Does 0.9999999 = 1?

[ChrisJG]

The problem is that to GET to .9 repeating you must continuously add .xxxxxxxxxx1 to it every time to continue to get to the next 9. There is always that infinite amount that needs to be added to get to the next 9.

That means that an infinite amount of times, .99999 is NOT equal to one.

Depends on what math you're talking about. In your example there is an outcome of success or failure. there is a 99.9 repeating % chance of a success. The chance of failure is 0 because the chance of getting .00....1 is actually 0.
Lets say in another scenario there is a 100 % chance of success. Therefor there is a 0 chance of failure as well. This is another reason people can argue .9 repeating = 1

EDIT: just playing devils advocate by the way, I also believe the two numbers are unequal

 

[9.95]

Depends on what math you're talking about. In your example there is an outcome of success or failure. there is a 99.9 repeating % chance of a success. The chance of failure is 0 because the chance of getting .00....1 is actually 0.
Lets say in another scenario there is a 100 % chance of success. Therefor there is a 0 chance of failure as well. This is another reason people can argue .9 repeating = 1

I disagree. Just because the the chance of getting to .00....1 is zero and the a 100% chance of failure is zero does not make the two numbers equal. Numbers, like it or not, are black and white: inarguable. There is a distinct difference between 9 and 10 and .9 and .98 and there always will be. Just like .99(repeating) and 1.0 will always be different.

 

[ChrisJG]

I disagree. Just because the the chance of getting to .00....1 is zero and the a 100% chance of failure is zero does not make the two numbers equal. Numbers, like it or not, are black and white: inarguable. There is a distinct difference between 9 and 10 and .9 and .98 and there always will be. Just like .99(repeating) and 1.0 will always be different.

What if there was a color infinitely close to black, so close that there is no distinguishable difference between the two. Are they the same color?

 

[Juggs]

 

[9.95]

What if there was a color infinitely close to black, so close that there is no distinguishable difference between the two. Are they the same color?

No, because the values are still different.

It's as close to black as THAT number can be. But... there are an infinite amount of SMALLER INCREMENTS that are closer to black than THAT number... none of them are black.

 

[ChrisJG]

No, because the values are still different.

It's as close to black as THAT number can be. But... there are an infinite amount of SMALLER INCREMENTS that are closer to black than THAT number... none of them are black.

So then is black possible to achieve? I mean you can get INFINITELY close to it and still not be it. how could black possibly happen when there are an infinite amount of colors close to black but none of them are it.

By the way if you didn't see me edit my other post I agree with you phil im just trying to present the other side of the argument.

 

[9.95]

So then is black possible to achieve? I mean you can get INFINITELY close to it and still not be it. how could black possibly happen when there are an infinite amount of colors close to black but none of them are it.

By the way if you didn't see me edit my other post I agree with you phil im just trying to present the other side of the argument.

Yes, I saw it... LOL... I don't mind discussions like this.

And yes, you can get black. Black is the TOTAL ABSENCE of light.

Colors are the reflection of light. Black is the absorption of it... or the total lack of it.

 

[ChrisJG]

Yes, I saw it... LOL... I don't mind discussions like this.

And yes, you can get black. Black is the TOTAL ABSENCE of light.

Colors are the reflection of light. Black is the absorption of it... or the total lack of it.

so what about the color that has an infinitely small amount of light energy bounce from it, is that black? And by the way nothing in real life is black, everything reflects some amount of photons.

 

[9.95]

so what about the color that has an infinitely small amount of light energy bounce from it, is that black? And by the way nothing in real life is black, everything reflects some amount of photons.

Then it isn't black. Photons, btw, are not necessarily light. They are defined as packets of energy. Heat can be energy. Black can reflect heat energy as well as absorb it.

Black is NOT a color, it is, by definition the absence of light. By definition, in the absence of all light EVERYTHING is black.

But yes, I know everything reflects some photons... but being able to prove that is an argument for another day.

What is INARGUABLE, though, is that I have to leave work and head home... LOL

 

[NRF CharlieMurphy]

THERE CAN ONLY BE .99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

just doesn't have the same ring to it.

 

[ChrisJG]

Then it isn't black. Photons, btw, are not necessarily light. They are defined as packets of energy. Heat can be energy. Black can reflect heat energy as well as absorb it.

Black is NOT a color, it is, by definition the absence of light. By definition, in the absence of all light EVERYTHING is black.

Photons are packets of light energy, not any other kind. And colors are defined by their appearance under white light, so while everything seems black when there is no light it is not because the objects are actually black

 

[ChrisJG]

Then it isn't black. Photons, btw, are not necessarily light. They are defined as packets of energy. Heat can be energy. Black can reflect heat energy as well as absorb it.

Black is NOT a color, it is, by definition the absence of light. By definition, in the absence of all light EVERYTHING is black.

But yes, I know everything reflects some photons... but being able to prove that is an argument for another day.

What is INARGUABLE, though, is that I have to leave work and head home... LOL

Haha alright phil, hopefully we can argue again later XD

 

[Flagg]

The mathematical paradox that if you keep applying 9 on the end of 0.9, means you would never reach 1. Which would mean the gulf between 0.9 and 1 is infinite, which in numbers term, is impossible. You could set off a steel ball pendulum and under the right conditions, it would swing forever. Does this prove that forever, is possible, or do you just end up with a shit load of individual swings?

Another way of looking at paradoxes where infinity is a factor is the Omnipotence Paradox.

If God has infinite power, He could create a boulder that no being in existence could lift. But, if He could lift it, He hasn't created a boulder that cant be lifted, thus has not demonstrated having infinite power. If He cant lift it, it shows though He is does not possess infinite power to overcome this task.

An even simpler version is this statement: "this sentence is false".... that right there is a paradox.

 

[Gesture Required Ahead]

Somewhere, sometime, in the world...someone is masturbating to this thread.

 

[STB Sgt Reed]

um, no... it = ... wait for it...

0.9999999

fascinating eh?

 

[Salad Petresky]

Lol most of these arguments are full of mathematical fallacies.

 

[Salad Petresky]

yeah but thats just illogical thinking by you, a 99.99 repeated chance of success is virtually a guaranteed because the chance of failue is an infinitly small value.....but even then since we are dealing with theoretical values it is impossible to translate it to real word practicality

This is ANOTHER misconception, just because something isnt practical right now doesnt mean it will not be practical in the future. Back then, people thought finding the highest prime numbers are useless. Now, all security systems use prime numbers as their protection from hackers. Companies are paying mathematicians millions for finding more prime numbers

 

[ChrisJG]

um, no... it = ... wait for it...

0.9999999

fascinating eh?

Yeah the thought behind the argument is that this value can actually equal 2 values. Not that .9 repeating does not equal itself.

 

[Lou Kang]

This is ANOTHER misconception, just because something isnt practical right now doesnt mean it will not be practical in the future. Back then, people thought finding the highest prime numbers are useless. Now, all security systems use prime numbers as their protection from hackers. Companies are paying mathematicians millions for finding more prime numbers

what i mean is that an infinite value does not translate into real world probailities and statistics because it has no concrete value....i mean i'm not a mathematician it's just how id view it,

 

[Salad Petresky]

what i mean is that an infinite value does not translate into real world probailities and statistics because it has no concrete value....i mean i'm not a mathematician it's just how id view it,

Dude, again. Just because a concept has no real use right now does not mean it will not have any use in the future. You dont know what the future holds. Thats an assumption you make that the concept of INF will NEVER be use, thats a very bold statement.

So you are saying just because it doesnt have any use to you, it doesnt have a use for anyone else?

 

[Lou Kang]

Dude, again. Just because a concept has no real use right now does not mean it will not have any use in the future. You dont know what the future holds. Thats an assumption you make that the concept of INF will NEVER be use, thats a very bold statement.

So you are saying just because it doesnt have any use to you, it doesnt have a use for anyone else?

ok when some1 tells me something has a 99.99 repeated % chance of success and then what the chance of failure would be I guess ill be able to better comprehend it but just stating that "well you never know what can happen int he future" adds absolutely nothing to the discussion and that can be said of almost anything. I never claimed to have any advanced knowledge of this but you clearly don't either. Maybe saying impossible was a haste term for some1 with limited knowledge of the topic but I was directly responding to the post i quoted and what you are focusing on is only obiter.
I really didn't want to linger in this thread cause my math knowledge ends at a gr 12 level, and ive got nothing left to add to the thread topic

 

[Salad Petresky]

ok when some1 tells me something has a 99.99 repeated % chance of success and then what the chance of failure would be I guess ill be able to better comprehend it but just stating that "well you never know what can happen int he future" adds absolutely nothing to the discussion and that can be said of almost anything. I never claimed to have any advanced knowledge of this but you clearly don't either. Maybe saying impossible was a haste term for some1 with limited knowledge of the topic but I was directly responding to the post i quoted and what you are focusing on is only obiter.
I really didn't want to linger in this thread cause my math knowledge ends at a gr 12 level, and ive got nothing left to add to the thread topic

The concept of 99.99999% is based on the concept of infinity, you cant just say 99.999999999 is useless because its just a number. Absolutly not, the fact that the concept of .999999 and .00000000001 create the fundamental calculus as a whole. And yes, you see .9999999 is very common in calculus, you arent there yet and you are making false fallacies just because you have just taken stats

 

[Simon Wayne]

He needs it

 

[Lou Kang]

The concept of 99.99999% is based on the concept of infinity, you cant just say 99.999999999 is useless because its just a number. Absolutly not, the fact that the concept of .999999 and .00000000001 create the fundamental calculus as a whole. And yes, you see .9999999 is very common in calculus, you arent there yet and you are making false fallacies just because you have just taken stats

man i didnt say im in gr 12 first of all, i havent just taken stats....whats your background in math

 

[Salad Petresky]

man i didnt say im in gr 12 first of all, i havent just taken stats....whats your background in math

Umm im majoring in mathematics