.999... Equals exactly 1.

Status
Not open for further replies.
well there you go all an assumption by you and me. I believe in free will and you do not. Meanwhile here we are talking to each other, being ourselves...which is undefined.

I just explained, very briefly, why I don't believe in free-will. You then critique my statements by saying you believe otherwise? Please sir, explain your belief.
 
I believe.

thats my explanation.

But you aren't explaining why you believe. There IS a reason, tell me.

For example, many people believe in God. Why? Various reasons. Maybe they were brought up being told from day one that God exists. Or maybe one day they were perplexed when they asked themselves "where did all this come from?" Unable to supply a satisfactory explanation, they created a god in their own mind to deal with internal struggle. Another reason is that human, by nature, want to feel like they matter and they serve for some purpose other than themselves. For some people, this is being a devoted teacher. Some like working with sick children everyday. For a lot of people, it's being a part of God's "plan."

That's a brief explanation of why people believe in a god. Why do you believe free-will exists? Answers like "I just know" or "I can tell" are just restatements of the word "belief." Where is your logical path of reasoning?
 
'' "where did all this come from?" Unable to supply a satisfactory explanation, they created a god in their own mind to deal with internal struggle.''

... and then came relativity.

Relativity explains that nothing has a free-will. Everything that ever happens is somehow already written into space and time well before we consider it. Outside the realm of consciousness is found to be a spacetime arena which is infinite in character. It stretched from alpha to possible omega, and everything physical was all frozen in time. This means that it says that our entire histories are all alined out, frozen in time. Any choice we have, and action we do, say or hear, there are all actions in time that is acting as though it in all-time. This way, Einstein took it that everything was predetermined.
 
The mathematicians like everything absolute, like it is definite as a rock. The so called limit formula is the definition that implies that a limit to the .9999 to the infinite equals 1. This definition is self contradicting because INFINITY DOES NOT HAVE A LIMIT
Some infinities have properties that can be used to define a "limit" for them. They are bounded, say.

You do agree that an unbounded infinity is different from a bounded one ?
 
But you aren't explaining why you believe. There IS a reason, tell me.

For example, many people believe in God. Why? Various reasons. Maybe they were brought up being told from day one that God exists. Or maybe one day they were perplexed when they asked themselves "where did all this come from?" Unable to supply a satisfactory explanation, they created a god in their own mind to deal with internal struggle. Another reason is that human, by nature, want to feel like they matter and they serve for some purpose other than themselves. For some people, this is being a devoted teacher. Some like working with sick children everyday. For a lot of people, it's being a part of God's "plan."

That's a brief explanation of why people believe in a god. Why do you believe free-will exists? Answers like "I just know" or "I can tell" are just restatements of the word "belief." Where is your logical path of reasoning?

'Logical reasoning' is often a catchphrase for justifying what has already been decided upon.
 
Absane learned the definition, every book has it allright, every mathematician says it allright, well its all an assumption, its all based on an assumption that infinity does have a limit.
:wallbang:
That make absolutely no sense.


AND NO I DON'T PULL THIS STUFF OUT OF MY ASS: http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/625-2.html
:wallbang:
You have absolutely no idea of the point of this article, do you? It does not prove that photons have a non-zero mass. There is no way to experimentally prove that a photon's rest mass is identically zero because every physical measurement has some error. What an experiment can do is establish an upper bound (or "limit" as used in the vernacular) of the photon's rest mass. This experiment does exactly that by establishing an incredibly small upper bound on the photon's rest mass. This experiment provides yet more confirmation that the rest mass of a photon is zero.
 
:wallbang:
You have absolutely no idea of the point of this article, do you? It does not prove that photons have a non-zero mass. There is no way to experimentally prove that a photon's rest mass is identically zero because every physical measurement has some error. What an experiment can do is establish an upper bound (or "limit" as used in the vernacular) of the photon's rest mass. This experiment does exactly that by establishing an incredibly small upper bound on the photon's rest mass. This experiment provides yet more confirmation that the rest mass of a photon is zero.

how about you read what I said after that post made by me, before you denounce your superiority in math skills.
 
Boy, has this gone off topic.
Cardin, the "0.111..." in the original equation is the same as 1/9.
1/9 = 0.111...
so,
9/9 = 0.999...

Or if you like:
1/3 = 0.333...
so,
3/3 = 0.999...

I think of it in measurements.. if you have .99999999.... of an inch, it's NOT an inch.

So what's the difference between 0.999... inches and one inch?
What do you get if you subtract 0.999... from 1?

Now, draqon:
draqon said:
The so called limit formula is the definition that implies that a limit to the .9999 to the infinite equals 1. This definition is self contradicting because INFINITY DOES NOT HAVE A LIMIT
Infinity doesn't gave a limit, but 0.999... does. It is precisely because there is no limit to the number of 9's after the decimal point that we can say that there is no difference betwen 0.999... and 1.
 
'Logical reasoning' is often a catchphrase for justifying what has already been decided upon.

True. But, I didn't just "decide" that I don't believe it exists then try to justify it. Rather, I looked for explanations then came to a conclusion.
 
So what's the difference between 0.999... inches and one inch?
What do you get if you subtract 0.999... from 1?
That's the question that always gives 0.999...=1 deniers fits. If 0.999!=1, then according to both formal mathematics and simple intuitive logic there must be some number between them, some difference. They invariably don't have an answer for what that number might be.
 
Boy, has this gone off topic.
Cardin, the "0.111..." in the original equation is the same as 1/9.
1/9 = 0.111...
so,
9/9 = 0.999...

Or if you like:
1/3 = 0.333...
so,
3/3 = 0.999...



So what's the difference between 0.999... inches and one inch?

Well what you're doing here is comparing decimals and fractions, not the same thing..obviously. :D

.999 inches and one inch?

.1
 
Last edited:
Well what you're doing here is comparing decimals and fractions, not the same thing..obviously. :D
They are exactly the same thing. 0.111... is exactly 1/9.

[ The difference between ] .999 inches and one inch?

.111
Try again. The difference between one inch and 0.9 inches is 0.1 inches. Between one inch and 0.99 inches, 0.01 inches. Between one inch and 0.999 inches, 0.001 inches.That one shifts one place to the right for each added nine. In the limit, that one simply disappears. There is no such number as 0.000....1. The difference between one inch and 0.999... inches is zero inches, exactly.
 
Well what you're doing here is comparing decimals and fractions, not the same thing..obviously. :D
So if I asked you what $$0.5 - \frac{1}{2}$$ you not only couldn't give me an answer, you think it's not even a valid mathematical expression because "They are different things"?

That's like saying "Base 8 maths isn't really maths, because we all know there's 10 digits in mathematics!". No, it's a matter of convention. Fractions and decimals are different ways of expressing things. Though decimals are much nicer when you're not dealing with rationals (which are, pretty much by definition, the only things representable as fractions). Infact, some very clever mathematicians would argue that the Reals are the decimals.

That page and many others on Gowers' site should provide you with plenty to think about. He's very much like Bertrand Russell in his ability to explain things about mathematics, never mind the fact they are/were Cambridge maths professors in the same college.
 
Ok. I'm locking this thread because there is already another one discussing this issue.

You take a few days off and everything falls apart...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top