.9999...=1

[jhawkkw]

I may be taking that sometime in college, I want to be a computer engineer, and that requires a lot of math, so... I have a lot of math classes to look forward to.

Going for that field could potentially lead to taking a course on Graph Theory because it has a lot of applications in networking. So you could very well see the topic of graph isomorphisms.

 

[dan330]

Its kind of odd to think that .999 = does in fact = 1. for me at least.

it is because.. you are not seeing the difference between.

.999
and
.999...

 

[sfbloodbrother]

Going for that field could potentially lead to taking a course on Graph Theory because it has a lot of applications in networking. So you could very well see the topic of graph isomorphisms.

Yeah, there is a lot of that. I watched this video by Intel of the making of a processor, and just by the looks of this, there is a lot of math involved. Have a look.

Intel: The Making of a Chip with 22nm/3D Transistors - YouTube

 

[jhawkkw]

Yeah, there is a lot of that. I watched this video by Intel of the making of a processor, and just by the looks of this, there is a lot of math involved. Have a look.

Intel: The Making of a Chip with 22nm/3D Transistors - YouTube

Crazy stuff. I'll be the first to admit that when it comes to computer hardware development like that, I'm clueless

Pretty solid on the software side of things though.

 

[sfbloodbrother]

Crazy stuff. I'll be the first to admit that when it comes to computer hardware development like that, I'm clueless

Pretty solid on the software side of things though.

I tried to get into programming, but it wasn't working then I got into AMD hardware, became a fan, built a computer, bent the pins on my processor, and had a really fun time unbending them, and that got me thinking, I am really passionate about hardware, so I did my research, and this is where I want to go.

I wrote an article about it and posted it on the AMD fan website and got good feedback there.

Mistakes Inspire

 

[jhawkkw]

I tried to get into programming, but it wasn't working then I got into AMD hardware, became a fan, built a computer, bent the pins on my processor, and had a really fun time unbending them, and that got me thinking, I am really passionate about hardware, so I did my research, and this is where I want to go.

I wrote an article about it and posted it on the AMD fan website and got good feedback there.

Mistakes Inspire

I've got an AMD Phenom II X4 830 processor in my computer, lol

 

[pbf98]

no no no, I know what he is saying, .999... (forever) = 1.0 but no it doesn't. Just because you say it changes numbers doesn't make it so. If we are say its .999 that repeats forever it can never be truly equal to 1.000000...

We decide to change the number to 1.0 to make it easier because in all actuality who really cares about all of the numbers after the decimal.

.999 that goes on forever can't change or it wouldn't go on forever there for it wouldn't be infinite in itself

Again just my thoughts

 

[sfbloodbrother]

no no no, I know what he is saying, .999... (forever) = 1.0 but no it doesn't. Just because you say it changes numbers doesn't make it so. If we are say its .999 that repeats forever it can never be truly equal to 1.000000...

We decide to change the number to 1.0 to make it easier because in all actuality who really cares about all of the numbers after the decimal.

.999 that goes on forever can't change or it wouldn't go on forever there for it wouldn't be infinite in itself

Again just my thoughts

Maybe math prove something to us here.

 

[jhawkkw]

There's 4 proofs in 4 different types of math that shows it to be true.

1) arithmetic
2) algebraic
3) calculus
4) analysis

Yet no proofs showing it isn't true other than gut feelings. I'm still looking for one that proves that is false because you'd be the first person in history to show it. It would be one of the greatest discoveries in math since the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem 20 years ago because you would essentially prove the laws of calculus are false and thus the laws of physics as we know are false.

 

[sfbloodbrother]

There's 4 proofs in 4 different types of math that shows it to be true.

1) arithmetic
2) algebraic
3) calculus
4) analysis

Yet no proofs showing it isn't true other than gut feelings. I'm still looking for one that proves that is false because you'd be the first person in history to show it. It would be one of the greatest discoveries in math since the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem 20 years ago because you would essentially prove the laws of calculus are false and thus the laws of physics as we know are false.

That would be some discovery.

 

[scary alien]

Yet no proofs showing it isn't true other than gut feelings. I'm still looking for one that proves that is false because you'd be the first person in history to show it. It would be one of the greatest discoveries in math since the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem 20 years ago because you would essentially prove the laws of calculus are false and thus the laws of physics as we know are false.

It might only take 7 years or so--maybe ask Andrew Wiles to take a crack at it?

Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(great book by Simon Singh re. this :thumbup

 

[jhawkkw]

It might only take 7 years or so--maybe ask Andrew Wiles to take a crack at it?

Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(great book by Simon Singh re. this :thumbup

Considering how much consistency there is, it seems unlikely to be proved false. The real prize is one that many computer scientist slave over as well, P=NP?. The current bounty sits at 1 million dollars still in believe.

 

[palmtree5]

Considering how much consistency there is, it seems unlikely to be proved false. The real prize is one that many computer scientist slave over as well, P=NP?. The current bounty sits at 1 million dollars still in believe.

this?

 

[jhawkkw]

this?

Yep that's the set of 7

 

[Bob Maxey]

no no no, I know what he is saying, .999... (forever) = 1.0 but no it doesn't. Just because you say it changes numbers doesn't make it so. If we are say its .999 that repeats forever it can never be truly equal to 1.000000...

We decide to change the number to 1.0 to make it easier because in all actuality who really cares about all of the numbers after the decimal.

.999 that goes on forever can't change or it wouldn't go on forever there for it wouldn't be infinite in itself

Again just my thoughts

.999 . . . is always going to be less than 1. No way around it, regardless of what silly dubyou dubyou dubyou dot silly math ideas dot grok or wikermathpedia says. No amount of math legerdemain will help you. .999 or .999... is ALWAYS gonna be less than one.

1.0 is allways equal to one and it will always be equal to one. Less than one and one are not equal, so .999 or .999... and 1 or 1.000000 are simply not equal

As simple as greased kittens.

That said, I'll gladly accept .999% of a fifty million dollar lottery win rather than the whole nut.

 

[cody8295]

It obviously does not = 1, in normal mathematics at least.

 

[jhawkkw]

There's 4 proofs in 4 different types of math that shows it to be true.

1) arithmetic
2) algebraic
3) calculus
4) analysis

Yet no proofs showing it isn't true other than gut feelings. I'm still looking for one that proves that is false because you'd be the first person in history to show it. It would be one of the greatest discoveries in math since the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem 20 years ago because you would essentially prove the laws of calculus are false and thus the laws of physics as we know are false.

I'm still looking for a proof that is not true. So far the argument is 4 proofs versus opinion.

 

[jhawkkw]

Under the standard real number field (ring with commutativity), 1 is the identity element. Multiplication or division by 1 should yield the other number used in the operation. Meaning that .999999..../1 should have yielded .9999999.... before it yielded 0.99999999986527. Plus it's impossible to type .99999... into any calculator or computer program because you have limited memory and thus cannot enter an infinite number of terms (which I've already stated). If the 9s are not infinite in length then it's not = to 1. However, If the 9s are equal in length then it is equal to one.

The recurring theme of the thread before it died and after it died is that it seems the abstractness of an infinite length number is causing issues.

 

[dan330]

you have 1 really big mistake/assumption that is throwing you off

.999... does not equal .999999999865274

you just dont get the infinite part of the number!!!

 

[EarlyMon]

If you somehow believe that .999... does not equal 1, then you simply have to answer one simple question for those of us who think otherwise.

Ready?

What is the value of the number that you must add to .999... to get 1?

You're going to start with 0.0 and keep adding zeros until you get to the magic place where you can put in the one.

Except you're going to on forever and never, ever, ever get to that number.

You can't add anything to .999... to get to 1.

Because it already is.

 

[huh]

I've read this post a few times and didn't reply...because...well ..you know


however, since there seems to be some confusi9n.. and...bickering still going on...and yes that was on purpose..


I will put in my 2 cents...or the final correct answer...or what have you...




.9999...does INDEED =1




you're welcome

 

[tommo47]

Except you're going to on forever and never, ever get to that number

But that statement actually proves that .9999... will never, ever, ever become 1.

.9999... does not and will never = 1

1 is an integer, .9999... is not, and will never become, an integer.

If you subtract .9999... from 1 there will always be a remainder, no matter how infinitesimally small.

 

[EarlyMon]

If you subtract .999... from 1, you'll get the number in question.

But you can't because the number doesn't exist.

The number as close to zero as .999... is to 1 is 0. In the same way that .999... is 1.

And you're right that 1 has physical meaning.

Try this -

1

 

[huh]

draw a square...now shade out 90% of it to symbolize (.9)
now shade out 90% of the remaining 10% (.99)
now keep repeating that.... over and over...as far as you can...

so although it may be an infinite sequence...
eventually you will run out of room in the square
and it will be shaded 100%
so...

 

[EarlyMon]

draw a square...now shade out 90% of it to symbolize (.9)
now shade out 90% of the remaining 10% (.99)
now keep repeating that.... over and over...as far as you can...

so although it may be an infinite sequence...
eventually you will run out of room in the square
and it will be shaded 100%
so...

That's called a convergent function.

Do it correctly and you'll fill the entire square.