Woodeye|Niles
Wanderer
Re: 0.9999... = 1?
.9999999 cm < .9999999 m
Dead Head E-Mart said:
.9999999 cm < .9999999 m
UOGamers Community
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
To obtain new Razor updates, please reinstall Razor from our new website.
0.9999... = 1?
- Thread starter Sloth-hybrid
- Start date
- Status
Sloth-hybrid
Knight
Re: 0.9999... = 1?
I'll rest my case if somone can tell me the average of .9... and 1.
I'll rest my case if somone can tell me the average of .9... and 1.
Dead Head E-Mart
Wanderer
Re: 0.9999... = 1?
were talking about units not cm or m youre not clever you asshat.Woodeye said:
Leroy-divinity
Wanderer
Re: 0.9999... = 1?
Not too many math majors here I see.
Not too many math majors here I see.
Woodeye|Niles
Wanderer
Re: 0.9999... = 1?
centimeters and meters are units.
Dead Head E-Mart said:
centimeters and meters are units.
Re: 0.9999... = 1?
If an average could be computed (and it cannot be), it would theoretically be 0.999...5, but you can't compute the exact average because you can never get to the point of tacking on the final '5'.
But of course, even this opens up a can of worms.. 0.999...5 is intuitively less than 0.999... and the average should be between 0.999... and 1 (and thus greater than 0.999...). The thing of it is, in order to take an average, you have to have a finite number, so the 0.999... has to be terminated, and any terminated decimal number can have any number of zeros tacked on the end. So now it should be clear why 0.999...5 is theoretically the average, since it's half way between 0.999...0 and 1.0. And it is only the theoretical average if you allow mathematical operations on the theoretical limit (immediately beyond the leading edge) of infinity without computing the infinite space itself..
I'm not a math major, fwiw.. This debate really is summed up as simply as 'one... not one..', but anyhow.. you didn't accept that. So.. still with me?
Sloth-hybrid said:
If an average could be computed (and it cannot be), it would theoretically be 0.999...5, but you can't compute the exact average because you can never get to the point of tacking on the final '5'.
But of course, even this opens up a can of worms.. 0.999...5 is intuitively less than 0.999... and the average should be between 0.999... and 1 (and thus greater than 0.999...). The thing of it is, in order to take an average, you have to have a finite number, so the 0.999... has to be terminated, and any terminated decimal number can have any number of zeros tacked on the end. So now it should be clear why 0.999...5 is theoretically the average, since it's half way between 0.999...0 and 1.0. And it is only the theoretical average if you allow mathematical operations on the theoretical limit (immediately beyond the leading edge) of infinity without computing the infinite space itself..
I'm not a math major, fwiw.. This debate really is summed up as simply as 'one... not one..', but anyhow.. you didn't accept that. So.. still with me?
BrokenBackMountain
Wanderer
Re: 0.9999... = 1?
qft
Lynyrd said:
qft
Re: 0.9999... = 1?
Actually, you don't have to infer anything (certainly not a unit of measure) to say that 0.9999 is close to 1. 10^-4 is more than suffient for my understanding of 'close.' Space is relative.
Take planet Foo 9999 bly (billion light years) away and planet Bar 1 bly further past that (which would be 10000 bly). If someone was asking directions to Foo, I'd be perfectly confident in saying it's "off yonder, close to Bar" and provide a map.
Is a valence electron close to the nucleus just because there is a microscopic distance between them? Fact is, they are incredibly far apart relatively speaking. Current understanding of an atom is that it is mostly empty space. The nucleus is densely packed, but it's puny compared to the size of the atom itself.
Imagine a hydrogen atom as the SkyDome in Toronto - the nucleus is a marble in the middle of the field and the lone electron is a floating piece of dust somewhere on the outer edges. How close to the marble is the piece of dust, from the dust's perspective,if the dust could in fact perceive?
Actually, you don't have to infer anything (certainly not a unit of measure) to say that 0.9999 is close to 1. 10^-4 is more than suffient for my understanding of 'close.' Space is relative.
Take planet Foo 9999 bly (billion light years) away and planet Bar 1 bly further past that (which would be 10000 bly). If someone was asking directions to Foo, I'd be perfectly confident in saying it's "off yonder, close to Bar" and provide a map.
Is a valence electron close to the nucleus just because there is a microscopic distance between them? Fact is, they are incredibly far apart relatively speaking. Current understanding of an atom is that it is mostly empty space. The nucleus is densely packed, but it's puny compared to the size of the atom itself.
Imagine a hydrogen atom as the SkyDome in Toronto - the nucleus is a marble in the middle of the field and the lone electron is a floating piece of dust somewhere on the outer edges. How close to the marble is the piece of dust, from the dust's perspective,if the dust could in fact perceive?
Sloth-hybrid
Knight
Re: 0.9999... = 1?
So you can't tell me the average then?
rjjb said:If an average could be computed (and it cannot be), it would theoretically be 0.999...5, but you can't compute the exact average because you can never get to the point of tacking on the final '5'.
But of course, even this opens up a can of worms.. 0.999...5 is intuitively less than 0.999... and the average should be between 0.999... and 1 (and thus greater than 0.999...). The thing of it is, in order to take an average, you have to have a finite number, so the 0.999... has to be terminated, and any terminated decimal number can have any number of zeros tacked on the end. So now it should be clear why 0.999...5 is theoretically the average, since it's half way between 0.999...0 and 1.0. And it is only the theoretical average if you allow mathematical operations on the theoretical limit (immediately beyond the leading edge) of infinity without computing the infinite space itself..
I'm not a math major, fwiw.. This debate really is summed up as simply as 'one... not one..', but anyhow.. you didn't accept that. So.. still with me?
So you can't tell me the average then?
Sloth-hybrid
Knight
Re: 0.9999... = 1?
Is that why math scholars argue it all the time because they can't grasp simple rules of math?
Lynyrd said:
Is that why math scholars argue it all the time because they can't grasp simple rules of math?
Sloth-hybrid
Knight
Re: 0.9999... = 1?
I think you’re wrong though and it's not like you’re a reputable source, no offense. If you want to post a link to a reputable source that says repeating decimals are approximant, it'll help your argument out.
Pepsi_Rox said:
I think you’re wrong though and it's not like you’re a reputable source, no offense. If you want to post a link to a reputable source that says repeating decimals are approximant, it'll help your argument out.
TestamentX
Knight
Re: 0.9999... = 1?
It is strange, confusing and yes it gives me a migraine headache trying to figure it out but I am finding myself agreeing with YEW throughout this thread.
It is strange, confusing and yes it gives me a migraine headache trying to figure it out but I am finding myself agreeing with YEW throughout this thread.
- Status