1 is 0.9999999999999............

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by chinglu, Oct 27, 2013.

  1. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    QQ, this really doesn't make a lot of sense. Algebra doesn't work the way you seem to think.

    So let's try it with only arithmetic, no algebra.

    Do you agree with these identities? Each one stands alone.

    10 x 0.999... = 9.999...

    10 x 0.999... - 0.999... = 9 x 0.999...

    9.999... - 0.999... = 9

    9 x 0.999... / 9 = 0.999...

    9 / 9 = 1
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    nah stupid mistake using a stupid example.. sorry
    9x=7
    therefore
    1x = 7/9
    1x= 0.777777778
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    from what I see you are obviously quite correct...

    sure... no problemo
    just that it appears to me you are mixing the context if algebra x is used.

    of course there are 9 of 0.999....
    but this does not make 1= 0.999...
    it only mean there are only 1 of 0.999...



    To me it is the difference in the use of the equal sign..
    "of" vs "equal" that allows the method to "fudge" it's way to allowing 1 to equal 0.999...
    hence the quantity vs quality comment I made earlier

    try to find 1= 0.999 in the same way with out using the algebraic X
    I will be most surprised if you can...

    wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2013
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    By abandoning the reals and ability to do arithmetic with them such as \(\left( \sqrt{2} \right)^2 =2\), you can have a consistent theory of positive rational numbers and quasi-decimal representations and quasi-infinitesimals if you limit yourself to one base.

    Rather than the standard definition of \( { 0.a_1 a_2 a_3 a_4 a_5 .... }_b = \lim_{n\to \infty} \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{a_k}{b^k}\), this model of the rational numbers adopts \( { 0.a_1 a_2 a_3 a_4 a_5 .... }_b = \sum_{k=1}^{\tilde{\omega}} \frac{a_k}{b^k}\) where \(\tilde{\omega}\) is defined as an integer large enough to be divisible by all relevant figures.

    Thus we have the equality \( \frac{p}{q} = \lim_{n\to \infty} \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{a_k}{b^k} = \sum_{k=1}^{\tilde{\omega}} \frac{a_k}{b^k} + \frac{ \sum_{k=\tilde{\omega}+1}^{\tilde{\omega}+\ell} \frac{a_k}{b^k} }{\sum_{k=\tilde{\omega}+1}^{\tilde{\omega}+\ell} \frac{b-1}{b^k} } \epsilon_{b,\tilde{\omega}}\) where \(\ell\) is the repetition length of the rational number.

    So we have
    \( \begin{eqnarray} 1 & = & {0.111...}_2 + \epsilon_{2,\tilde{\omega}} & = & {0.222...}_3 + \epsilon_{3,\tilde{\omega}} & = & {0.444...}_5 + \epsilon_{5,\tilde{\omega}} & = & {0.666...}_7 + \epsilon_{7,\tilde{\omega}} & = & {0.999...}_{10} + \epsilon_{10,\tilde{\omega}} \frac{1}{2} & = & {0.1}_2 & = & {0.111...}_3 + \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{3,\tilde{\omega}} & = & {0.222...}_5 + \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{5,\tilde{\omega}} & = & {0.333...}_7 + \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{7,\tilde{\omega}} & = & {0.5}_{10} \frac{1}{3} & = & {0.010101...}_2 + \frac{1}{3} \epsilon_{2,\tilde{\omega}} & = & {0.1}_3 & = & {0.131313...}_5 + \frac{1}{3} \epsilon_{5,\tilde{\omega}} & = & {0.222...}_7 + \frac{1}{3} \epsilon_{7,\tilde{\omega}} & = & {0.333...}_{10} + \frac{1}{3} \epsilon_{10,\tilde{\omega}} \frac{1}{5} & = & {0.001100110011...}_2 + \frac{1}{5} \epsilon_{2,\tilde{\omega}} & = & {0.012101210121...}_3 + \frac{1}{5} \epsilon_{3,\tilde{\omega}} & = & {0.1}_5 & = & {0.125412541254...}_7 + \frac{1}{5} \epsilon_{7,\tilde{\omega}} & = & {0.2}_{10} \frac{1}{7} & = & {0.001001...}_2 + \frac{1}{7} \epsilon_{2,\tilde{\omega}} & = & {0.010212...}_3 + \frac{1}{7} \epsilon_{3,\tilde{\omega}} & = & {0.032412...}_5 + \frac{1}{7} \epsilon_{5,\tilde{\omega}} & = & {0.1}_7 & = & {0.142857...}_{10} + \frac{1}{7} \epsilon_{10,\tilde{\omega}} \frac{1}{210} & = & \frac{53}{105} - \frac{1}{2} & = & \frac{47}{70} - \frac{2}{3} & = & \frac{17}{42} - \frac{2}{5} & = & \frac{13}{30} - \frac{3}{7} & = & \frac{19}{21} - \frac{9}{10} \frac{1}{210} & = & {0.000000010011100000010011...}_2 + \frac{53}{105} \epsilon_{2,\tilde{\omega}} & = & {0.000010110201200010110201...}_3 + \frac{47}{70} \epsilon_{3,\tilde{\omega}} & = & {0.000244200244200244...}_5 + \frac{17}{42} \epsilon_{5,\tilde{\omega}} & = & {0.0014301430143014...}_7 + \frac{13}{30} \epsilon_{7,\tilde{\omega}} & = & {0.004761904761904761...}_{10} + \frac{19}{21} \epsilon_{10,\tilde{\omega}} \end{eqnarray} \)

    But since \(\tilde{\omega}\) isn't infinite (it's just very large compared to any number we choose to think of), to be consistent you need particular rules to handle addition and multiplication. In particular since \(\tilde{\omega}\) isn't infinite there is a "last digit" which eats carries from the quasi-infinitesimal.

    Example:

    \(\frac{3}{210} = 3 \times \frac{1}{210} = 3 \times ( \frac{19}{21} - \frac{9}{10} ) = \frac{57}{21} - \frac{27}{10} = \frac{15}{21} - \frac{7}{10} = \frac{5}{7} - \frac{7}{10} \frac{3}{210} = 3 \times \left( {0.004761904761904761...}_{10} + \frac{19}{21} \epsilon_{10,\tilde{\omega}} \right) = 3 \times {0.004761904761904761...}_{10} + 2 \epsilon_{10,\tilde{\omega}} + \frac{15}{21} \epsilon_{10,\tilde{\omega}} = {0.014285714285...}_{10} + \frac{15}{21} \epsilon_{10,\tilde{\omega}}\)

    But, this does not give you a math system more powerful than the rational numbers. It does not have any of the benefits of the real numbers and irrational numbers don't have a representation. It's just a wasteful way to think about the rational numbers unless you use logic and mathematical rigor to bridge the gap between numbers too large to think of and the infinite.

    That is the benefit of the real numbers. They obey the axioms common to other number systems but with the concept of continuity so that numbers defined as limits or boundaries of sets actually exist.

    [table="width: 500"]
    [tr]
    [td]\(0 \neq 1\)[/td]
    [/tr]
    [tr]
    [td]\(0 \in \mathbb{X}\)[/td]
    [td]\(1 \in \mathbb{X}\)[/td]
    [/tr]
    [tr]
    [td]\(p + q \in \mathbb{X}\)[/td]
    [td]\(p \times q \in \mathbb{X}\)[/td]
    [/tr]
    [tr]
    [td]\(p + 0 = p\)[/td]
    [td]\(p \times 1 = p\)[/td]
    [/tr]
    [tr]
    [td]\(p + q = q + p\)[/td]
    [td]\(p \times q = q \times p\)[/td]
    [/tr]
    [tr]
    [td]\((p + q) + r = p + ( q + r )\)[/td]
    [td]\((p \times q) \times r = p \times ( q \times r )\)[/td]
    [/tr]
    [tr]
    [td]\(\exists s \in \mathbb{X} \quad p + s = 0\)[/td]
    [td]\(p \neq 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad \exists s \in \mathbb{X} \quad p \times s = 1\)[/td]
    [/tr]
    [tr]
    [td]\(p \times ( q + r ) = ( p \times q ) + ( p \times r )\)[/td]
    [/tr]
    [tr]
    [td]\(p \lt q \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad p \neq q \; \textrm{and} \; p \not \gt q\)[/td]
    [/tr]
    [tr]
    [td]\(p \lt q \; \textrm{and} \; q \lt r \quad \Rightarrow \quad q \lt r\)[/td]
    [/tr]
    [tr]
    [td]\(p \lt q \quad \Rightarrow \quad r + p \lt r + q\)[/td]
    [td]\(0 \lt p \; \textrm{and} \; 0 \lt q \quad \Rightarrow \quad 0 \lt p \times q\)[/td]
    [/tr]
    [/table]

    It doesn't matter if \(\mathbb{X}\) stands for the rationals or the reals, these rules apply to them all. This is the burden of claiming one has a system of infinitesimal numbers -- one has to play by the same rules as any other number. The quasi-infinitesimals above play by these rules and turn out to be just rational numbers by a different name.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2013
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    hee hee, doing some research... I had no idea that this issue was so uhm controversial....[chuckle]
    from wiki:

    Q: How many mathematicians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

    A: 0.999999....
     
  9. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    10 x 0.999... = 9.999...
    10 x 0.999... - 0.999... = 9.999... - 0.999...
    9 x 0.999... = 9
    0.999... = 1

    Each step uses only the agreed identities.
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    close IMO but it could read:
    10 x 0.999... = 9.999...
    9.999... - 0.999... = 9
    9 x 0.999 = 8.999...

    oops!
    we can't presume 0.999...= 1 until proved
     
  11. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Which step do you disagree with?

    But it doesn't.

    Why oops?
     
  12. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    We don't.
    The only things we presume are what we already agreed on.
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    well 9 x 0.999... = 8.999.... not 9.
    how do you then derive 1= 0.999...?

     
  14. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    8.999... = 9

    Like I posted:

    10 x 0.999... = 9.999...
    10 x 0.999... - 0.999... = 9.999... - 0.999...
    9 x 0.999... = 9
    0.999... = 1


    Every step uses only identities we already agreed on.
     
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328

    how so?
    As I said normally you don't use a proof until it is proven and can't presume the rounding of 0.999.... to a whole number


    According to my calculator, disregarding the rounding effect:

    9x 0.999... = 8.999.... NOT 9
     
  16. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    That step is deduced from the previous step and the agreed identities.
    Let me spell it out.

    We agree on these identities:
    • 10 x 0.999... = 9.999...
    • 10 x 0.999... - 0.999... = 9 x 0.999...
    • 9.999... - 0.999... = 9
    • 9 x 0.999... / 9 = 0.999...
    • 9 / 9 = 1
    Start from identity a:
    10 x 0.999... = 9.999...

    Subtract 0.999... from each side:
    10 x 0.999... - 0.999... = 9.999... - 0.999...

    Note that the left hand side of this equation matches one side of identity b. This means we can switch it for the other side of that identity, while keeping the right hand side unchanged:
    9 x 0.999... = 9.999... - 0.999...

    We do the same with the right hand side using identity c:
    9 x 0.999... = 9
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    ok I think I see what is happening ...

    take two identities that are treated entirely separately [no rounding allowed]
    1]

    9.999... - 0.999... = 9

    2]

    9 x 0.999... = 8.999....

    I believe both equations are correct if no presumptions are made


    or


    consider regarding the OP
    in identity one rounding is not necessary [infinitesimal not needed to = 9]
    in identity two rounding is necessary [inclusion of an infinitesimal is needed to =9]

    essentially what I see is this:
    9 x 0.999....+(1/infinity) = 9.999... - 0.999...
     
  18. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    I'm not sure you do, because you're not addressing the logic involved in the step of the proof in question.

    Do you agree with this equation:
    10 x 0.999... - 0.999... = 9.999... - 0.999...

    Do you agree with this equation:
    10 x 0.999... - 0.999... = 9 x 0.999...

    Do you agree with this equation:
    9.999... - 0.999... = 9

    If you agree with those three equations, then you should logically agree with this one:
    9 x 0.999... = 9

    Both are correct. The second is not relevant to the proof.
     
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    see edited post above... sorry..
     
  20. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Please address my post as it stands.
    Do you agree with those three equations, do you see that they logically imply the fourth?
     
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    no...
    I see:
    10 x 0.999... - 0.999... = 9 x 0.999...+ (1/infinity)
    as being correct...
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    To be specific:
     
  23. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    You should, it's very simple maths and you agreed to it before (post 83).
    10 x 0.999... - 0.999... = 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999... - 0.999...
    = 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999...
    = 9 x 0.999...


    But, we can make this even simpler.
    Try this:
    0.999... + 0.999... = 2 x 0.999... = 1.999... = 1 + 0.999...
     

Share This Page