DanceWme said:

What's that worth?

Just let me love u without the questions

DanceWme said:

I've seen many things in this world labbled under "love", but they were far from it.

I don't think anyone knows what "Love" is in this world.

Thusly is why I reject alls attempts to say "love is god and god is love"

because they don't know what love or god is.

DAMMIT Mick!! I'll take it back.
I dont love u. I hate ur damn guts ok?

Is that better?

DanceWme said:

Truth is best. To speak the truth you must first truly know the truth, and that requires much soul searching. It's a worthwhile path, although the steps can be long and hard.

What is love?
Hate isn't the oppiset of Love.
Hate is love mixed with anger.

So if I 0.99999 repeating times it counts as one

"repeating" doesn't = 1 unless you are willing to accept a trump.

.99999...% gold isn't all gold, althought it is pure gold.

Just like the world, if the world is filled up to .99999...% stupid people, no matter how many people or how big the world grows, there will always be me.

MickG = .00000... but somewhere down the line to infinaty is 1

nah, .99999... is like an asymptote. With each nine it gets closer to 1, but it never reaches it.

NDRU said:

no no no that 0.9999 Repeating IS NOT A FUNCTION it is a number a real number... but that is okay this is one of those facts that is so dumb and irrelevant but true none the less. on another board (one that is like 1000 times bigger) they go nuts over this... there have been litterly 1000's of topics on it over the last few years

It's controversial because it doesn't make intuitive sense.

The equasion makes mathematical sense, which is interesting, but logically, anyone can see that it's infinitesimally smaller than 1 (infinitesimal=so small that it can't be measured, or infinitely small)

so .999... is virtually 1, but conceptually smaller.

anyway, it's a very interesting concept and I'd never seen that equasion before
[Edited 12/24/06 23:05pm]

FruitToAttractBears said:

c=0.999.....
10c=9.999
10c-c=9.999-0.999
9c=9
c=1

SlamGlam said:

That reminds me of Plato's old joke about the sophists and their exaggerated faith in the usefulness of pure logic reasoning.

A rock can not fly
My mother can not fly
Therefore, my mother is a rock

It's an oversimplification of course, but it highlights how an obviously absurd conclusion can be the result of a line of reasoning that follows some of the basic cornerstones of logic. So imagine, he argued, how many truths are distorted by more complex logical deductions.

The equation in the above post is a good example of that. The referent has been lost and only the reference and the way it fits into the mathematical puzzle remains. Smoke and mirrors ladies and gentlemen, smoke and mirrors...

.

also:

1/3 = 0.333 repeating

1/3 x 3 = 3/3 = 1

as 0.3333 x 3 = 0.9999

retina said:

Why is it smoke and mirrors?
[Edited 12/25/06 15:34pm]

coolcat said:

Like I said, all possible referents have been made impossible in the equation and thereby the truth behind the numbers has been distorted.

Numbers were created to be references to referents in reality. It's useless to talk about 1 unless we ultimately talk about 1 something. Same thing goes for 0.99999 and all other numbers. Say for example that we're talking about 1 orange. 1 orange will always be more than 99.99999% of that same orange no matter what mathematical gymnastics we can do with the numbers themselves.

The equation is still valid from a purely mathematical standpoint, but the implications of the thread title's claim are ludicrous, so the discussion will never be more than of academic interest.

What are those implications that are ridiculous?

coolcat said:

I thought I had just explained that. One implication would be that one whole orange would be the same as 99.9999% of the orange, and it's obviously not. No matter how small the difference in substance is, there's still a difference. Like I said, beyond its academic value mathematics is useless unless you ultimately acknowledge the referent, be it an orange, a second, an orger or whatever.

retina said:

But that's the point... there is no difference... the difference is exactly 0, not almost 0.

0.9999 repeating infinitely is not less than 1. It is 1. We're not talking about 99.9999% were talking about 99.99999.... repeating infinitely %

1 orange = 0.9999 repeating oranges

Would you say that 0.33333 repeating = 1/3
[Edited 12/25/06 18:37pm]

coolcat said:

No I wouldn't. It gets closer and closer for every decimal that you're adding but it never ever quite gets there. That's why you speak of it as an approximation even in the world of mathematics. I know the whole 0.999 repeating = 1 concept fits really nicely into your equation and that you're really happy about that, but it just doesn't apply to the real world, I'm sorry. Only 1 equals 1, that's why it's called 1 and not 0.999 repeating. 0.999 repeating is a traveller (forever), 1 is already there.

repeated/repeating edit
[Edited 12/25/06 18:52pm]

0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ..... going on to infinity, I think the proper response is: it is mathematically undefined...

But if one asks, what is the limit

And that's what repeating decimals are... limits (by definition)...

SlamGlam said:

That reminds me of Plato's old joke about the sophists and their exaggerated faith in the usefulness of pure logic reasoning.

A rock can not fly
My mother can not fly
Therefore, my mother is a rock

It's an oversimplification of course, but it highlights how an obviously absurd conclusion can be the result of a line of reasoning that follows some of the basic cornerstones of logic. So imagine, he argued, how many truths are distorted by more complex logical deductions.

The equation in the above post is a good example of that. The referent has been lost and only the reference and the way it fits into the mathematical puzzle remains. Smoke and mirrors ladies and gentlemen, smoke and mirrors...

.

A rock can not fly
My mother can not fly
Therefore, my mother is a rock

.

btw isnt this the sameas traveling towards a black holes horizon, the closer you get the slower you go but then again i been supping coffee all night at work

coolcat said:

This is, of course, what I have been talking about all along. It is undefined because it has not reached a defined place, it goes on forever and gets closer and closer to 1 with every added decimal.



That is not what one asks. At least not this one, nor has it been asked by anyone else on this thread.



Well fine, if you want to define it as equal to 1 then of course it works.

To me, that's like defining a "P" as "two vertical lines connected by a horizontal line at the middle" though. The reference doesn't match the referent. No point in using the name 0.999 repeating if that's not really what you mean. It's not like people have a list of arbitrary mathematical terms here, "0.999 repeating" will be taken as just that; 0.99999 repeating in all eternity, and that will never be equal to 1.


[Edited 12/25/06 19:44pm]