Tach said:But "we" don't. For good reason.
We do though. 0 = 0.0 = 00.00 = ... = (0)*.(0)*.
We don't write leading zeros, and we don't write trailing zeros for finite numbers, but they're still there.
Tach said:But "we" don't. For good reason.
We do though. 0 = 0.0 = 00.00 = ... = (0)*.(0)*.
We don't write leading zeros, and we don't write trailing zeros for finite numbers, but they're still there.
Now you're just being stupid.Tach said:No, no one in his right mind writes leading zeroes. For good reason, for ANY numbers.
...
No, no one in his right mind writes leading zeroes. For good reason, for ANY numbers.
But this is not the original debate, this is just a diversion from the original debate. The original debate was caused by the insertion of zeroes to the right of the decimal point, remember? This new thing with "leading zeroes" is just another one of Undefined's diversions when he's shown to be wrong, so why do you play into his hand?
Now you're just being stupid.
Are you really sure that 9.0 is not equal to 09.0, or 009.0, or perhaps it's not equal to 0009.0000 either? Are you saying writing a number that way means you aren't "in your right mind"?
Read in full context so far please, Tach.
If you write a decimal FRACTION string value for the ratio 9/10 measurement/analytical 'result', you can write .9 or 0.9 or .90 or .900 or etc, depending on what 'accuracy/precision' of measurement result/process you wish to convey to whomever reads that 'value' result of that measurement 'degree of precision/accuracy' applied by the measurement/analytical method/construct. Yes?
And when you write a decimal FRACTIONAL string value for a ratio 9/100 'measurement result', you can write .09 or 0.09 or .090 or 0.090 or 0.0900 or etc, again for conveying the degree of measurement precision accuracy and value employed to arrive at that fractional result. Yes?
Now, do you see the importance of the ACTIVE leading 0 when the decimal fractional string MUST include the LEADING ZERO in order to make the value 9/100ths in decimal format?
Do you see that if you left out that leading 0, it would be 9/10ths! not 9/100ths value. Different values when leading zeros are written in for the decimal fractional string values, yes?
Nope, what you write is 0.9. You have to live with the facts.
Nope, normal people write 0.09. OK, mate?
Undefined said:Now, more importantly, do you see the crucial role of the ACTIVE leading 0 when the decimal fractional string MUST include the LEADING ZERO in order to make the value 9/100ths in decimal format?
There isn't any, mate.
But this is not the original debate, this is just a diversion from the original debate. The original debate was caused by the insertion of zeroes to the right of the decimal point, remember? This new thing with "leading zeroes" is just another one of your diversions when you've been shown to be wrong, get it, mate?
In that (my red highlighting) response from you above, you effectively assert that when writing 0.09 there is no leading zero to distinguish that from 0.9 ??!!
I only made the point that although we don't "normally" write leading zeros to the left of significant digits or trailing zeros to the right of fractions, they're still "there".Tach said:What I objected to is your singing the same tune as Undefined. Maybe you two are not so different after all.
I only made the point that although we don't "normally" write leading zeros to the left of significant digits or trailing zeros to the right of fractions, they're still "there".
It's a valid, if somewhat trivial matter.
So where does "singing the same tune" as Undefined come from? Your desperate need to put other people down?
Which has no real bearing on the mathematics, since 0 = 00 = 000 = ..., is true regardless of what people do in practice.Tach said:...and I pointed out that no one does that , in practice.
So you're still claiming that 0.d has a string of zeros extending infinitely to the right? Of what, may I ask?It comes from getting things initially right and then switching your tune to his tune after he "corrected" you.
So you're still claiming that 0.d has a string of zeros extending infinitely to the right? Of what, may I ask?
They extend to the right of the decimal point, of course.Tach said:Let's try again: when you multiplied 0.9 with and you obtained 0.009, in what direction did the zeroes extend from the decimal point?
No, no one in his right mind writes leading zeroes. For good reason, for ANY numbers.
They extend to the right of the decimal point, of course.
But since I was referring to the single zero on the left of the decimal point, my corrected statement stands, and Undefined was also therefore correct to point out the mistake I made. You're flogging a dead horse.
I can think of a number of instances where this is untrue, and here's one:
Windows, when it sorts files by name, sorts them alphabetically so if you have the following list:
File 1, File 2, File 3, File 4, File 5, File 6, File 7, File 8, File 9, File 10, File 11, File 12, File 13, File 14, File 15, File 16, File 17, File 18, File 19, File 20, File 21, File 22, File 23, File 24, File 25.
Windows sorts it thusly:
File 1, File 10, File 11, File 12, File 13, File 14, File 15, File 16, File 17, File 18, File 19, File 2, File 20, File 21, File 22, File 23, File 24, File 25, File 3, File 4, File 5, File 6, File 7, File 8, File 9.
Because that is the correct way of sorting files alphabetically. The only way to get around this is to use leading zeroes. If you do it thusly:
File 01, File 02, File 03, File 04, File 05, File 06, File 07, File 08, File 09, File 10, File 11, File 12, File 13, File 14, File 15, File 16, File 17, File 18, File 19, File 20, File 21, File 22, File 23, File 24, File 25.
If you've got 1000 files, then you need to start with 0001 - the point here being that when it comes to the purposes of sorting, leading zeroes can become significant. Something that, I imagine, is going to stick in your craw as much as it will Undefineds.
Tach said:Let's try a simple exercise. Start with 0.n
1. Multiply be $$10^{-1}$$. You get 0.0n, right? In what direction from the decimal point did zero propagate? (hint: you were taught the answer in 5-th grade)
2. Multiply again by $$10^{-1}$$. You get 0.00n, right? In what direction from the decimal point did zero propagate?
We were talking arithmetic, as in multiplying with $$10^{-n}$$ , not file naming conventions. Did you miss that?
But this is about zeros on the right of the decimal point, not the left.
The 0 in 0.9 is still equivalent to an infinite string of zeros, and my corrected statement still stands.
Nope. But tell me something.
How many significant figures are there in 0.00052?