Is 1 = 0.9999......

[Binar]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: UglyCassanova

Originally posted by: TechnoKid
In physics [highschool physics, not conceptual] i learned about significant figures. The more the significant figures, the more [exact, precise] that particular [figure, number] is.

I know this has something to do maybe here in this disscussion, but my calculus brain is not functioning after reading the first page of this thread.

That's with measurements. Also, has anyone read this whole fvcking thing? Are they really discussing this or is there a 20 page nef fest, cause im not about to read the thing to find out.

I've been following and posting in it the entire time. It's discussing, although it's the same arguments over and over.

ppl tend to repeat themself that's the human nature

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: UglyCassanova

Originally posted by: TechnoKid
In physics [highschool physics, not conceptual] i learned about significant figures. The more the significant figures, the more [exact, precise] that particular [figure, number] is.

I know this has something to do maybe here in this disscussion, but my calculus brain is not functioning after reading the first page of this thread.

That's with measurements. Also, has anyone read this whole fvcking thing? Are they really discussing this or is there a 20 page nef fest, cause im not about to read the thing to find out.

I've been following and posting in it the entire time. It's discussing, although it's the same arguments over and over.

One of these days when I have some time I'm going to sit down and (try to) write an objective summary of all the arguments. The task just gets more daunting as time goes by.

 

[bleeb]

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: UglyCassanova

Originally posted by: TechnoKid
In physics [highschool physics, not conceptual] i learned about significant figures. The more the significant figures, the more [exact, precise] that particular [figure, number] is.

I know this has something to do maybe here in this disscussion, but my calculus brain is not functioning after reading the first page of this thread.

That's with measurements. Also, has anyone read this whole fvcking thing? Are they really discussing this or is there a 20 page nef fest, cause im not about to read the thing to find out.

I've been following and posting in it the entire time. It's discussing, although it's the same arguments over and over.

One of these days when I have some time I'm going to sit down and (try to) write an objective summary of all the arguments. The task just gets more daunting as time goes by.

I'd say forget about it.... just let this mystery finally be solved by someone else.

 

[fs5]

just when you thought it was safe to go back to ATOT. <jaws theme> it's baaaaaaackkk....

 

[bleeb]

I was thinking... Jason and the Friday teh 13th series or
Freddie Kruger and Nightmare On teh Elm Street series.

 

[naddicott]

This thread is still kicking around?!?

Well, I still stand by the position I posted earlier (somwhere in the page 5 - page 20 range, I forget), which included a link to a professor of mathematics writing about why at a highly theoretical level "Is 1 = 0.9999...." is an interesting question, and not just a no-brainer proof to show math n00bs how l33t you are and how dumb their instincts are. Of course, the link was from a post a few pages before... oh found it again:

Link

(not summarizing the content of the link - just babbling to fill space)
1 is a nice simple number, something a baby can understand and represent by holding up a finger.

0.9999... is a nasty mathmatical representation that cannot be accurately rendered by any computer that exists or will ever exist, due to the lack of memory for an infinite number of digits. You can safely do operations with it and non-arbitrary real numbers (ones that can have a repeating final digit), but there is no obvious way to say divide 0.999... by 3.14159... although we can make a good approximation to several million decimal places (not bad!).

0.999... is a series that approximates the exact number 1. A pointless approximation when there's a perfectly good exact representation one may use. Heck, I prefer 1.000... as a representation.

Of course, I'm much more comfortable with e^( Pi * i ) = -1 (try that one on a baby's finger)

!= (power to the people! - by that I mean look at the poll results. The majority knows best, right?)

[edit: spelling]

 

[jfall]

5 more posts and the count will read 1337 lol

 

[Luagsch]

DIE THREAD! DIE!!!!

 

[bleeb]

Originally posted by: Luagsch
DIE THREAD! DIE!!!!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jfall
5 more posts and the count will read 1337 lol

come on leet!

 

[bleeb]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: jfall
5 more posts and the count will read 1337 lol

come on leet!

 

[ElFenix]

1337 post is mine!

let the thread die 1337 please!

 

[TuffGirl]

1 = -e^(i*pi)

That's all I have to add.

 

[bleeb]

Congratulations to ElFenix on the LEET POST!! (Neffer)

 

[Luagsch]

Originally posted by: bleeb
Congratulations to ElFenix on the LEET POST!! (Neffer)

LMAO had the same idea, was about to post a pic too:beer:

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: bleeb
Congratulations to ElFenix on the LEET POST!! (Neffer)

you guys have WAY too much time on your hands.

 

[bleeb]

Originally posted by: Luagsch

Originally posted by: bleeb
Congratulations to ElFenix on the LEET POST!! (Neffer)

LMAO had the same idea, was about to post a pic too:beer:

:beer::beer:

If you look a while back, you will see I made the 1000th post too (And even posted the pic) & the 1234th post??

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: bleeb
Congratulations to ElFenix on the LEET POST!! (Neffer)

frozen in time for eternity!

 

[Luagsch]

Originally posted by: bleeb

Originally posted by: Luagsch

Originally posted by: bleeb
Congratulations to ElFenix on the LEET POST!! (Neffer)

LMAO had the same idea, was about to post a pic too:beer:

:beer::beer:

If you look a while back, you will see I made the 1000th post too (And even posted the pic) & the 1234th post??

ROTFL :beer::beer:

 

[TuffGirl]

Originally posted by: TuffGirl
1 = -e^(i*pi)

That's all I have to add.

Can anyone verify this identity, and does anyone have the proof? I remember learning it a long time ago and I wish I could find a proof but I've no idea how to google for that. =/

 

[bleeb]

Originally posted by: TuffGirl

Originally posted by: TuffGirl
1 = -e^(i*pi)

That's all I have to add.

Can anyone verify this identity, and does anyone have the proof? I remember learning it a long time ago and I wish I could find a proof but I've no idea how to google for that. =/

I'd have to do some research to come up with the proof. My guess is using just a bunch of identities.

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: TuffGirl

Originally posted by: TuffGirl
1 = -e^(i*pi)

That's all I have to add.

Can anyone verify this identity, and does anyone have the proof? I remember learning it a long time ago and I wish I could find a proof but I've no idea how to google for that. =/

The expression "e^pi" (leaving the quotes there) works fine in Google. Gives pretty much the same results as a search for "e^(pi". The standard way of expressing the identity is with the "-1", but of course the above is true in that it reverses the signs.

So does 0.9999... = -e^(i*pi) ?

 

[dighn]

Originally posted by: TuffGirl

Originally posted by: TuffGirl
1 = -e^(i*pi)

That's all I have to add.

Can anyone verify this identity, and does anyone have the proof? I remember learning it a long time ago and I wish I could find a proof but I've no idea how to google for that. =/

e^(ai) = isina + cosa (euler identity, can be derived from taylor series of those 3 functions)

if a = pi
sinpi = 0, cospi = -1

-(-1) = 1

 

[CTho9305]

The people who don't understand that .9... = 1 probably would also have problems with Zeno's Paradox (Xeno? Google wasn't too helpful), which arises only because of a lack of understanding of how infinities work.

 

[TuffGirl]

Originally posted by: dighn

Originally posted by: TuffGirl

Originally posted by: TuffGirl
1 = -e^(i*pi)

That's all I have to add.

Can anyone verify this identity, and does anyone have the proof? I remember learning it a long time ago and I wish I could find a proof but I've no idea how to google for that. =/

e^(ai) = isina + cosa (euler identity, can be derived from taylor series of those 3 functions)

if a = pi
sinpi = 0, cospi = -1

-(-1) = 1

Cool thanks! I read the same thing here.