Does 0.9999999 = 1?

[Seven]

So what you're saying is, one number can equal two numbers.... That's like saying 2 can equal 2 and 3???

Since .999 = 1, doesn't that mean that .999 is also equal to .999?

So .999 can equal the following numbers: .99999, .99999999, 1, .9999 and let's not forget .99999999999.

 

[Playpal]

I think the important question is whether or not John Gabriel plays mk. Or plans on playing injustice.

 

[ShadowBeatz]

 

[goheadgetdown]

No.

Think of it like this:

There are 2 parts of your body with the same pronunciation. Ileum and Ilium. Note that these two words have a difference of ONE LETTER.

Ileum is the very last part of your small intestine.

Ilium is the uppermost part of the largest bone in your pelvis(the "wing").

Lets say you have an intestinal infection and a small part of your ILEUM needs to be removed.

The doctor should know the difference...

Lets say there's a .999% chance that he will spell ILEUM the CORRECT way.

Are you willing to risk that .001% that he will accidentally spell ILIUM and you'll get a HIP REPLACEMENT instead of a procedure on your small intestine?

I am not willing to risk that. Therefore .999 =/= 1.00

I'm really not sure how to go about this. You're an idiot. The ilium / ileum analogy is about the dumbest thing ever. And 0.9999... (where ... represents repeating infinitely) has been algebraically proven. The only time the ilium would be removed essentially is in a hemipelvectomy - if an orthopedic surgeon (whom is responsible for removal of bone) is going to remove a part of the intestine rather than an abdominal surgeon - he/she would not be practicing.

 

[xInfra Deadx]

What do you know...another fool enters.

 

[goheadgetdown]

What do you know...another fool enters.

To answer your question: "Nearly Everything". And thanks for announcing your entrance.

 

[Playpal]

To answer your question: "Nearly Everything". And thanks for announcing your entrance.

9.95 was not talking about .999...

Seriously man.

 

[goheadgetdown]

9.95 was not talking about .999...

Seriously man.

i didn't quote/reply to you. ...

 

[Chris Thomas]

@John_ Gabriel

do you have credible and published work that refers to your "new calculus" in math society journals that is not your own website???

 

[John Gabriel]

Ideas ARE copyright-able and I don't care if you think otherwise. Try copying any of my ideas, theorems or other intellectual property and you will see your rear end. I have ONE word for you - Ithenticate. Moron that you are!

Wikipedia is about as reliable as a dimwit like you. It is edited by the likes of you. Therefore the conclusion is it is generally unreliable trash.

When a moron like you does "research" (too funny) by googling and reaching all the wrong conclusions, it is too amusing. You would need critical thinking - something you have proved repeatedly that you do not have. So where are your comments regarding the topic? Ah, of course you have none because you know nothing.

I could waste my time with you but I won't.

So idiot, unless you can refute my statements, you have proved that you are nothing but another imbecile.

 

[John Gabriel]

I guess selling his weight loss program isn't working out.

Ha, ha, moron!!! And this is the result of your Googling Research?!! What a fucking troll you are!

 

[Chris Thomas]

Ideas ARE copyright-able and I don't care if you think otherwise. Try copying any of my ideas, theorems or other intellectual property and you will see your rear end. I have ONE word for you - Ithenticate. Moron that you are!

Wikipedia is about as reliable as a dimwit like you. It is edited by the likes of you. Therefore the conclusion is it is generally unreliable trash.

When a moron like you does "research" (too funny) by googling and reaching all the wrong conclusions, it is too amusing. You would need critical thinking - something you have proved repeatedly that you do not have. So where are your comments regarding the topic? Ah, of course you have none because you know nothing.

I could waste my time with you but I won't.

So idiot, unless you can refute my statements, you have proved that you are nothing but another imbecile.

No, I'm simply asking if your work is credible. Don't be an asswipe, just show me where you've been published. Obviously you gave innovative ideas and i've read the volume of work you had on your website. All I'm asking is to see your credientials thats all (those that are not your own)

 

[John Gabriel]

Keep proving you're a moron. You can't copyright ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea-expression_divide[/quote]

Ideas are part of intellectual property and there is record of the time and date some of my ideas were published, therefore if you try to copy them, this is plagiarism - what this means for an idiot like you is jail time. Don't even think about it!

 

[John Gabriel]

Well, some moron wrote something about differential having a different meaning but I can't be bothered to look for the comment as it is buried in a lot of other crap. Let me respond by saying that it has exactly the same meaning in every calculus context.

The ONLY real calculus that provides a sound definition is my new calculus.

 

[Chris Thomas]

For the last time, seriously, I don't give a damn about copyrighting your ideas. Obviously since you can't read between the lines like they teach in elementary school, I'm willing to give your ideas a chance so I can understand your stance on mathematics better. As you've already insluted me in front of everyone, you know I am doing research in black holes and cosmology so why should I care. You wanna fix mathematics, I wanna break the speed of light, so just answer the question and stop throwing insults

 

[John Gabriel]

Ideas are not copyright-able. Don't care if you think they are "intellectual" or not. And again, Wikipedia has been proven to be as accurate (if not more-so) than a standard encyclopedia. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Intellectual property is a blanket term covering patents, trademarks and materials which have been copyrighted. But if you like you can read the court case yourself; its not exactly new though, this has been settled for quite some time: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/101/99/case.html Also the EU has similar provisions in that you can't copyright ideas or patent things found in nature.



LMAO. Is this your intellect and critical thinking at work? You make exposing you so easy. To start, why would I take something YOU wrote about yourself as if it were unbiased?

@xInfra Deadx knew what I was getting at; that you're a nobody, and three other more known John Gabriel's come up before you when searching for your name. You don't even appear in results unless you add math.. and then this link ranks above your own page: http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2010/02/04/so-remember-back-in/

This is also a fun read (and also ranks higher than your own site); apparently you've been embarrassing yourself on the internet for quite some time now: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=51224&sid=b7b5deba7c03a97f51a2b22d98c288cb

Oh I love your "critical thinking" abilities which you demonstrate in your last reply to me. For you to state with certainty that I would be jealous, wouldn't that mean you would have to know what my ideal physique is, and what it currently is? Why would you even assume you have a better physique then I do? Your logic here is as flawed as your understanding of math.

Real calculus has helped put men on the moon, lets us see through space and time. Yours has just made people laugh at you.

The only thing I'm not sure of is if you're a loon or a troll.

Oh no, moron. Newtonian mechanics helped send man to the moon. The calculus that Newton invented is flawed even though it works most of the time. My New Calculus works 100% of the time and is well-defined. This means no use of ill-defined limits or non-existent infinitesimals. Do not reply about Robinson's non-standard analysis - it is a bowel movement, much like what you write and say.

You should hang out at Crank Chu Carroll's site - he is a NON-MATHEMATICIAN. If you can't discuss math, another site you belong to is xkcd - they talk bullshit that amounts to slander - there is no real math or any math at all there. Off you go!!!

 

[Chris Thomas]

Oh no, moron. Newtonian mechanics helped send man to the moon. The calculus that Newton invented is flawed even though it works most of the time. My New Calculus works 100% of the time and is well-defined. This means no use of ill-defined limits or non-existent infinitesimals. Do not reply about Robinson's non-standard analysis - it is a bowel movement, much like what you write and say.

You should hang out at Crank Chu Carroll's site - he is a NON-MATHEMATICIAN. If you can't discuss math, another site you belong to is xkcd - they talk bullshit that amounts to slander - there is no real math or any math at all there. Off you go!!!

Also, I wanna see your rigorous derivation of the "new calculus" using mathematical argumentation and analytical geometry. If you can do that and it's flawless, i'll concede. No more insluts @John_Gabriel , it's nut up or shut up. Are you willing to dance?

 

[John Gabriel]

Chris Thomas: You can study the New Calculus at: http://thenewcalculus.weebly.com

It is formulated completely using analytic geometry. There is no use of the "infinity" concept, non-existent infinitesimals or the ill-defined limit concept.

There are 10 short lessons on the Course Page.

Other links you may find interesting:

http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/math/4507-0-999-equal-one-317.html

http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/math/4507-0-999-equal-one-365.html

http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/math/4507-0-999-equal-one-389.html#post24774

 

[Might Tested]

It doesn't mater if you posted .999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 does it equal 1? Bring it back to basics. Does .999 have even 1 whole number? Nope. I don't care how complicated people try to make it out to be, it simply doesn't equal 1. If you want to get into weird crap study 0.

The fact that so many of you believe .9 repeating does not equal 1 shows how ignorant the vast majority of the TYM community is, yet tries to pass off their bullshit as legitimate arguments.

A majority of mathematicians with PhDs and anyone with a solid understanding of calculus or algebra can show that .9 repeating equals 1.

A better way to phrase this question in which people could probably understand better, is 1 - .9 repeating = 0.
At first glance, your average joe would say no, because at some point there would be a .000...1 in the solution, but the reality is that .9 repeating extends to infinitely many digits, and thus your solution would extend to infinitely many zeros without any possibility of ever getting a nonzero digit (this is why it's important to understand the difference between infinity and a really large number). Thus, a mathematician would conclude that the limit is equal to 0, since 1 -.9 repeating = .0 repeating = 0.

There's plenty of algebraical proofs that can be easily googled, although limits presents a solid explanation to an otherwise counterintuitive question.

 

[Might Tested]

So what you're saying is, one number can equal two numbers.... That's like saying 2 can equal 2 and 3???

Since .999 = 1, doesn't that mean that .999 is also equal to .999?

So .999 can equal the following numbers: .99999, .99999999, 1, .9999 and let's not forget .99999999999.

Seven, it's not .999 they're discussing. It's .9 repeating. A decimal point, with an infinite number of digits (in this case, 9). There is no endpoint.

The number .9, or .99, or .99999999 has an endpoint, and thus does not equal 1.

 

[Prinz]

The fact that so many of you believe .9 repeating does not equal 1 shows how ignorant the vast majority of the TYM community is, yet tries to pass off their bullshit as legitimate arguments.

A majority of mathematicians with PhDs and anyone with a solid understanding of calculus or algebra can show that .9 repeating equals 1.

A better way to phrase this question in which people could probably understand better, is 1 - .9 repeating = 0.
At first glance, your average joe would say no, because at some point there would be a .000...1 in the solution, but the reality is that .9 repeating extends to infinitely many digits, and thus your solution would extend to infinitely many zeros without any possibility of ever getting a nonzero digit (this is why it's important to understand the difference between infinity and a really large number). Thus, a mathematician would conclude that the limit is equal to 0, since 1 -.9 repeating = .0 repeating = 0.

There's plenty of algebraical proofs that can be easily googled, although limits presents a solid explanation to an otherwise counterintuitive question.

1=1 is an absolute truth, there is no possibility of 1 not equaling itself. In case of 1=0,(9) there is an infinitely small amount of possibility this is false. Take a geometric approach: two lines on a plane, one goes at 0 degrees, the other one at 0,(0)1, will they ever be two different lines or will they be infinitely overlaping, being the same line?

 

[Might Tested]

1=1 is an absolute truth, there is no possibility of 1 not equaling itself. In case of 1=0,(9) there is an infinitely small amount of possibility this is false. Take a geometric approach: two lines on a plane, one goes at 0 degrees, the other one at 0,(0)1, will they ever be two different lines or will they be infinitely overlaping, being the same line?

Your concept of infinity is skewed.

.0 repeating will extend to infinity. It has no final digit. The "1" attached at the end would be done by rounding at some nth digit.
This is the same with .9 repeating. As it has no final digit, what you're interested in is the limit.

 

[Prinz]

Your concept of infinity is skewed.

.0 repeating will extend to infinity. It has no final digit. The "1" attached at the end would be done by rounding at some nth digit.
This is the same with .9 repeating. As it has no final digit, what you're interested in is the limit.

The sole possibility that "1" can occur, no matter the chance, makes it not absolute. 1=1 is absolute, 1=0,(9) is not. Take the analogy of Cage's f3 random advantage, the sole idea that it can occur will demotivate any player to poke out. Although it is not random, which makes it an absolute event, thus it does not apply here. But if it were random, you'd be pissed no matter how the infinite possibility will be for it to happen. Oh yeah, toasty boost is a good example. Matches have been won with it.

 

[Might Tested]

The sole possibility that "1" can occur, no matter the chance, makes it not absolute. 1=1 is absolute, 1=0,(9) is not. Take the analogy of Cage's f3 random advantage, the sole idea that it can occur will demotivate any player to poke out. Although it is not random, which makes it an absolute event, thus it does not apply here. But if it were random, you'd be pissed no matter how the infinite possibility will be for it to happen. Oh yeah, toasty boost is a good example. Matches have been won with it.

Again, your concept of infinite is flawed. You're talking about infinity in the sense that maybe an engineer would, in practical terms as an incredibly large number.

An infinite possibility is the same thing, in mathematical terms, as 1, or 100%. Your analogy just doesn't hold here through an equivalence fallacy.

I suggest you retake a course in introductory calculus, or accept the relatively simple algebraical proofs.

 

[Prinz]

Again, your concept of infinite is flawed. You're talking about infinity in the sense that maybe an engineer would, in practical terms as an incredibly large number.

An infinite possibility is the same thing, in mathematical terms, as 1, or 100%. Your analogy just doesn't hold here through an equivalence fallacy.

I suggest you retake a course in introductory calculus, or accept the relatively simple algebraical proofs.

An infinite small possibility of an event occurring does not equal the absence of that event.
What I think is it's a flaw in algebraical expression that should be worked on. Maybe find a constant of some sort to symbolize this error.