wu :: forums
« wu :: forums - 0.999... »

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Sep 24th, 2018, 7:02pm

RIDDLES SITE WRITE MATH! Home Home Help Help Search Search Members Members Login Login Register Register
   wu :: forums
   riddles
   medium
(Moderators: william wu, ThudnBlunder, SMQ, Eigenray, Grimbal, Icarus, towr)
   0.999...
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7  Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: 0.999...  (Read 9747 times)
Grimbal
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
*****






   


Gender: male
Posts: 7408
Re: 0.999...  
« Reply #150 on: Feb 26th, 2013, 1:22am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Feb 25th, 2013, 10:41pm, Pavel wrote:
So for every a(i) of S there must exist some number number [Epsilon](a(n))>0 such that for any n=1,2,3,...
1-[Epsilon]=a(n)
thus
1=a(n)+[Epsilon]
since [Epsilon] is a positive real number
1>a(n)

Epsilon is not a positive real number.  In this case, Epsilon is a function of a(n).  You should write Epsilon[n].
 
on Feb 25th, 2013, 10:41pm, Pavel wrote:
1>a(i) for all a(i) belonging to S
therefore  
.999...<1

You cannot draw that conclusion.  You can have a(i)<1 and lim a(i)=1.
 
on Feb 25th, 2013, 10:41pm, Pavel wrote:
.999..... is a concept not a number and its unfair to compare it to the number 1 and not the concept of 1 (thus most proofs above).

I disagree.  0.999... is a number.  Its value is sum k=1,2,... (9*10-k).
« Last Edit: Feb 26th, 2013, 1:31am by Grimbal » IP Logged
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
*****





134688278 134688278   rmsgrey   rmsgrey


Gender: male
Posts: 2818
Re: 0.999...  
« Reply #151 on: Feb 26th, 2013, 4:11am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Feb 25th, 2013, 10:41pm, Pavel wrote:
1>a(i) for all a(i) belonging to S
therefore  
.999...<1

We also have:
 
.999...>a(i) for all (finite) i
therefore?
.999...<.999...
Huh
 
Something is wrong with the logic there.
IP Logged
peoplepower
Junior Member
**





   


Posts: 63
Re: 0.999...  
« Reply #152 on: Feb 26th, 2013, 4:44am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Something is wrong with the logic elsewhere too.
 
on Feb 25th, 2013, 10:41pm, Pavel wrote:
.999..... is a concept not a number and its unfair to compare it to the number 1 and not the concept of 1 (thus most proofs above).

There are multiple meanings that can be and often are attached to the single symbol 1. The meanings of 1 as a natural number, rational number, and real number are all different even though in some sense it has the same value, which is grounds for confusion. When we are asked to compare the real number 0.999... with 1, we need to ask which meaning fits best from the context we are given. Of course, one is to choose the real number 1.
 
Quote:
the discussion i believe is not about limits or convergence but one of a number that looks like this: 0.9999999999999999999999999999
but there is always one bigger but with the trait that it MUST start 0.9..... , and so never quiet 1.

The assumption inherent in the problem is that we choose to work in some order-completion the rational numbers (like the real numbers). Thus, by definition really, the supremum of S exists taking the value 0.999...
 
Quote:
the series S contains infinitely many elements and it does converge to 1 but there isn't a single number in there like 1.

We are working in an ordered field. Likeness is based on distance rather than some properties of the decimal representation of the number.
« Last Edit: Feb 26th, 2013, 4:44am by peoplepower » IP Logged
riddler358
Junior Member
**





   


Posts: 83
Re: 0.999...  
« Reply #153 on: May 4th, 2016, 11:15pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

note: i didn't read all of the answers
 
if we agree that 0,(3) = 1/3
and we agree that 3 * 0,(3) = 0,(9)
we substitute and get 0,(9) = 3 * 1/3
then we probably should conclude that 0,(9) = 1
IP Logged
Grimbal
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
*****






   


Gender: male
Posts: 7408
Re: 0.999...  
« Reply #154 on: May 25th, 2016, 8:34am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

And that's perfectly correct.
 
The problem most people face, I think, is that they have the intuition that if two numbers are written differently, then they must be different.
IP Logged
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
*****



Some people are average, some are just mean.

   


Gender: male
Posts: 13640
Re: 0.999...  
« Reply #155 on: May 25th, 2016, 8:53am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

one != 1 Wink
IP Logged

Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
Grimbal
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
*****






   


Gender: male
Posts: 7408
Re: 0.999...  
« Reply #156 on: Sep 28th, 2016, 8:39am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

one != 1
 by commutativity:
 1=one !
IP Logged
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
*****



Some people are average, some are just mean.

   


Gender: male
Posts: 13640
Re: 0.999...  
« Reply #157 on: Sep 28th, 2016, 8:51am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I wonder if there's a programming language with ! as factorial operator and where it binds stronger than  than unequal (or just doesn't have != as unequal operator, and uses = as equality operator)
 
 
$: 1!=1
> True
IP Logged

Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7  Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board