Posers and Puzzles

Posers and Puzzles

  1. Joined
    29 Feb '04
    Moves
    22
    25 Jun '04 21:41
    YES or NO?

    .
  2. Standard memberCribs
    Moderately Offensive
    Account suspended
    Joined
    14 Oct '03
    Moves
    28590
    25 Jun '04 22:26
    Originally posted by THUDandBLUNDER
    YES or NO?

    .
    Yes. Of course it does.

    Cribs
  3. Standard memberopsoccergurl11
    rockin soccer kid
    over there
    Joined
    09 Jun '04
    Moves
    3002
    25 Jun '04 22:58
    well, by algebra,

    if .999999=x, then
    9.999999=10x
    and 9=9x after you subtract the two equations
    when you divide by 9, you get 1=x

    so, i just stated x=.99999999 and x=1 by just modifying the original equation
  4. Joined
    29 Feb '04
    Moves
    22
    26 Jun '04 11:41
    Sorry, I hadn't realized that I have posted this question before.

    😕

    .
  5. Standard memberopsoccergurl11
    rockin soccer kid
    over there
    Joined
    09 Jun '04
    Moves
    3002
    26 Jun '04 14:21
    well, i didnt kno that....i enjoyed it if it make u feel good
  6. Standard memberTheMaster37
    Kupikupopo!
    Out of my mind
    Joined
    25 Oct '02
    Moves
    20443
    26 Jun '04 15:40
    0.999... = 9*0.111... = 9* 1/9 = 1
  7. Zeist, Holland
    Joined
    11 Sep '03
    Moves
    19337
    28 Jun '04 07:29
    Originally posted by TheMaster37
    0.999... = 9*0.111... = 9* 1/9 = 1
    Ah, but why is 0.111... = 1/9? You get that by the same argument as that 0.999... = 1. So this is nothing new.
  8. Joined
    29 Feb '04
    Moves
    22
    28 Jun '04 08:52
    Originally posted by piderman
    Ah, but why is 0.111... = 1/9? You get that by the same argument as that 0.999... = 1. So this is nothing new.

    Good point. So what should we do now Piderman? 😀

  9. DonationAcolyte
    Now With Added BA
    Loughborough
    Joined
    04 Jul '02
    Moves
    3790
    28 Jun '04 10:531 edit
    Here's an analytical approach. Consider the following statement:

    (*) "For every real number, there is a larger whole number."

    Suppose this is true. Then for every positive real number, we can find a whole number n such that 1/n is smaller (and so is 1/m for m>n). Now (1 - 0.999...) is the limit of the sequence 1, 1/10, 1/100, 1/1000, .... This can't converge to a positive limit, because if it converged to say x, there'd be some n for which 1/n was less than x/2, so after a certain point in the sequence everything would be x/2 or more away from the limit, which is absurd. The limit can't be negative for a similar reason. So either the limit is 0, in which case 0.999... = 1, or the limit doesn't exist, in which case 0.999... is not well defined.

    On the other hand, suppose (*) is false. Then 1 - 0.999... could in fact be 1/T, where T is a number larger than any whole number. I'm not going to do so here, but apparently this T can be defined in a sufficiently rigourous way that arithmetic can be performed on it. This gives rise to 'non-standard analysis' which allows for the existence of both infinitely large and infinitely small numbers.
  10. Shadow Realm
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    360
    24 Aug '04 20:491 edit
    0.9999... cannot be expressed by the value 9/9 because 9/9 = 1. 1 is not = to 0.9999... Therefore, since it cannot be reduced to an interger fraction, it is an irrational numbar, but it is not 1. This is not an algebra problem, but a simple pondering of the postulates.
  11. Joined
    08 Dec '03
    Moves
    3140
    24 Aug '04 21:102 edits
    Originally posted by yamiyokaze
    0.9999... cannot be expressed by the value 9/9 because 9/9 = 1.
    This assertion is immediately refuted by evaluating the fraction 1/9. This ratio is obviously equal to 0.111...

    Multiplying by 2:

    2/9 = 2 x 0.111... = 0.222...

    Multiplying by 9:

    9/9 = 9 x 0.111... = 0.999... = 1.000...

    Yes, I realize that this exact argument has been used in an earlier post.

    -Ray.
  12. Sheffield
    Joined
    09 Sep '03
    Moves
    7644
    25 Aug '04 09:14
    Originally posted by yamiyokaze
    0.9999... cannot be expressed by the value 9/9 because 9/9 = 1.
    This implies that each number has a unique decimal expansion, which is not true.

    The best way to explain that 0.999... = 1 (IMHO) is by contradiction:
    Suppose 0.999 ... does not equal 1.
    Then there exists some number ? > 0 such that
    |1 - 0.999...| > ?
    But there is no such ? so |1 - 0.999...| = 0, i.e. 1 = 0.999...
  13. DonationAcolyte
    Now With Added BA
    Loughborough
    Joined
    04 Jul '02
    Moves
    3790
    25 Aug '04 09:421 edit
    Originally posted by yamiyokaze
    0.9999... cannot be expressed by the value 9/9 because 9/9 = 1. 1 is not = to 0.9999... Therefore, since it cannot be reduced to an interger fraction, it is an irrational numbar, but it is not 1. This is not an algebra problem, but a simple pondering of the postulates.
    You're right that it isn't an algebra problem; it's an analytical one. opsoccergurl's answer is the best you can do with algebra alone, but that assumes you can multiply recurring decimals like any other number. You can, but to prove this it is necessary to assume/ensure that the reals don't have any holes in them. Most of the other algebraic arguments proposed go round in circles.

    If 0.999... is not 1, then since 1 - 0.999... is not 0, it isn't real, either. The approach from there that causes least damage is to declare 1 - 0.999... to be surreal, and by implication 0.999... is surreal as well. I can see no way in which 0.999... can be real and irrational, unless you accept that the reals are no longer closed under addition, a troubling prospect.
  14. Joined
    26 Apr '03
    Moves
    26533
    25 Aug '04 12:043 edits
    like opssoccergurl said:

    0.99999... = x
    multiply by 10
    9.99999... = 10x
    subtract one equation from the other
    9 = 9x
    divide by 9
    1 = x
    substitute for x in the original equation
    0.99999.... = 1

    no need for evaluation of 0.1111111 or consideration of real numbers or anything like that
  15. Joined
    26 Aug '04
    Moves
    316
    27 Aug '04 04:48
    no
Back to Top