1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Let's discuss Mathematics

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by ParadigmShifter, Mar 16, 2009.

  1. Olleus

    Olleus Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,477
    Location:
    England
    The closure of a set is always closed, no?
     
    AdrienIer likes this.
  2. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    12,646
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    The closure of a set is defined as the set joined with its limit points. Since you simply added the point 1 to the set [0,1) you assumed the conclusion. However, I did rephrase to make my objection clearer.

    Once again, the fact that lim (0.9+0.09+0.009+...) = 1 is insufficient to show that 0.999... = 1.

    J
     
  3. Kaitzilla

    Kaitzilla Lord Croissant

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    7,810
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    America!
    I've seen this one before.

    1 divided by 3 is 0.333....
    Multiply by 3 and the answer is 0.999...

    1 / 3 * 3 = 0.999... = 1

    So as long as you believe that multiplication and division are inverse operations, 0.999... = 1.



    The solution is obviously to abolish the use of decimals and switch entirely to fractions.
    When asked what each decimal place means, the teacher always uses fractions like 1/10th, 1/100th, 1/1000th etc. to explain anyway.
    Fractions are far superior to decimals!

    https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4194473&page=1

    Pistols at dawn sirrah
    Math should always be precise.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019 at 12:42 PM
  4. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    12,646
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    That's one approach. The problem is that 1/3 is not equal to 0.333... for the same reason that 1 is not equal to 0.999.... It works as a practical matter because Rational numbers are dense on the Real numbers.

    J
     
  5. Kaitzilla

    Kaitzilla Lord Croissant

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    7,810
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    America!
    1 is between [0,1) and (1,2] right?

    If 0.999... is not equal to 1, and is in fact less than 1, then it must be part of [0,1)
    By that logic, an infinitely small value must exist, and 1 - 0.999... is equal to the infinitely small value.
    1 plus the infinitely small value must exist too, and would be written as 1.000...
    This 1.000... with an infinite amount of zeros is part of (1,2]

    I find it hard to imagine the 1.000... with infinite zeros is somehow greater than 1, but it must be if the infinitely small value exists since it was added to 1 to create 1.000...
    In addition, the infinitely small value must exist, because how do we count from 0 to 1 without it? :hmm:


    I think I see your objection to 0.999... = 1
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

    It is something like this maybe?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal


    They tried to make math work where 0.999... did not equal 1 with Non-Standard Analysis I think? :dunno:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_analysis

    Here is some talk about it I found.
    http://math.coe.uga.edu/tme/Issues/v21n2/5-21.2_Norton & Baldwin.pdf

    Shouldn't we use the current math system with limits where 0.999... = 1 if the math is easier to understand and gives more useful results?
    The other math system with infinitesimals where 0.999...≠ 1 requires learning the current math system first I think? :hmm:

    I know there should only be one truth for 0.999... = 1 or 0.999... ≠ 1, but non-math people should be spared too much pain!
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019 at 3:45 PM
  6. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    12,646
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    You lost it here. For this to work the distance between [0,1) and 1 must be nonzero. It is not even defined.

    You are correct that 0.9999... is in [0,1) and that 1 is not. This provides the contradiction of the assumption that 0.999... = 1.

    J
     

Share This Page