0.9 reoccuring = 1

[zangatangring]

Reoccuring???
Try recurring mate.

BTW you're spot on.

Oh and another proof, which people find easier to understand is that if you accept that one third is 0.3recurring then three thirds is a whole = 1, and also 0.9recurring because it's 3 times one third.


;-)

Yeah come back at him with that.

The ****

I'm not sure whether you're insulting me but credit where credit is due, every single one of your posts in recent days has made me chuckle.

 

[bringer678]

I meet people who are arrogant and think they are right all the time.

They're called rags.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

Angriest, embarassed, saddest and dismayed i've been ever (I think). How stupid does the vast majority of a mathematics faculty at a school have to be to deny this?!?!?!?

Had a confrontation with a Chemistry teacher. He was being so condescending saying that 0.9 reoccuring is less than 1 and kept on reiterating that he has a phd in quantum mechanics so he must know everything. Parents, if you have a child who is a white male, the world is their oyster. People can be so stupid. How can this guy get a head of science job?!?!?

Anyways this is the proof he denies that i showed him.

if 0.(9) = 0.9 reoccuring

Consider 0.(9) and assume it is indeed less than one.
By observing that,
0.9 + 0.1 =1, 0.99+0.01 =1, 0.999+0.001 = 1 and so on...

That implies that 0.(9) + 0.(0)1 = 1.

However, the expression 0.(0)1 = 0 because it implies that there exist a finitely bound decimal place where you can 'place' the one. However, since there is an infinite amount of 0's there exists no bound for the 1 to be 'placed' hence,
0.(0)1 = 0.(0)= 0.
So, 0.(9) + 0 =1.


Also, has anyone here ever had an encounter where someone is being so stupid, condescending and arrogant especially while abusing their authority or 'position'?

Edit: oh yeah, I'm the laughing stock of this year. That's why i'm angry etc. Deliberately made to be humiliated.

Although you are correct, I don't think you'll gain anything in life by trying to disprove people who wont listen. If they think you're wrong... fair enough... so what? It's not effecting you, you know you're right, that's the important thing. It's a rather trivial thing to be losing sleep over.

I had a disagreement with my maths lecturer over the fact he docked me a mark for including zero in the set of natural numbers. At the end of the day, we had a difference of opinion and it was worth less than 0.1% of my overall mark so I let it go.

 

[SWP's back]

Reoccuring???
Try recurring mate.

BTW you're spot on.

Oh and another proof, which people find easier to understand is that if you accept that one third is 0.3recurring then three thirds is a whole = 1, and also 0.9recurring because it's 3 times one third.


;-)

Yeah come back at him with that.

The ****

I'm not sure whether you're insulting me but credit where credit is due, every single one of your posts in recent days has made me chuckle.

Not at all insulting you mate. Had similar run ins with teachers at school where I was patently right but they wouldn't accept it.

He sounds like a ****. And a wrong **** at that.

JMA proof is also bang on with his equation. Go back in and don't back down fella.

 

[zangatangring]

Although you are correct, I don't think you'll gain anything in life by trying to disprove people who wont listen. If they think you're wrong... fair enough... so what? It's not effecting you, you know you're right, that's the important thing. It's a rather trivial thing to be losing sleep over.

I had a disagreement with my maths lecturer over the fact he docked me a mark for including zero in the set of natural numbers. At the end of the day, we had a difference of opinion and it was worth less than 0.1% of my overall mark so I let it go.

Yeah, I totally agree with you. He was just being such a decadent human being. Honestly. Every little social nuance you could think off. I could immediately see what kind of person he was.

He couldn't have done a better job of winding me up and It's a proven theory that humans lose all rationality after an influx of emotion. I don't regret getting that way. I'm human. I'd also like to think that i've eradicated at least some of his ignorance.

 

[BlueSam]

it really is less than 1.

1 is pure, if were talking the closest you can possibly get to 1 then yes it is but it isnt 1.

thats like saying infinity is a million billion trillion blah blah blah.. it isnt but its close if you add enough zeros..

zero is also not 0.00000000000000000......1

they are abstract concepts

I will admit that things are very cloudy here but there is no reason to assume that 0.9r ever changes from itself to 1. it just carries on forever as 0.99 which IS the closest we can ever get to 1 but it still isn't 1.. it's it's own number. I dont think anyone quite understands the maths of this.

I will admit that you could be proved right as 1/3 is supposedly = to 0.3r but I don't see it that way, I see 0.3r to be as close as we can get to being a third but it isnt. it gets to a point where you just have to say numbers are concepts.


oh bollocks to it your right.. but I still think I am right too..

<a class="postlink" href="https://nrich.maths.org/discus/messages/67613/68880.html?1143990391" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://nrich.maths.org/discus/messages ... 1143990391</a>

decent discussion here^

 

[zangatangring]

it really is less than 1.

1 is pure, if were talking the closest you can possibly get to 1 then yes it is but it isnt 1.

thats like saying infinity is a million billion trillion blah blah blah.. it isnt but its close if you add enough zeros..

zero is also not 0.00000000000000000......1

they are abstract concepts

I will admit that things are very cloudy here but there is no reason to assume that 0.9r ever changes from itself to 1. it just carries on forever as 0.99 which IS the closest we can ever get to 1 but it still isn't 1.. it's it's own number. I dont think anyone quite understands the maths of this.

<a class="postlink" href="https://nrich.maths.org/discus/messages/67613/68880.html?1143990391" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://nrich.maths.org/discus/messages ... 1143990391</a>

decent discussion here^

Nrich is just a forum saturated with mathematical olympiads hopefuls. They wouldn't necessarily know the answer.

Believe me it is one. the fact that it tends towards 1 at an infinite period means that the 'tending' degenerates as there exists no mathematically 'valid' finite expression (excluding 0.(0)) that denotes the difference between itself and 1.

If you're familiar with the gcse notion of 'asymptotes.' I've worked out a proof using that too.

Plot a full x y graph. plot a point on the x axis conveniently far enough to the left of the y axis and consider this point to have the value '0'. Let the y axis denote the amount of decimal boundarys/ decimal places/ limit. It can also be obviously deduced that a line has an infinite amount of points. consider a sequence of point's plotted starting from the point 0 whereby we have 9x10^(-n). where n follows the infinite integer sequence 1,2,3,4,5 etc...
The distance between each point decreases exponentially. the curve on the graph will touch the y axis at a value of y = infinity. Then, it's obvious to know that the y axis coincides with x = 1.

 

[york away to this!]

so the girl I met at a maths dept party last week who said that she "would almost certainly give you one" meant what, exactly??....

 

[BlueSam]

I do know about asymptotes, I really do get what you mean but when you are talking about inifinites I don't think you can say that it definitely equals 1. Asymptotes just deal with infinites too. I think you are right for every model we have to explain it. but I still think of 1 as a pure concept which can't be touched by any recurring 9 and I think of 0.9r as another concept too.

 

[zangatangring]

I do know about asymptotes, I really do get what you mean but when you are talking about inifinites I don't think you can say that it definitely equals 1. Asymptotes just deal with infinites too. I think you are right for every model we have to explain it. but I still think of 1 as a pure concept which can't be touched by any recurring 9 and I think of 0.9r as another concept too.

It does. It definitely equals 1. I also agree that 0.9r and 1 are completely different concepts. Hence, that is why the are expressed differently. All I'm saying is that they represent the same value. I.E. you have 0.9r heads, you have 0.9r brains. 0.9r doesn't equal 1 in terms of expression but they represent the same value. That is mathematical fact.