Does 0.9999999 = 1?

[Lou Kang]

Umm im majoring in mathematics

ok i feel like ur just trying to break down what im saying to show me how knowledgeable you are but all i originally wanted to say is that saying your 99.99 repeated % guaranteed of something doesnt really have a definitive meaning in practicality because on the one hand its not 100% guaranteed but at the same time since its an infinite number how can you ever define the chance of the procedure not being a success.
BUT HEY...ive said i really have no idea what im talking about and am just going on my own logic, i admit it has no mathematical basis and i mean I'm sure everything uve said has a much stronger basis than what ive said and is more than likely a better answer.
i didnt mean to turn this into a back and forth, especially in an area i really have no buisness being in

 

[BillStickers]

I can't tell who's trolling and who's an idiot around here so I'm gonna go ahead and assume you're all idiots.

To answer Claude's dumb fucking question precisely: no, 0.9999999 is not equal to 1

However, 0.999... = 1

Claude's trolling everyone here with the notation-- 0.9999999 is not a repeating decimal and therefore cannot be considered equivalent to 1.

As pointed out in Wikipedia, this phenomenon is just a side effect of the decimal system we use to represent real numbers.

Carry on.

 

[Salad Petresky]

ok i feel like ur just trying to break down what im saying to show me how knowledgeable you are but all i originally wanted to say is that saying your 99.99 repeated % guaranteed of something doesnt really have a definitive meaning in practicality because on the one hand its not 100% guaranteed but at the same time since its an infinite number how can you ever define the chance of the procedure not being a success.
BUT HEY...ive said i really have no idea what im talking about and am just going on my own logic, i admit it has no mathematical basis and i mean I'm sure everything uve said has a much stronger basis than what ive said and is more than likely a better answer.
i didnt mean to turn this into a back and forth, especially in an area i really have no buisness being in

But when you say something like 99.99999% success rate it has a meaning. Because nothing in the world is a whole number unless you are doing 1 apple, 2 apples. But when you have something like measurements in statistics, the decimal after is infinite because the more you put numbers at the end the more accurate you will be. So for example, you have 95.123% success rate, more accurate would be 95.123456% because the number 95.123??????? creates more unknown numbers for accuracy while 95.123456????% creates more accuracy.

Similar to 1, 1 cm theoretically doesnt exist. However, 1 is equal to 1.????????. So 1.00000000000 repeating is more closer to 1 than just 1. So thats where the infinite concept comes it, so it'll bring you closer to an estimation. Math NEVER 100% correct, we estimate everything. People think a "whole number" is special, but its not. Its just a point on a number line of infinite numbers in between.
Im just giving correct info, but I didnt try to be an asshole.....

 

[Lou Kang]

But when you say something like 99.99999% success rate it has a meaning. Because nothing in the world is a whole number unless you are doing 1 apple, 2 apples. But when you have something like measurements in statistics, the decimal after is infinite because the more you put numbers at the end the more accurate you will be. So for example, you have 95.123% success rate, more accurate would be 95.123456% because the number 95.123??????? creates more unknown numbers for accuracy while 95.123456????% creates more accuracy.

Similar to 1, 1 cm theoretically doesnt exist. However, 1 is equal to 1.????????. So 1.00000000000 repeating is more closer to 1 than just 1. So thats where the infinite concept comes it, so it'll bring you closer to an estimation. Math NEVER 100% correct, we estimate everything. People think a "whole number" is special, but its not. Its just a point on a number line of infinite numbers in between.
Im just giving correct info, but I didnt try to be an asshole.....

so does that mean that nothing can be 100% accurately measured, not even to a sub atomic level (for material things)
and the 1.0000.. thing is a good point, but the only differecne id see (once again with no mathematical basis) is that 0's only help to show how precise the measurement is, and the 0's do this by adding reference points but add no additional information past accuracy if the value truely is 1, whereas each new 9 adds additional value, but maybe it doesnt work like that with infinites

At this point ive totally conceded u know whats up here and i dont, i just find it interesting

 

[Salad Petresky]

so does that mean that nothing can be 100% accurately measured, not even to a sub atomic level
and the 1.0000.. thing is a good point, but the only differecne id see (once again with no mathematical basis) is that 0's only help to show how precise the measurement is, and the 0's do this by adding reference points but add no additional information past accuracy if the value truely is 1, whereas each new 9 adds additional value, but maybe it doesnt work like that with infinites

At this point ive totally conceded u know whats up here and i dont, i just find it interesting

Yep, nothing is 100% because if you go down to something like .000001?????? nano meter there are still smaller units smaller than that. If you say 1, it means 1.000000 inf. However, if you say 1 in science (which is more accurate term). Then 1=1.??????? (? could be 0-9). The best way is to look at a ruler, if a ruler has more grits the more accurate you would be. The less grits, the more you have to estimate the decimal after (from 0 to 9). Right?
Same with the ruler example, if you have 1.9999?????? then the accuracy would just be limit by the ruler. Then lets solve by logic, if 1.0000000 inf=1 why doesnt .99999999 inf =1 sounds reasonable? Isnt insane lol

 

[Lou Kang]

ok but the original thing was about probability...probability of the surgery or whatever....probability can be measures accurately as if you hav to decie between 2 doors with one correct answer, your probabilty is 50% exactly. now at .9 repeated percent, its not a probability of 1 so there must be a wrong door, but the probability of selecting that wrong door is an infinitly small value

Yep, nothing is 100% because if you go down to something like .000001?????? nano meter there are still smaller units smaller than that. If you say 1, it means 1.000000 inf. However, if you say 1 in science (which is more accurate term). Then 1=1.??????? (? could be 0-9). The best way is to look at a ruler, if a ruler has more grits the more accurate you would be. The less grits, the more you have to estimate the decimal after (from 0 to 9). Right?
Same with the ruler example, if you have 1.9999?????? then the accuracy would just be limit by the ruler. Then lets solve by logic, if 1.0000000 inf=1 why doesnt .99999999 inf =1 sounds reasonable? Isnt insane lol

 

[Salad Petresky]

ok but the original thing was about probability...probability of the surgery or whatever....probability can be measures accurately as if you hav to decie between 2 doors with one correct answer, your probabilty is 50% exactly. now at .9 repeated percent, its not a probability of 1 so there must be a wrong door, but the probability of selecting that wrong door is an infinitly small value

Thats because you only look at statistics of social problems which is very small samples so 100th place would be sufficient. However Look at statistics for chemistry or physics. There are like trillions and trillions of electrons or atoms, that'll give you better ideas. In chemistry, 1 small mistake can change the whole conclusion

 

[BenGmanUk]

1 devided by 3 = 0.333333 recurring so 3 x 0.3333 recurring = 0.999999 recurring. Nothing is lost in the process so yes 0.9999 recurring = 1.

 

[Rokinlobster]

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/53339.html

4 pages of you peeps discussing if .999999999 is 1, and I've never seen any activity, or posts from you dudes in my learning thread.
Glad to see number love going on.

Check out this thread.

http://testyourmight.com/threads/the-learning-thread.25205/

Hey dude, I love that thread.

 

[GLoRToR]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999
What say you TYM

Claude VonStroke
Nearing values never equal or their tangent nature would be void / inapplicable.

 

[John Gabriel]

Every false proof that 0.999... = 1 is debunked in this article (51 pages):
https://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8b6966895b6673aa6b6c
Also take some time to study the New Calculus - the first and only rigorous calculus in history; without the use of ill-defined limits or non-existent infinitesimals:

http://johngabrie1.wix.com/newcalculus

 

[ShadowBeatz]

John Gabriel creates an account to post on TYM. Not to post new tech, not to ask questions on how to get better, not to meet other people in the MK community, but to prove why .999 does not equal one is a thread that has been dead for almost two months.

GG John Gabriel. GG

 

[John Gabriel]

John Gabriel creates an account to post on TYM. Not to post new tech, not to ask questions on how to get better, not to meet other people in the MK community, but to prove why .999 does not equal one is a thread that has been dead for almost two months.

GG John Gabriel. GG

And your point is ...? Oh, you don't have one right? Oh sorry everyone... my name is John Gabriel. I am not a socialite so I did not come here to meet people or care to. Does anyone have a problem with this? If you do, please remove my comments and forgive my "impudence".

 

[ShadowBeatz]

And your point is ...? Oh, you don't have one right? Oh sorry everyone... my name is John Gabriel. I am not a socialite so I did not come here to meet people. Does anyone have a problem with this?

 

[John Gabriel]

I see. Fine. Thank you!

 

[aj1701]

Its an irrational number, so it can happen.

Also, this is more common on computers which have a finite number of states to represent irrational numbers.

 

[John Gabriel]

Well, it is irrational in the sense that it can't be represented as a/b where a, b are integers and b is not zero.

The only "proof" of this assertion is Euler's wrong definition of sum to infinity.

 

[aj1701]

Well, it is irrational in the sense that it can't be represented as a/b where a, b are integers and b is not zero.

The only "proof" of this assertion is Euler's wrong definition of sum to infinity.

Wikipedia disagrees with you.

 

[Eh SnOwY]

6-4 kabal

 

[Chris Thomas]

This can proven to be both a true or false statement depending on the properties of the abstract vector space your using to construct the proof. Trust me, in basic terms (and for most people not familiar with advanced mathematical technicalities) the true statement is
0.9999999..... = 1

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[G4S Claude VonStroke]

As John says its complete bullshit.

 

[John Gabriel]

Wikipedia disagrees with you.

Sure, but Wikipedia is wrong and I am correct. You must remember that Wikipedia is the world according to a core group of editors who run it. They are a bunch of dull and incompetent mathematicians.

 

[John Gabriel]

This can proven to be both a true or false statement depending on the properties of the abstract vector space your using to construct the proof. Trust me, in basic terms (and for most people not familiar with advanced mathematical technicalities) the true statement is
0.9999999..... = 1

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

The last thing anyone should rely on is "Trusting you". I am a mathematician. The true statement is that 0.999... =/= 1.

 

[John Gabriel]

This can proven to be both a true or false statement depending on the properties of the abstract vector space your using to construct the proof. Trust me, in basic terms (and for most people not familiar with advanced mathematical technicalities) the true statement is
0.9999999..... = 1

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

Vector spaces have nothing to do with it. Infinitesimals do not exist.

 

[Prinz]

MS calculator says 1/9=0.1111 and 0.1111*9=1, so, it's all good.