
amyloid
Stranger
Registered: 03/08/03
Posts: 980
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months

mind bender...
#1362589  03/10/03 10:26 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) 


.99(bar) is = to 1:
1/3 = .33(bar) correct?(lets call this statement 1) 3*1/3 = 1 correct?(2) 3*.33(bar) = .99(bar) correct?(3) .99(bar) = 1
any 2 differnt numbers has a number between it, .99(bar) and 1 has nothing between it
can a mathmatician prove this wrong...please, ive done broke myself =(
doc
 "A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the resta kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
Al Einstein

luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,234
Loc: Lost In Space

Re: mind bender... [Re: amyloid]
#1362635  03/10/03 10:44 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) 


EDIT: Been out of school way too long.
 You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
Edited by luvdemshrooms (03/10/03 03:00 PM)

amyloid
Stranger
Registered: 03/08/03
Posts: 980
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months


.99(bar) means .9999999999999999999999(with 9's continuing towards infinity)
 "A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the resta kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
Al Einstein

ToxicMan
Bite me, it's fun!
Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 6,536
Loc: Aurora, Colorado
Last seen: 3 hours, 10 minutes

Re: mind bender... [Re: amyloid]
#1362803  03/10/03 11:56 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) 


You are correct. Here is a simple algebraic proof.
0.9999... = x 9.9999... = 10x Multiply by 10 9 = 9x Subtract first statement from second 1 = x Divide both sides by 9
There are no numbers between them because they are the same number. Any two different real numbers have an infinite number of real numbers between them.
 Happy mushrooming!

Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 10 months, 30 days

Re: mind bender... [Re: amyloid]
#1362808  03/10/03 11:58 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) 


Quote:
.99(bar) is = to 1:
This is not correct.
.99(bar) = .99(bar), not 1.00(bar)
You could also say that .99(bar) = 1  1/inf (might have to take the limit, been a while since calc)
 Just another spore in the wind.

Anno
Experimenter
Registered: 06/18/99
Posts: 24,123
Loc: my room
Last seen: 5 months, 11 days

Re: mind bender... [Re: Seuss]
#1362875  03/10/03 12:30 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) 


>This is not correct.
But ToxicMan just gave you a mathematical proof that 0.99(bar) = 1 .

TheHateCamel
Research &Development DBK
Registered: 01/31/03
Posts: 15,738

Re: mind bender... [Re: amyloid]
#1363020  03/10/03 01:32 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) 


.
Edited by TheHateCamel (12/05/07 10:58 PM)

ToxicMan
Bite me, it's fun!
Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 6,536
Loc: Aurora, Colorado
Last seen: 3 hours, 10 minutes


The (bar) part is trying to convey the mathematical notation used to indicate an infinitely repeating decimal. So he's referring to the number 0.99999999999999 (with an infinite number of 9's).
 Happy mushrooming!

Anonymous

Re: mind bender... [Re: ToxicMan]
#1363941  03/10/03 07:37 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) 


Quote:
0.9999... = x 9.9999... = 10x Multiply by 10 9 = 9x Subtract first statement from second 1 = x Divide both sides by 9
Here we run into the same problem. To prove that 0.9(bar) equals 1, you assume that 0.9(bar) does equal 1 in the third step. However, 0.9(bar) times 9 is really equal to 8.9(bar).
0.9(bar) does not equal 1. Merely the limit as the number of decimal places approaches infinity of 0.9(bar) is equal to 1. Simply put, 0.9(bar) approaches 1, but never equals it.

ToxicMan
Bite me, it's fun!
Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 6,536
Loc: Aurora, Colorado
Last seen: 3 hours, 10 minutes

Re: mind bender... [Re: Anonymous]
#1363996  03/10/03 08:00 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) 


No. I used the 3 dots to indicate an infinite repetition of the 9's, instead of the (bar). If I multiply 0.9999 (infinite number of 9's) by 10 I get 9.9999 (infinite number of 9's). I can subtract the different sides of the equation from each other because they are equal expressions. And the difference will be exactly 9. Since 9x = 9, x must be equal to 1.
This proof is based on the method for converting a repeating decimal to a fraction. In this case it demonstrates that the denominator of the fraction is 1.
 Happy mushrooming!

Anonymous

Re: mind bender... [Re: ToxicMan]
#1364031  03/10/03 08:15 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) 


OK, I wrote it out and it works, algebrically. However, because infinity can never be reached, would it not also be true that 1 is merely the limit?
It is very interesting how a process learned in middle school can solve such a problem... I'm going to take this one to my calculus teacher, see what he thinks.
PS: Problems like this kick ass

infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there

Re: mind bender... [Re: ToxicMan]
#1364270  03/10/03 11:36 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) 


0.9999... = x 9.9999... = 10x Multiply by 10 9 = 9x Subtract first statement from second 1 = x Divide both sides by 9
the algebra is correct but something still bothers me...
check it out:
if .9(bar) = 1
then
(1/inf) = 0 ?
since they both represent limits?

ToxicMan
Bite me, it's fun!
Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 6,536
Loc: Aurora, Colorado
Last seen: 3 hours, 10 minutes


stonedfish  yes, that's another way of thinking of it. You're making the statement into the sum as x=1 to infinity of 9 times 10^x, where the limit indeed approaches 1. By using the (bar) notation we are indicating the actual existence of an infinite number of digits, so 0.9999(bar) becomes actually another way to write the number 1. Obviously, a less convenient way.
infidelGOD  yes, 1/infinity = 0. In fact, for all real numbers x > 0, x/infinity = 0.
If you guys are developing an interest in infinity I can recommend Infinity and the Mind  The Science and Philosophy of the Infinite by Rudy Rucker. His PhD thesis was on Transfinite Numbers, so he knows about about infinities. Here's a link to his home page. He teaches mathematics at San Jose State University in California and writes some interesting science fiction.
 Happy mushrooming!

infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there

Re: mind bender... [Re: ToxicMan]
#1364702  03/11/03 05:17 AM (14 years, 8 months ago) 


hhmmmmm....
shouldn't it be: for all real numbers x >= 0, x/infinity = 0 since 0/x is always 0?
so 1/inf = 0/inf?
OK my mind is bent

ToxicMan
Bite me, it's fun!
Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 6,536
Loc: Aurora, Colorado
Last seen: 3 hours, 10 minutes


Yeah, zero/infinity should be zero, too.
You have to be real cautious about including zeros and infinities in the same expression. A lot of those expressions are undefined  there is no meaningful result. A typical example is zero * infinity. Typically the ones that give results are arrived at through limits. Remember that you have to investigate the limits from both above and below.
 Happy mushrooming!

Anonymous

Re: mind bender... [Re: ToxicMan]
#1365596  03/11/03 10:51 AM (14 years, 8 months ago) 


On that note, how can infinity^infinity still equal infinity?

ToxicMan
Bite me, it's fun!
Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 6,536
Loc: Aurora, Colorado
Last seen: 3 hours, 10 minutes

Re: mind bender... [Re: Anonymous]
#1366031  03/11/03 01:11 PM (14 years, 8 months ago) 


Actually, it depends on which definition of infinity is being used. In Rudy Rucker's book there's an entire section on Transfinite Numbers (what a surprise, since his thesis was on them). The various transfinite numbers are derived in various ways from set theory, and you get an entire system of numbers which are all infinite but of different relative magnitudes. It's fairly complicated, and a lot more than I could explain without just copying a lot of pages.
If you really have an interest to that level in infinity, I strongly recommend you find a copy of his book and read it. There's a lot more to the topic that you'd suspect at first.
 Happy mushrooming!

Teragon
Noddy
Registered: 02/21/01
Posts: 36,253
Loc: Lost in the Patterns

Re: mind bender... [Re: Anonymous]
#1366294  03/11/03 02:50 PM (14 years, 8 months ago) 


In my Calc class, infinity*infinity is considered indeterminate. This is when considering limits and trying to evaluate/differentiate them. We use a method to get around indeterminate forms of limits, called l'Hospitale's. Not sure how applicable this info is in this situation, but I'm pretty sure inifinity*inifinity cannot be evaluated directly, much like ToxicMan was talking about.
 need that cash to feed them jones.

