007-06-01 08:48:59)

Ricky · 2007-06-01 11:59:42

LQ wrote:

How many 1/inf sized apples does it take to fill infinity? the answer is higher then infinity, hence implying that infinity is not measured in apples and a universe measured in apples would if existing, contain more then infinity. Which is not possible.
Every singular part of the apple is itselfs, any owners right is juridical. You canot take a singular part from itself.

Whatever you're doing, it isn't math. I was first tempted to call it meta-mathematics, but even that has more structure than what your doing. Philosophy maybe?

George,Y · 2007-06-01 13:04:35

LQ, what Ricky Really means is that maths is simply a game ruled by a group of clans who call themselves mathematicians. (It sounds ugly, but your signature reveals it all Ricky)

So don't waste time on this debate. Because the time will prove it all. Time has proven any material thought to be continuous not continuous at all. So no need to waste your time now because you have other matters such as global warming to care about.

BTW

Ricky in Post 638 wrote:

I'm really hoping not to revive this topic, but I came across this today. My Real Analysis book asks the following question:

After that you posted every page. You seem to give up your hope easily.

Last edited by George,Y (2007-06-01 13:05:55)

Ricky · 2007-06-01 13:53:50

LQ, what Ricky Really means is that maths is simply a game ruled by a group of clans who call themselves mathematicians.

We define things in certain ways in which we find useful. You don't like it? Fine, define it your way and show us something useful. I guarantee if it is, it will become adopted into standard mathematics.

I'm still no sure if you understand how mathematical systems work. We define the rules we want, then we see how those systems act. You can define your own. The number systems are defined the way they are because those definitions have, over time, proven themselves useful time and time again. But, when we talk about the standard number systems, we use the standard definitions. There are tons of non-standard ones used in many different places. You seem to think that I am unwilling to consider any other. I am not. It's only when we talk about standard number systems do I refuse to change the definitions from what is accepted in standard mathematics.

Time has proven any material thought to be continuous not continuous at all.

That is still up for much debate. Just because you can't conceive a universe with continuous space does not mean we don't live in a universe with continuous space.

After that you posted every page. You seem to give up your hope easily.

Should I just ignore this topic, George? I was hoping I wouldn't revive it. I seem to have. Oh well, thems is life.

George,Y · 2007-06-01 14:37:34

Ricky wrote:

LQ, what Ricky Really means is that maths is simply a game ruled by a group of clans who call themselves mathematicians.
We define things in certain ways in which we find useful. You don't like it? Fine, define it your way and show us something useful. I guarantee if it is, it will become adopted into standard mathematics.
I'm still no sure if you understand how mathematical systems work. We define the rules we want, then we see how those systems act. You can define your own. The number systems are defined the way they are because those definitions have, over time, proven themselves useful time and time again. But, when we talk about the standard number systems, we use the standard definitions. There are tons of non-standard ones used in many different places. You seem to think that I am unwilling to consider any other. I am not. It's only when we talk about standard number systems do I refuse to change the definitions from what is accepted in standard mathematics.

Great, thanks for your confession, Ricky.

So everybody for 0.999...=1 PLEASE LISTEN:

As Ricky just said, 0.999...=1 AIN'T true or false, because it's simply DEFINED by STANDARD maths System (I mean from debateble axioms to their logical descendants-theorems) ,

And I think it's OK for anybody who doesn't accept 0.999...thing to have their peace.

In fact, 0.999...=1 is proven Only on the aspect that it's proven by axioms and logic. Axioms are the very premises, so if anybody are against those axioms, they are Nothing Wrong.

Proof that I can be the king of the universe on earth:
Axiom: I have a monster who can give me anything.
Proof: Since I have a monster who can give me anything, and anything includes any power, thus I can be the king of the universe.

Anybody, do you call that I can be the king of the universe on earth TRUE? However it's BEEN PROVEN by Solid Logic!

Anyone can reserve discrete numbers and refuse continuous numbers (with infinite digits) on their FREE WILL.

It's a matter of choice. So do we nonbelievers have this right?

Last edited by George,Y (2007-06-01 17:21:46)

Ricky · 2007-06-01 16:16:02

George, you're no longer worth my time.

George,Y · 2007-06-01 16:25:22

If you mean only Standard maths is worth your time, yes I am not "qualified".

George,Y · 2007-06-01 17:11:21

No matter how many times you have denied it, Ricky, you are always assuming what you've been told by Profs and what you've read on textbooks as inheritly True. And you want others to Accept those rules. Because they are useful and can be applied? (Can you drink an amount of Pi times water?) The world can be simple, made up of many sufficient simals, discrete, instead of a complex of infinitesimals, continuous (think line and dots model if you don't get it). And this model isn't less useful or inferior, at least in calculating amounts of material.

So do you really think heretic assumptions have no place unless the orthodoxy has been undeniably beaten?
Yes, stomach ulcer can result from excessive acid, it's true.
But is stomach ulcer resulting from a kind of bacteria that stupid? (yet another assumption)
How much does the revolutioner have to pay a bunch of orthodox players for accepting a new idea?
Drinking up a glass of bacteria? <Robin Warren and Barry Marshall's finding>

Acadamic world seems too old to learn new things.
They won't learn and stop supressing heretics until the heretics beat them to the ground via evidence accumulated by strugles of one after another.
And then they swap to new theories without any feelings of guilt and keep on supressing any new heretics.

Let me tell you everyone, this is the very truth of human cognition. Human's mind is too tiny to accept two different theories at one time. So whenever there's a dominant one, the supression of the other is spontaneous:

Whether it be the earth around the sun vs the sun around the earth (actually they are not so contradicting each other in a relative motion perspective);

Whether it be the irrationals vs all rationals in Ancient Greek -Pythagoras threw his student to the sea because he had discovered some number not rational by his own theorem-Pythogorean theorem. (Now the orthodoxy and heretic roles has just swapped, as I've said about the swapping.);

Whether it be the evolution theory vs special design theory;

Whether it be the Keynesian theory vs the Monetary policy;

Whether it be the Classic probability theory vs the Bayesion theory;

Whether it be the stomach ulcer caused by oversecretion of acid vs the special bacteria.

What I wanna argue here is that:
Are humans too short-sighted to realize their historical guilts? Are they too narrow-minded to allow the prevelant theory and the not-so-neat looking theory to exist at the same time? Why are they so sure and so proud of their own bias, the bias to Extinct any theory except the present-prevelant one? What I now ask for is not one taking down the other, but the torlarance to accept different theories, especially the heretic ones(because they are in minority) to survive.

The reason lies in the fact that all of us don't have 100% percent of guarantee of upright truth on the intial assumptions, any way.

Last edited by George,Y (2007-06-01 17:25:39)

mathsyperson · 2007-06-02 00:55:26

This is getting ridiculous. Yes George, if you take it back to first principles, then the 0.999...=1 proof does indeed depend on certain axioms being true. The axioms are defined to be true, so if you refute those definitions then 0.999...=1 can no longer be proven.

However, in your determination to tear apart that statement, you have also torn apart every other mathematical statement ever made. 1+1 is no longer equal to 2. Adding 0 to something might get you a different answer.
You now know nothing, and you will never be able to know anything unless you have somewhere to start. There currently is nowhere to start because you tore everything apart, so you'll have to define something to be true and work off that. Let's call it, oh I don't know, an axiom.

Fair enough, you can define different axioms to the ones we currently have, and as long as you can use those to prove lots of useful things then it might well get accepted.
What you shouldn't do, however, is just deny the current axioms without having a suitable replacement. That isn't at all helpful or contributive, and would just result in a Mathless Universe of Chaos.

If you want to redefine all the axioms and make a new system then please do go ahead. But until then, work with the ones we have.

George,Y · 2007-06-02 01:37:38

Well the 0.999... thing is actually an infinite sum.

We don't have to tear basic finite sums by denying infinite sums.

Finite sums are natural, basic. You don't have to use Cantor Set, real defination to do the 1apple+1apple=2apples thing. This is more conservative. And the axiom for 1+1=2 is much simplier than a real axiom I can bet.

By denying getting as the result of approaching (limit concept), we don't lose application but perfection. We don't drink a cylinder of water, we drink poly-linder of water which can be approximated by a cylinder of water. No bother. Only a loss of seemingly perfection.

George,Y · 2007-06-02 01:45:36

I've already illustrated my presumption many times.

The infinite thing, is only an approximation of finite thing. Pi behaves much like an long finite decimal instead of infinite decimal.(Can you drink Pi times of water particles?) So we don't need to consider the very problem of adding all digits together, we need only to pick up scores from them to add, which is more likely to mirror reality.
Pi can funtion as
3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679
or
3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679
8214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196

depending on the scales of the amount. Bigger glass of water, more digits.

Last edited by George,Y (2007-06-02 01:47:05)

George,Y · 2007-06-02 01:57:29

e is definitely another approximation of finite things

The bacteria multiplication is
1 2 4 8 16...
not
1 e e^2 e^3...
Asking the problem of having all the digits( an infinite amount) of e has no meaning.
You will never calculate that out either. (you and a computer can only calculate an Finite amount after a finite time)
e^x if fitting the data, ok. 2^x also. If you are convenient with e^x, fine. but keep it in mind actulaly no spontanous growth rate or multiplication thing in reality, only in human's mind for convenience.

George,Y · 2007-06-02 01:59:06

spontaneous multiplication rate is human's imagination.
Bacteria can only do discrete multiplication.

Math Is Fun Forum

#701 2007-05-31 08:54:02

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#702 2007-05-31 09:10:50

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#703 2007-06-01 00:29:57

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#704 2007-06-01 00:53:15

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#705 2007-06-01 01:00:58

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#706 2007-06-01 01:04:46

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#707 2007-06-01 01:08:28

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#708 2007-06-01 01:12:16

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#709 2007-06-01 04:05:09

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#710 2007-06-01 06:19:52

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#711 2007-06-01 07:01:45

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#712 2007-06-01 07:39:02

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#713 2007-06-01 08:47:56

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#714 2007-06-01 11:59:42

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#715 2007-06-01 13:04:35

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#716 2007-06-01 13:53:50

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#717 2007-06-01 14:37:34

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#718 2007-06-01 16:16:02

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#719 2007-06-01 16:25:22

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#720 2007-06-01 17:11:21

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#721 2007-06-02 00:55:26

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#722 2007-06-02 01:37:38

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#723 2007-06-02 01:45:36

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#724 2007-06-02 01:57:29

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

#725 2007-06-02 01:59:06

Re: 0.9999....(recurring) = 1?

Board footer