1=0.999... infinities and box of chocolates..Phliosophy of Math...

Your math is the problem. When you split a pile of 100 pennies into 3 piles, you can have two piles of 33 and one pile of 34, but you can't have 3 piles of 33.(3),

You are confusing the division of integers with the division of reals. I think that the chapter on real numbers comes a little later in the book, have patience, you'll get to it.
 
You are confusing the division of integers with the division of reals. I think that the chapter on real numbers comes a little later in the book, have patience, you'll get to it.

You are confusing the equal sign (=) with the greater than sign (>). I think when you get there they will teach you that 1.0 is a whole, while 0.(9) is a fraction of a whole. So your 1.0=0.(9) is false, it is 1.0 is GREATER THAN (>, not =) 0.(9).
 
you are confusing the equal sign (=) with the greater than sign (>). I think when you get there they will teach you that 1.0 is a whole, while 0.(9) is a fraction of a whole. So your 1.0=0.(9) is false, it is 1.0 is greater than (>, not =) 0.(9).

lol, read here
 
If you split a PENNY into three pieces [you have] at the most 2 equal and one larger piece.

Originally people were arguing that $$0.\bar{9}\neq1$$. As an occasional teacher, I've run into that misconception often.

Then MD argued that $$0.\bar{3}\neq\frac{1}{3}$$. I'd never run into that one before, but according to Tach's Wikipedia link, apparently it's a semi-common thing.

Now MD seems to be saying there's no such thing as $$\frac{1}{3}$$. I'm at a loss for words.
 
So you would be paid in full if I gave you 0.(9) dollar payment for the $1.00 I borrowed from you?

Common sense says you're wrong! 1.0 is greater than 0.(9) all day long! 1.0>0.(9)

the BIG question though that you need to ask to solve this impasse is :
IF 1 is greater than 0.999.... how much greater is it?

Motor Daddy,
What do you think is the solution to 1 - 0.(9) ?

And if you finally arrive at zero using the conventional mathematics system you will find that 1 = 0.999...

so far we have the conventional and mainstream accepted solution.
1- 0.999... = 0
(this has been proved as calculated as and is generally accepted ~ as terminating at 0)
then we have
1-999... - 1/infinity
this is solution requires mixing mathematical systems and a chocolate out of the box perhaps...:) ~ as non-terminating on both sides.

then we have

1-999...= "non-existent"
which is another version of the same thing but with a more material application. IMO ~ as non-terminating on only one side and non-existent on the other

so MD, which would you choose [if any] and why?
What does
1 - 0.999... =
to you?
 
Originally people were arguing that $$0.\bar{9}\neq1$$. As an occasional teacher, I've run into that misconception often.

Then MD argued that $$0.\bar{3}\neq\frac{1}{3}$$. I'd never run into that one before, but according to Tach's Wikipedia link, apparently it's a semi-common thing.

Now MD seems to be saying there's no such thing as $$\frac{1}{3}$$. I'm at a loss for words.
No I think he has misinterpreted, quite accidentally the use of the decimal..
It is amazing and I am just as guilty of it myself how a glaring [to others but not to self] mistake can get stuck in our heads when it comes to understanding something.
1.11 is the same piece of cake as 1.111.... only a marginally bigger version of the same slice. MD considered in one of the posts that they were two different slices.
This sort of misinterpretation of the question can led to significant issues in a persons thinking IMO.

the seemingly simple question:

which one is the larger quantity?
1.11 ml or 1.111... ml

which should read
1.11000.... ml or 1.111... ml

or..

1.11000000000000...
+
0.00111110000000...
=
1.111111100000000...

The "taken for granted" and often not writen, trailing zero's can lead to huge confusion and on the surface it is easy to see how...
 
the BIG question though that you need to ask to solve this impasse is :
IF 1 is greater than 0.999.... how much greater is it?

Motor Daddy,
What do you think is the solution to 1 - 0.(9) ?

And if you finally arrive at zero using the conventional mathematics system you will find that 1 = 0.999...

You mean "mainstream" as opposed to fringe.


so far we have the conventional value
1- 0.999... = 0
( this has been proved as calculated as and is generally accepted ~ as terminating at 0)

Not "conventional", mainstream.

then we have
1-999... - 1/infinity
this is solution requires mixing mathematical systems and a chocolate out of the box perhaps...:) ~ as non-terminating on both sides.

No, "we don't have", only fringers do.

then we have

1-999...= "non-existent"

We "don't have" this either, it doesn't exist in mainstream math.
 
Originally people were arguing that $$0.\bar{9}\neq1$$. As an occasional teacher, I've run into that misconception often.

Then MD argued that $$0.\bar{3}\neq\frac{1}{3}$$. I'd never run into that one before, but according to Tach's Wikipedia link, apparently it's a semi-common thing.

Sigh, and no amount of rigorous counterproof will convince them.
 
In another thread we have the ongoing discussion of a number system [Reals] considering :

0.999... = 1 [which is currently held as a valid equation - of which the Systemic Validity is NOT in dispute]

This appears to be primarily true for this system due to the fact that it considers the following concerning the limitations in the use of infinity.



On the surface this appears to be fine.. In fact it makes a lot of sense that infinite numbers of decimal places expanding to smaller and smaller values would ultimately resolve to being smaller in magnitude to "ANY" finite number.

1] Is "being of less magnitude to any finite number" actually equal to zero?
2] Is it an "effective" or pseudo zero, borne of mathematical or systemic convenience?
3] At what point would "finite" become non-finite and how could this be determined?

Also possibly worth discussing is that:
0.999.... is actually referencing the whole number 1 as a primary source of value, which in turn is referencing zero as a way of gaining value.
after all is not 0.999.... stating a condition of 1?

How does the fact that 0.999... as being a condition of the number 1 effect the reality of 0.999... = 1?

Example: 1 - 0.999... = 1

Needless to say there are many ways of looking at this issue and I am sure you guys/gals can think of a few more...

I am of the opinion that this a more a discussion about the philosophy that underpins mathematical formulations and forms than mathematics directly.

Care to discuss?

Chocolate was what I expected but still, nice thing.
 
You mean "mainstream" as opposed to fringe.




Not "conventional", mainstream.



No, "we don't have", only fringers do.



We "don't have" this either, it doesn't exist in mainstream math.
Do you always repeat what I already wrote or is it just on this occasion?
This is a philosophical thread dealing with the philosophy underpinning mathematics approach to this issue of 0.999...= 1

Perhaps you have a philosophical contribution to share in support of your specialty and demonstrate you actual understanding of what you specialize in.
 
Do you always repeat what I already wrote or is it just on this occasion?

I don't repeat, I point out your errors one by one. The fact that you keep repeating them ad nauseaum triggers the repetition of disproofs.

This is a philosophical thread dealing with the philosophy underpinning mathematics approach to this issue of 0.999...= 1

More like a fringe thread. Wiki characterizes this persistent misconceptions quite well, you should read it.

Perhaps you have a philosophical contribution to share in support of your specialty and demonstrate you actual understanding of what you specialize in.

I did, I proved that $$0.(9)=1$$.
 
Just to add,
at age 25 Kurt. F.Godel (1906/78) made incredible philosophical proposition:
Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250).
re:First incompleteness theorem - wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

Maybe discussion on this philosophical statement and how it was proved in Mathematics to be founded has some relevance here in this thread.
Especially how it relates to the liars paradox and what that means to science , logic and sound reasoning.
 
the BIG question though that you need to ask to solve this impasse is :
IF 1 is greater than 0.999.... how much greater is it?

Motor Daddy,
What do you think is the solution to 1 - 0.(9) ?

And if you finally arrive at zero using the conventional mathematics system you will find that 1 = 0.999...

so far we have the conventional and mainstream accepted solution.
1- 0.999... = 0
(this has been proved as calculated as and is generally accepted ~ as terminating at 0)
then we have
1-999... - 1/infinity
this is solution requires mixing mathematical systems and a chocolate out of the box perhaps...:) ~ as non-terminating on both sides.

then we have

1-999...= "non-existent"
which is another version of the same thing but with a more material application. IMO ~ as non-terminating on only one side and non-existent on the other

so MD, which would you choose [if any] and why?
What does
1 - 0.999... =
to you?

You are trying to subtract a non-finite quantity from a finite quantity and expecting to get a finite answer? 1.0 is a whole and .(9) is a percentage of a whole (fraction of a whole).

It's impossible to split an object into 3 equal pieces! At least one of the three pieces has to be different than the other two, they are NOT equal!
 
I don't repeat, I point out your errors one by one. The fact that you keep repeating them ad nauseaum triggers the repetition of disproofs.



More like a fringe thread. Wiki characterizes this persistent misconceptions quite well, you should read it.



I did, I proved that $$0.(9)=1$$.

no you didn't, you only used what others have done and claimed it as your own....
You personally have proved nothing...except that you can use other work by rote.
 
You are trying to subtract a non-finite quantity from a finite quantity and expecting to get a finite answer? 1.0 is a whole and .(9) is a percentage of a whole (fraction of a whole).

It's impossible to split an object into 3 equal pieces! At least one of the three pieces has to be different than the other two, they are NOT equal!
oh, there are many that would agree with you simply on the basis of logic...the use of mathematical limits when working with infinities is due to what reason after all, other than to quantify the unquantifiable, to define the undefinable and to terminate the un-terminatable. IMO [so I do agree with you..essentially]
"to make the infinite finite"
This is why I trend to philosophically believe that

1-0.999... = 1/infinity
As neither side of the equation is terminating and therefore a more natural and intuitive approach to the nature of infinity.
The above is philosophy and not calculation. This is evaluation, using logic that transcends the finite systematization of infinite concepts.

Logically there is no dispute over

1-0.999... = 1/infinity
IMHO
 
Really? In 8-th grade they teach you how to inscribe an equilateral triangle in a circle. This means that you either haven't taken that class yet or that you flunked it.

So if the triangle has an area of 100 sq. in. and you divide the triangle into pieces of 33.(3) sq. in., how many pieces do you have?
 
Back
Top