dcsimg
A Flash Developer Resource Site

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 66

Thread: If you want a headache at 12am

  1. #41
    Senior Member Dricciotti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,988
    This is the same as arguing whether 1 divided by infinity is equal to zero.

    I feel there is no right or wrong answer and it just depends on how you look at things and it depends on whether or not you think things like infinity and .999... are actual numbers or just mathamatical ideas that allow us to put a word to something that we cannot otherwise grasp.

    'Infinity' was invented by us as was infinitly repeating numbers. The purpose of it is to help us understand things like calculus and other mathamatical ideas and models that help us in turn understand the real world.

    I find it best to allow .9999... to equal 1 when it is needed to equal one and not get too hung up thinking about a number that doesnt even exist.

  2. #42
    sophisticated
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by yasunobu13
    What is the last piece? What does that mean? The question is does 0.999... = 1?
    no, it doesn't.

    the last "piece" is the last number in the infinite line of numbers. only adding this last piece you can have 1.

    read my example again, it very much proves that you can have 0.999... but unless you'll add the last "piece", it will never be 1 (and that is what he says, that you don't need the last "piece", that you're good without it.) Do you understand now?
    Quote Originally Posted by yasunobu13
    Do you agree that 0.999... is a specific number on the real line? If so, then all the proofs in those links I provided are all true.
    if 0.999... is a "specific number on the real line" (real line?) then I'm right and 0.999... != 1 since 1 is another number on that line.
    Quote Originally Posted by yasunobu13
    What specific part of the proofs do you disagree with or do not understand?
    if you'll not agree with me after this post, I'll start with his explanations.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by MechaPiano
    I'll start with his explanations.
    Forget everything from before. Start with this and tell me where the fallacy lies.

    A: 1/3 = 0.333... [by definition of division]

    B: 3 * (1/3) = 1 [by definition of multiplication and division]

    C: 3 * (0.333...) = 0.999... [by definition of multiplication]

    D: From A we have 1/3 = 0.333...
    Multiply both sides by 3

    E: 3 * (1/3) = 3 * (0.333...)

    F: From B we have 3 * (1/3) = 1
    Giving us 1 = 3 * (0.333...)

    G: From C we have 3 * (0.333...) = 0.999...
    Giving us 1 = 0.999...

  4. #44
    Senior Member dudeqwerty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Bosnia
    Posts
    1,626
    how can any of you argue with the mathmatical PROOF??
    New sig soon

  5. #45
    -_-
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,694
    Thanks for the headache.

  6. #46
    sophisticated
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by yasunobu13
    Forget everything from before. Start with this and tell me where the fallacy lies.

    A: 1/3 = 0.333... [by definition of division]

    B: 3 * (1/3) = 1 [by definition of multiplication and division]

    C: 3 * (0.333...) = 0.999... [by definition of multiplication]

    D: From A we have 1/3 = 0.333...
    Multiply both sides by 3

    E: 3 * (1/3) = 3 * (0.333...)

    F: From B we have 3 * (1/3) = 1
    Giving us 1 = 3 * (0.333...)

    G: From C we have 3 * (0.333...) = 0.999...
    Giving us 1 = 0.999...
    are you insane? how on Earth did you get 0.999... by multiplying 0.333... with 3? (and please don't tell me you used a regular calculator to do it)

    edit:
    just take a scientific calculator and first, divide 1 with 3 (you'll get 0.333...) and then multiply what you get with 3, you'll see that you'll have 1 (not 0.999...)
    Last edited by MechaPiano; 06-25-2006 at 03:01 PM.

  7. #47
    Senior Member dudeqwerty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Bosnia
    Posts
    1,626
    OMG do you know what rounding is? you must have a MASSIVE calculator if it can display an infinate number of decimal places!!!!!

    what seperates one number from another?

    all the numbers in-between.

    so if you have 0.9999 to an infinate number of decimal places then there is NO number between it and 1, this is because you cannot put the "last piece", as you call it, on the end, because there is still and infinate number of 9's to put before it!
    New sig soon

  8. #48
    sophisticated
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by dudeqwerty
    OMG do you know what rounding is? you must have a MASSIVE calculator if it can display an infinate number of decimal places!!!!!

    what seperates one number from another?

    all the numbers in-between.

    so if you have 0.9999 to an infinate number of decimal places then there is NO number between it and 1, this is because you cannot put the "last piece", as you call it, on the end, because there is still and infinate number of 9's to put before it!
    I hate to be mean, but we've been trough this - read from the start. you're off the point.

  9. #49
    Senior Member dudeqwerty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Bosnia
    Posts
    1,626
    Quote Originally Posted by MechaPiano
    I hate to be mean, but we've been trough this - read from the start. you're off the point.
    maybe, but im still right.

    what you said about "real line" (very basic maths) and what gerbic said about asymptotes/limits, is thinking about this in the wrong way.

    you are thinking, ok i have 0.9 thats quite close to 1, so if i add a "9" to the end i get 0.99, even closer to 1, but the number we are using here is 0.9999.. to infinate decimal places they are already there, you do not add them one-by-one, it is its own number.

    also you seem, from your last post, you are basing your argument on your use of a scientific calculator, computers round numbers of to avoid infinatly calculating answers.

    think of this using a proper mathmatics, like all the proofs that have been show, and use your brain, dont rely on graphical interpertations or calculators which have pretty big rounding errors,

    zlatan
    New sig soon

  10. #50
    Person called Chris chris-sharpe999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Somewhere over there.
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by MechaPiano
    are you insane? how on Earth did you get 0.999... by multiplying 0.333... with 3? (and please don't tell me you used a regular calculator to do it)

    edit:
    just take a scientific calculator and first, divide 1 with 3 (you'll get 0.333...) and then multiply what you get with 3, you'll see that you'll have 1 (not 0.999...)
    Thats because a scientific calculator recognises the equivilancy between 0.999... and 1, which is exactly the point he is trying to make.

    Would you accept that 3*(a+b)=3a + 3b?
    In which case you can treat o.333... as 0.3 + 0.03 + 0.003...
    Multiply each part by 3 and get 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009...
    Therefore 0.333... multiplied by 3 = 0.999...
    The rest of his proof follows as he showed.

  11. #51
    sophisticated
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by dudeqwerty
    maybe, but im still right.

    what you said about "real line" (very basic maths) and what gerbic said about asymptotes/limits, is thinking about this in the wrong way.

    you are thinking, ok i have 0.9 thats quite close to 1, so if i add a "9" to the end i get 0.99, even closer to 1, but the number we are using here is 0.9999.. to infinate decimal places they are already there, you do not add them one-by-one, it is its own number.

    also you seem, from your last post, you are basing your argument on your use of a scientific calculator, computers round numbers of to avoid infinatly calculating answers.

    think of this using a proper mathmatics, like all the proofs that have been show, and use your brain, dont rely on graphical interpertations or calculators which have pretty big rounding errors,

    zlatan
    you're off the point again and you're wrong about what I do, how I do it and the whole thing. sorry.

  12. #52
    Senior Member dudeqwerty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Bosnia
    Posts
    1,626
    Quote Originally Posted by MechaPiano
    you're off the point again and you're wrong about what I do, how I do it and the whole thing. sorry.
    so why are you wrong then?
    New sig soon

  13. #53
    sophisticated
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by chris-sharpe999
    Thats because a scientific calculator recognises the equivilancy between 0.999... and 1, which is exactly the point he is trying to make.

    Would you accept that 3*(a+b)=3a + 3b?
    In which case you can treat o.333... as 0.3 + 0.03 + 0.003...
    Multiply each part by 3 and get 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009...
    Therefore 0.333... multiplied by 3 = 0.999...
    The rest of his proof follows as he showed.
    you would be right if 0.333... had an end, but since it doesn't you can't do that. you need to "translate" 0.333... into 1/3 form and only then make your calculations.

  14. #54
    Senior Member dudeqwerty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Bosnia
    Posts
    1,626
    no you dont, they are the same number!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    New sig soon

  15. #55
    Person called Chris chris-sharpe999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Somewhere over there.
    Posts
    111
    You can do that, you just have to realise that the 9s you get from the multiplication extend to infinity, which is why I included the ...s, you can still multiply in seperate parts, you just need to make sure you add all those parts back together afterwards, giving 0.999...
    Last edited by chris-sharpe999; 06-25-2006 at 03:49 PM.

  16. #56
    sophisticated
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by chris-sharpe999
    You can do that, you just have to realise that the 9s you get from the multiplication extend to infinity, which is why I included the ...s, you can still multiply in seperate parts, you just need to make sure you add all those parts back together afterwards, giving 0.999...
    I understand, but it's not that - it's just that you can't perform that kind of operation on a number in that form. You can do it if you have 0.25 or 0.9678 or something, but when you have an infinite number you need to "reform" it.

    edit:
    it's a rule, just like 0! is 1
    Last edited by MechaPiano; 06-25-2006 at 03:59 PM.

  17. #57
    Person called Chris chris-sharpe999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Somewhere over there.
    Posts
    111
    No you don't. I'll try and show it in a different way, using a geometric series.
    In a general geometric series, you have a "first term" a, a common ratio r, and the term number n. The nth term is a*r^(n-1), and the "sum to n" is (a[1-r^n])/(1-r). So the geometric series here is a=0.3 r=0.1, eg:
    S1= 0.3
    S2= 0.3 + (0.3*0.1) = 0.3 + 0.03 = 0.33
    S3= 0.3 + (0.3*0.1) + (0.3*0.1*0.1) = 0.3 + 0.03 + 0.003 = 0.333

    Take this series to infinity (which in this case is obvious but usually you use the forumula a/(1-r))
    s∞ = 0.333... with 3s off to infinity

    Now multiply this by 3. To do this we only need to multiply each term by 3, so we multiply a by 3. 0.3*3 = 0.9
    Constructing the same series using a=0.9 would clearly give us 0.999...
    BUT, using the formula a/(1-r) to find the sum as n->∞, we get
    0.9 / (1-0.1) = 0.9 / 0.9
    And any number divided by itself MUST =1
    So therefore from the same infinite series we get 0.999... and 1, therefore they must be equal.
    bored

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by MechaPiano
    are you insane? how on Earth did you get 0.999... by multiplying 0.333... with 3? (and please don't tell me you used a regular calculator to do it)

    edit:
    just take a scientific calculator and first, divide 1 with 3 (you'll get 0.333...) and then multiply what you get with 3, you'll see that you'll have 1 (not 0.999...)
    You can't bring a calculator into a mathematical proof, at least not of this form. Once you do that, we're talking about discrete math. On a calculator 0.999... actually has an end point (on the order of 1/10^8 or 1/10^32, depends on the calculator).

    But we're not dealing with discrete math here, we're dealing with the real number line. On that line, numbers exist smaller than the floating point machine epsilon that calculators and computers have.

    Try the multiplication long hand. Start off with a series of 3's and multiply by 3.

    Code:
       0.33333333...
    x           3
    -----------------
       0.99999999...
    If I end it there, then yes, I would have to round up to one or truncate the number at some point. But, the symbol (...) means that the series of 3's (and 9's) continue on forever.

    That is how I can multiply 3 * 0.333...

    At some point entering it onto a calculator, I would have to stop entering 3's. That makes it discrete and unapplicable.

  19. #59
    sophisticated
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by chris-sharpe999
    No you don't. I'll try and show it in a different way, using a geometric series.
    In a general geometric series, you have a "first term" a, a common ratio r, and the term number n. The nth term is a*r^(n-1), and the "sum to n" is (a[1-r^n])/(1-r). So the geometric series here is a=0.3 r=0.1, eg:
    S1= 0.3
    S2= 0.3 + (0.3*0.1) = 0.3 + 0.03 = 0.33
    S3= 0.3 + (0.3*0.1) + (0.3*0.1*0.1) = 0.3 + 0.03 + 0.003 = 0.333

    Take this series to infinity (which in this case is obvious but usually you use the forumula a/(1-r))
    s∞ = 0.333... with 3s off to infinity

    Now multiply this by 3. To do this we only need to multiply each term by 3, so we multiply a by 3. 0.3*3 = 0.9
    Constructing the same series using a=0.9 would clearly give us 0.999...
    BUT, using the formula a/(1-r) to find the sum as n->∞, we get
    0.9 / (1-0.1) = 0.9 / 0.9
    And any number divided by itself MUST =1
    So therefore from the same infinite series we get 0.999... and 1, therefore they must be equal.
    you're doing the same thing only more complex, but this doesn't change anything. you can't do what you do with an infinite number, you just can't. you can't add it, you can't multiply it, you can't do anything with it as long as it in it's 0.whatever... form. I perfectly understand what you are pushing and it would be correct with any number that is not infinite.

    I've proved 1 != 0.999... at least once already,
    I'm tired of this and I'm not going to continue unless I'll have some backup (or at least some moral support).

  20. #60
    Person called Chris chris-sharpe999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Somewhere over there.
    Posts
    111
    You most definately CAN add/multiply infinite expansions, and there's nothing in that post to prove 1!=0.999...
    For example, 0.111... + 0.7 = 0.811111...
    or if that doesn't count, 0.111... + 0.111... = 0.222...
    Which is exactly what we're doing above (3X = X + X + X) and there is no mathematical reason you can't do that.
    bored

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width

HTML5 Development Center