Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Is it true that 1 = 0.999...? And Exactly Why or Why Not?

Yes, 1 = 0.999...
9
33%
No, 1 ≠ 0.999...
14
52%
Other
4
15%
 
Total votes : 27

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby James S Saint » Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:28 pm

phyllo wrote:Then there must be a number such that 2x is infinite but x is not infinite. What is that number?

In the simple minded math model, if a number is infinite, there is no definition for 2 times that number, 2 times infinite.
Carleas wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Not if x is infinitely large

Are there infinitely large natural numbers?

Carleas, of course there are. But wake up. It doesn't matter if the x is a natural number. What matters is that x is potentially infinite. And worse, you depend upon it being potentially infinite in order to satisfy your bijection function.

Then because x is potentially infinite, 2x+1 is undefined.

What is the limit as x goes to infinity for:
    A) x?
    B) 2x?
    C) 2x+1?

Carleas wrote:
James S Saint wrote:There is no bijection between P and N.

Assuming you mean your original definition of P (since I agree there's no bijection between a set of 2 elements and an infinite set), there is, the one I provided, the one for which you can't point to an element that isn't mapped.

And that is BS. Any and every set has subsets. That doesn't mean that its size is merely the number of subsets.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby Carleas » Thu Jun 01, 2017 3:08 pm

James S Saint wrote:Carleas, of course there are [natural numbers >\(\infty\)]...What matters is that x [a natural number] is potentially infinite...

James, you can define whatever math you want, but your position is confusing when you redefine commonly used terms for your uncommon meanings. There's nothing inherently wrong with defining a set that includes both the counting numbers and also some set of infinite numbers, but it seems willfully confusing to call that the "natural numbers". The natural number, as that term is commonly used, are understood to be closed under multiplication and addition, and don't include any infinite numbers.
James S Saint wrote:That doesn't mean that its size is merely the number of subsets.

Again, a set that is an element of a set is not necessarily a subset of that set. Those are different things. Similar to the above, you're confusingly using common words in this weird Jamesian math that doesn't seem necessary or valuable.

So it's pretty clear now that we aren't even talking about the same sets or operations or anything, because you've been using common words in uncommon ways and you don't actually mean to say what a reasonable person with a background in math would understand you to be saying. Awesome. 1 = 0.999... in math, but maybe not in math\(_J\).
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5675
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby phyllo » Thu Jun 01, 2017 3:11 pm

phyllo wrote:
Then there must be a number such that 2x is infinite but x is not infinite. What is that number?


In the simple minded math model, if a number is infinite, there is no definition for 2 times that number, 2 times infinite.
Did you not read my post correctly? I specifically said that X IS NOT INFINITE but 2X IS INFINITE because 2x is larger than x.

What I'm reading in your posts is that there is a range of finite x when 2x is finite and there is a range of finite x when 2x is infinite and a third range when both x and 2x are infinite.

You should be able to identify the values of x at the transitions.
Then because x is potentially infinite, 2x+1 is undefined.
Then you are saying that every function is undefined in the natural, integer, real and complex number systems.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10905
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby phyllo » Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:00 pm

BTW, is f(x)= 1*x also a function which is "undefined"? :lol:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10905
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby James S Saint » Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:40 am

Carleas wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Carleas, of course there are [natural numbers >\(\infty\)]...What matters is that x [a natural number] is potentially infinite...

James, you can define whatever math you want, but your position is confusing when you redefine commonly used terms for your uncommon meanings. There's nothing inherently wrong with defining a set that includes both the counting numbers and also some set of infinite numbers, but it seems willfully confusing to call that the "natural numbers". The natural number, as that term is commonly used, are understood to be closed under multiplication and addition, and don't include any infinite numbers.

The set of natural numbers is infinite. The SET is infinite. And that means that the natural numbers extend infinitely. And when you assign "x" to represent every natural number, the RANGE of x is infinite. And that makes the range of 2x to be 2 * infinite - undefined.


Carleas wrote:
James S Saint wrote:That doesn't mean that its size is merely the number of subsets.

Again, a set that is an element of a set is not necessarily a subset of that set. Those are different things. Similar to the above, you're confusingly using common words in this weird Jamesian math that doesn't seem necessary or valuable.

Again, BS.

Give me an example of a subset that is an element of a set S yet is not a subset of that same set S. Every element in every set is a "subset" of at least size 1 (not that such is relevant in this issue).

Carleas wrote:So it's pretty clear now that we aren't even talking about the same sets or operations or anything, because you've been using common words in uncommon ways and you don't actually mean to say what a reasonable person with a background in math would understand you to be saying. Awesome. 1 = 0.999... in math, but maybe not in math\(_J\).

No, what is pretty clear is that you wish to lie about me making up definitions so as to escape the fact that you erred.

phyllo wrote:Did you not read my post correctly? I specifically said that X IS NOT INFINITE but 2X IS INFINITE because 2x is larger than x.

No single number is infinite. Sets or ranges can be infinite. The numbers aren't. A number can't be endless (except for those damn "0.333..." and "0.999..." type "numbers" that aren't really numbers).

phyllo wrote:What I'm reading in your posts is that there is a range of finite x when 2x is finite and there is a range of finite x when 2x is infinite and a third range when both x and 2x are infinite.

No. As long as the range of x is finite, 2x will also be finite. And when the range of x is infinite, 2x is undefined.

Now Carleas, answer my question:
James S Saint wrote:What is the limit as x goes to infinity for:
A) x?
B) 2x?
C) 2x+1?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby Carleas » Fri Jun 02, 2017 1:56 pm

James S Saint wrote:Give me an example of a [set] that is an element of a set S yet is not a subset of that same set S.

Happy to: Lets say S is the set of all finite sets. In that case, the set T = {A,triangle,3} is an element of S. However, A, triangle, and 3 aren't elements of S, because they aren't sets. So T is an element of S, but it isn't a subset of S because the elements of T aren't elements of S.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5675
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby phyllo » Fri Jun 02, 2017 2:06 pm

phyllo wrote:
Did you not read my post correctly? I specifically said that X IS NOT INFINITE but 2X IS INFINITE because 2x is larger than x.


No single number is infinite. Sets or ranges can be infinite. The numbers aren't. A number can't be endless (except for those damn "0.333..." and "0.999..." type "numbers" that aren't really numbers).

phyllo wrote:
What I'm reading in your posts is that there is a range of finite x when 2x is finite and there is a range of finite x when 2x is infinite and a third range when both x and 2x are infinite.


No. As long as the range of x is finite, 2x will also be finite. And when the range of x is infinite, 2x is undefined.
Okay, so you just said that there are no infinite numbers. Therefore, no problem with the functions as used by Carleas. The fact that a range is "countably infinite" does not mean that it contains any infinite numbers.

Good, we can move on. 8)
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10905
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby James S Saint » Fri Jun 02, 2017 3:03 pm

Carleas wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Give me an example of a [set] that is an element of a set S yet is not a subset of that same set S.

Happy to: Lets say S is the set of all finite sets. In that case, the set T = {A,triangle,3} is an element of S. However, A, triangle, and 3 aren't elements of S, because they aren't sets. So T is an element of S, but it isn't a subset of S because the elements of T aren't elements of S.

They ARE sets. They are sets with size = 1.
:icon-rolleyes:


phyllo wrote:
phyllo wrote:
Did you not read my post correctly? I specifically said that X IS NOT INFINITE but 2X IS INFINITE because 2x is larger than x.


No single number is infinite. Sets or ranges can be infinite. The numbers aren't. A number can't be endless (except for those damn "0.333..." and "0.999..." type "numbers" that aren't really numbers).

phyllo wrote:
What I'm reading in your posts is that there is a range of finite x when 2x is finite and there is a range of finite x when 2x is infinite and a third range when both x and 2x are infinite.


No. As long as the range of x is finite, 2x will also be finite. And when the range of x is infinite, 2x is undefined.
Okay, so you just said that there are no infinite numbers. Therefore, no problem with the functions as used by Carleas. The fact that a range is "countably infinite" does not mean that it contains any infinite numbers.

There certainly is a problem with his f(x).

For his f(x) to be a complete bijection function between P and N, the x must represent the entire endless set of natural numbers. That alone would be fine. The variable x being endless isn't an issue alone, but the fact is that his function contains a term "2x+1", which must represent twice endless plus one.

"Twice endless plus one" is a meaningless term unless you are in the hyperreals, or at least in logically sound math.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby Carleas » Fri Jun 02, 2017 5:15 pm

James S Saint wrote:They ARE sets. They are sets with size = 1.

You're being pedantic, but since I truly believe you can't come up with an example on your own, I'll humor you:

Let S be the set of infinite sets, and A is the set of natural numbers. A is a element of S, but not a subset, because e.g. 1 is not a member of S.

James S Saint wrote:The variable x being endless isn't an issue alone, but the fact is that his function contains a term "2x+1"

I note that you haven't responded to Phyllo's point that, were this true, all functions on the natural numbers, integers, real numbers, or complex numbers would be similarly undefined.

Again, it's math\(_J\), not math.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5675
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby James S Saint » Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:07 pm

Carleas wrote:
James S Saint wrote:They ARE sets. They are sets with size = 1.

You're being pedantic, but since I truly believe you can't come up with an example on your own, I'll humor you:

Let S be the set of infinite sets, and A is the set of natural numbers. A is a element of S, but not a subset, because e.g. 1 is not a member of S.

I am merely being accurate and you are trying to make excuses.



Carleas wrote:
James S Saint wrote:The variable x being endless isn't an issue alone, but the fact is that his function contains a term "2x+1"

I note that you haven't responded to Phyllo's point that, were this true, all functions on the natural numbers, integers, real numbers, or complex numbers would be similarly undefined.

Again, it's math\(_J\), not math.

I responded by clarifying the issue (which you will eternally deny, of course).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby Carleas » Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:35 pm

James S Saint wrote:I am merely being accurate...

Are we now clear on the distinction between an element that is a set and a subset?

James S Saint wrote:I responded by clarifying the issue

Is an acknowledgement that there is an issue? Do you have a resolution to the issue?

The reasons you've provided why no non-trivial function that operates on the natural numbers can be defined also apply to all functions on the integers, real numbers, and complex numbers. You've ruled out the possibility of functions. Math\(_J\).
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5675
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby James S Saint » Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:40 pm

Carleas wrote:
James S Saint wrote:I am merely being accurate...

Are we now clear on the distinction between an element that is a set and a subset?

James S Saint wrote:I responded by clarifying the issue

Is an acknowledgement that there is an issue? Do you have a resolution to the issue?

..merely your senseless distraction attempts. You seem to be just babbling now.

Carleas wrote:The reasons you've provided why no non-trivial function that operates on the natural numbers can be defined also apply to all functions on the integers, real numbers, and complex numbers. You've ruled out the possibility of functions. Math\(_J\).

No one asked me to provide a non-trivial function that operates on the natural numbers ... that is the only reason.

And no. I have "ruled out" nothing but undefined infinity references, primarily "2x+1 wherein x is potentially infinite".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby phyllo » Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:50 pm

And no. I have "ruled out" nothing but undefined infinity references, primarily "2x+1 wherein x is potentially infinite".
In one post, there are no infinite numbers, then next post, there are potentially infinite numbers and then next post ...
:icon-rolleyes:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10905
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby James S Saint » Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:55 pm

phyllo wrote:
And no. I have "ruled out" nothing but undefined infinity references, primarily "2x+1 wherein x is potentially infinite".
In one post, there are no infinite numbers, then next post, there are potentially infinite numbers and then next post ...
:icon-rolleyes:

Again, each number can never be infinite. The range must be infinite in order to satisfy the bijection. But when that range is infinite, the range for "2x+1" is undefined.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby Carleas » Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:04 pm

James S Saint wrote:..merely your senseless distraction attempts. You seem to be just babbling now.

This is fascinating. You aren't claiming that sets that are elements are the same as subsets anymore, but you won't acknowledge the distinction either.

I agree this line of discussion is a bit off topic (though it came up in trying to understand the sets you were trying to construct), but it's troubling that you can't acknowledge even this.

James S Saint wrote:"2x+1 wherein x is potentially infinite".

1) x is always a finite number (because all natural numbers are finite),
2) if x is a natural number, 2x+1 is also a natural number (because the natural numbers are closed on multiplication and division, and 1 and 2 are natural numbers);
3) your reasoning applies to all functions on the natural numbers, integers, real numbers, and complex numbers.

James S Saint wrote:when that range is infinite, the range for "2x+1" is undefined.

Hey look, a math\(_J\) theorem!

In regular math, nothing follows from range\(_J\).
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5675
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby James S Saint » Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:19 am

Carleas wrote:
James S Saint wrote:"2x+1 wherein x is potentially infinite".

1) x is always a finite number (because all natural numbers are finite),
2) if x is a natural number, 2x+1 is also a natural number (because the natural numbers are closed on multiplication and division, and 1 and 2 are natural numbers);
3) your reasoning applies to all functions on the natural numbers, integers, real numbers, and complex numbers.

Well okay, let's pretend for a while that your reasoning makes logical sense.

P is the set of natural numbers plus an "a", plus another set of natural numbers. And by your analysis, merely the natural numbers alone will match "one-for-one" to all of those numbers (merely because you can come up with a magic confounding formula that makes it seem rational, despite the obvious flaw).

So okay, your x function is going to match, one-for-one, each and every natural number, the letter "a", and also another set of natural numbers. So what is the total, from 1 to whatever, range of x"?


Forgiving that you have refused to answer my prior questions:
James S Saint wrote:What is the limit as x goes to infinity for:
A) x?
B) 2x?
C) 2x+1?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby Carleas » Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:57 am

James S Saint wrote:what is the total, from 1 to whatever, [range\(_J\)] of x"?

The domain of x is the set P, so x can be any element of P. I don't know how your invented concept handles 'a'. I do know that x is never infinity: the domain is infinite, it does not include infinity. Setting aside the definitional problem, and that nothing follows from range\(_J\), one can express the natural numbers as an interval, [1,\(\infty\)), where a square bracket is inclusive and the parenthesis is exclusive.


The limits are all infinity. They are all irrelevant here; a bijection is not a limit.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5675
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby fergusrush » Sat Jun 03, 2017 3:02 pm

James S Saint wrote:
phyllo wrote:Why sum an infinite number of numbers when you only need to sum 9?

1/9+1/9+1/9+1/9+1/9+1/9+1/9+1/9+1/9=1

Represented in decimal form :

.111_ + .111_ ... = .999_ and also = 1

That's it in a nutshell. No infinite series required. KISS

But is it really?
... not really.


You are still using infinite series here; you have substituted nine of them for the original one.
There is no controversy here: the equation 0.999999.....= 1 merely demonstrates that the two "numbers" are different representations of the same thing. The notion of the sum of an infinite series is sound; the problem is that we have difficulty wrapping our minds around the concept that it NEVER ends. We tend to "feel" that the decimal will always be smaller if only to some very minute amount but, of course, that would only be true if the decimal truncated at some far distant point.
fergusrush
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 2:51 pm

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby James S Saint » Sat Jun 03, 2017 4:34 pm

Carleas wrote:
James S Saint wrote:what is the total, from 1 to whatever, [range\(_J\)] of x"?

The domain of x is the set P, so x can be any element of P.

You can only speculate that it is P. I ask you for the RANGE because you determine the range of your own variables.

But obviously you are afraid of the word "range".


Carleas wrote:
James S Saint wrote:What is the limit as x goes to infinity for:
A) x?
B) 2x?
C) 2x+1?


The limits are all infinity.

So as x goes to infinity in your math\(_C\), x converges with both 2x and also 2x+1. An interesting trick. Can you show us the convergence function for that?

And that means that all 3 have the range of x, the natural numbers. So after pairing to all of N, the set A is left out, unpaired, or alternatively, the second half of both sets N and A are left unpaired as well as "a".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby MagsJ » Sun Jun 04, 2017 5:14 pm

Newly approved post:
fergusrush wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
phyllo wrote:Why sum an infinite number of numbers when you only need to sum 9?

1/9+1/9+1/9+1/9+1/9+1/9+1/9+1/9+1/9=1

Represented in decimal form :

.111_ + .111_ ... = .999_ and also = 1

That's it in a nutshell. No infinite series required. KISS

But is it really?
... not really.


You are still using infinite series here; you have substituted nine of them for the original one.
There is no controversy here: the equation 0.999999.....= 1 merely demonstrates that the two "numbers" are different representations of the same thing. The notion of the sum of an infinite series is sound; the problem is that we have difficulty wrapping our minds around the concept that it NEVER ends. We tend to "feel" that the decimal will always be smaller if only to some very minute amount but, of course, that would only be true if the decimal truncated at some far distant point.
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17544
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby Meno_ » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:37 pm

You are implying that a conceptual infinity is unverifiable, but does not mean it is inconceivable, right? Which is pretty much an equivocal but uncertain proposition inasfar as muting the question as to whether, there IS infinity, or not, UNTIL which time that it can be verified.

Let's say, the looking glass of the future discloses a technologically advanced age, where the technical requirements are far in excess of anything which could possibly be imagined today, such as .99999 to the 1000th power specified in some kind of ultra tech , time travel machine, requiring the use of material made up of ultra stress potential, to withstand the tremendous forces incurred in time travel.

Here it would be within 1/0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 of differential of a functional variable, and possibly with no end in sight. Does this not bring the idea of a continuation of this difference between the sum of the parts to be as split between 1 and and 1-.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999?

Until that future time, is it safe to say that the answer to infinity as an open system is closed?

The answer could be yes, only if the answer is based on a probable set. Is there any legitimacy in any case, one way or the other, to qualify a certainty before that time?
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3651
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby Meno_ » Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:59 pm

In the above example, .99999 was carried only to n=50 th decimal point, whereas n=1,000 was used in the narrative. How close does this come to what has been described as 'hyperreal', depends on the definition of what is considered to be 'real'.

The same kind of analysis can be used between limitless and limited functions, it is limitless until a limit is used. The difference between the two types of propositions, is the first is a quantifiable and the second is a qualifiable one.

The former uses numerical functional predecessors of at least .1, whereas the later uses the presumption of the sum of all partial differentiations=1 .

If presumption for the second is to hold water, then that set is inconclusive as to whether the sum can ever be assumed to be 1, because an infinity of .9's has to be assumed. The other kind of infinity only proposes, that in the function of n sequences of 9's, where n~infinity, there can not be any closing 0 number.

Therefore the proposition that n number of sequences of .9's where n=1~infinity, is only a linear real set, whereas the set described as a sum of all members of the set, where the same proposition leads to the sum of all the differentiated members of the set are not linear but differential.

The two types of sets are not differentiable by the way their functions are defined. The former function only points to linear succession , of a simple linear sequence of the type- x~x~~.....whereas the second involves the type- : the sum of the above =x+x+x......+x=1.

Hypothetically, a linear sequence, proposing nothing else then the ongoing sequential progression of a addition of a number which diminishes value by a set constant rate, does not imply a different(ial) function
that has a limit.

If that different function could be inferred, that would require the function limit the function into a real limit using real numbers. The problem with the difference between real and hyper real numbers are, that they can not be said to differ except , how their function , or use be relegated.

It is like saying, any differential value has a real based set, until that function becomes useless. But since derivatives can only be derived backwards, in terms of differentiating the useful from the useless, until that time to talk of useful functions makes no sens. But that is all that differentiation can do, it can not work forewards. Until that time, all math is merely intuitive.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3651
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby James S Saint » Mon Jun 05, 2017 5:23 am

fergusrush wrote:There is no controversy here: the equation 0.999999.....= 1 merely demonstrates that the two "numbers" are different representations of the same thing.

Yes, we have all read Wiki and heard from the priesthood. We know what we are supposed to believe to be the holy truth from above that our small minds are just too inept to conceive. But interestingly throughout history, in almost every case, the priesthood has turned out to be, if not entirely wrong, at least distorted and in need of correction .. which eventually comes after centuries of debates similar to this wherein the outsider is continually accused of being just too inept to see the greater wisdom of the holy enlightened priesthood.

Frankly, I prefer pure logic. And it seems that pure logic dictates that 1 and 0.999... are entirely different things, for several reasons.

fergusrush wrote:The notion of the sum of an infinite series is sound;

True.
fergusrush wrote: the problem is that we have difficulty wrapping our minds around the concept that it NEVER ends.

Some people do.
fergusrush wrote: We tend to "feel" that the decimal will always be smaller if only to some very minute amount but, of course, that would only be true if the decimal truncated at some far distant point.

That seems to be contradictory. Please believe that nothing that I am arguing has anything to do with "feelings" (other than attitudes towards certain obnoxious debaters).

The infinite series summations dictate that there is ALWAYS a smaller amount to be added (that is what "infinite" means) in the attempt to resolve the ratio of 1/3 into decimal form and the function that leads to 0.999.... It has nothing to do with what we poor mentally backward, decrepit souls "feel".

I would submit that those following their "feelings" rather than their rationality are those who out of hand, without a single rational argument, accept the holy preaching that 1 = 0.999... simply because "THEY say...". They are the ones thinking in terms of a truncation that isn't there, because only with a truncation can the series ever reach 1.0.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby phyllo » Mon Jun 05, 2017 2:38 pm

Frankly, I prefer pure logic. And it seems that pure logic dictates that 1 and 0.999... are entirely different things, for several reasons.
What's your position on this today? :-?

0.999... is not a fixed value? 0.999... is a fixed value but not equal to 1?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10905
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Postby James S Saint » Mon Jun 05, 2017 3:30 pm

phyllo wrote:
Frankly, I prefer pure logic. And it seems that pure logic dictates that 1 and 0.999... are entirely different things, for several reasons.
What's your position on this today? :-?

0.999... is not a fixed value? 0.999... is a fixed value but not equal to 1?

0.999... is not a quantity or fixed value. It is an endless series of diminishing decimal values. The ellipsis "..." means "infinitely" - "never ending". The decimals begin but never end - open ended. The fraction is never satisfied by the series.

1 is an obvious quantity and fixed value with a beginning and an obvious end.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users