What number is bigger?

[kertejud2]

Got this from another forum, there's lots of interesting discussion on it, I'll see what can be done here (could be a 'will an airplane take off from a treadmill' type question).

Is there a difference between 1 and 0.999repeating?

[86_lude_86]

1 will always be bigger. no matter how many times repeating the .99999... will be it will never reach one

[pf0sh0]

I think 1 is bigger than .99 simply because it fucking is dawg.

[buh_buh]

Originally posted by 86_lude_86
1 will always be bigger. no matter how many times repeating the .99999... will be it will never reach one
:werd: I don't see how any discussion can spark from this. No matter how close 0.999 gets to 1, it will never = 1. I don't even know how it can be greater than 1.

[jdm_eg6]

the only time you represent 1 as .99999999999999999999999999999999 is when your testing limits of functions to determine the properties of a function as it approaches that point.

so in short 1 doesnt not equal .999999 and .9999 is less than 1...

want to know why... try to buy a thing for a doller in a machine that only takes coins(for this sake it takes decimal coins).... try and give it 99.99999999999999999999 cents and not a doller... you will still have .000000000000000000001 remaining and wont get the item from the machine..

[pf0sh0]

fa sho, I want to knwo who voted for .9999 as being bigger lol

[jdm_eg6]

as do i.. as do i... and lets punch him with .999999 of a punch..

[kertejud2]

Well then if 1/3 is .333repeating, and 2/3 is .666repeating; 1/3 +2/3 = .999repeating does it not?

Or if N=0.99999

and 10N=9.999999....

10N-N=9; therefore N=1.




That should open up discussion a bit more.

[street]

Originally posted by pf0sh0
fa sho, I want to knwo who voted for .9999 as being bigger lol

yeah i know me too

who ever it was (go back to school) lol

i also want to know who voted for the last one

[TegLover]

the airplane WILL take off. :eek:

[jdm_eg6]

Well then if 1/3 is .333repeating, and 2/3 is .666repeating; 1/3 +2/3 = .999repeating does it not?

Or if N=0.99999

and 10N=9.999999....

10N-N=9; therefore N=1.

no because if you apply proper rules of fractional addition:
2/3 +1/3...
find common denominator
ok 3
add numerators
denominators remain
therefore: 3/3 which is defined by 1.


the airplane WILL take off. :eek:

obviously.. its beyond :poosie:... and its 12:00am we have nothing better to do lol.

[pf0sh0]

Originally posted by TegLover
the airplane WILL take off. :eek:

really? Don't you need moving air under and above the wings?

[pf0sh0]

Originally posted by jdm_eg6


no because if you apply proper rules of fractional addition:
2/3 +1/3...
find common denominator
ok 3
add numerators
denominators remain
therefore: 3/3 which is defined by 1.

humiliation

[jdm_eg6]

^^ yeh how so (EDIT)...

do you need a calculator... 3 DIVIDED BY.. 3 is 1..

along with..

2 +1 = 3.... to help you add the numerator..

[pf0sh0]

Originally posted by jdm_eg6
^^ yeh how so douchebagg...

do you need a calculator... 3 DIVIDED BY.. 3 is 1..

along with..

2 +1 = 3.... to help you add the numerator..

I meant to the OP, RELAX dawg

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by jdm_eg6


no because if you apply proper rules of fractional addition:
2/3 +1/3...
find common denominator
ok 3
add numerators
denominators remain
therefore: 3/3 which is defined by 1.

1/3 is merely another way of writing 0.333repeating, which can only lead to the assumption that 0.999repeating is another representation of 1.

0.333repeating + 0.666repeating = 0.999repeating.

If 0.333rep is 1/3 and 0.666rep is 2/3, then 0.999rep = 3/3

[jdm_eg6]

haha, i figured as much, thats why i took the douche part out.:(

[BenC]

well.. this is a dumb discussion. :whocares:

[buh_buh]

well actually, 1/3 does not equal 0.333 repeating. It is best expressed as 0.333 repeating because there's no number that actually represents exactly 1/3. So 1/3 + 2/3 still = 1. The flaw of the 0.333R+0.666R=1 is converting the fraction into an integer

[pf0sh0]

so then your saying .9999 = 1 and we fucked up?

[buh_buh]

that's not what I'm saying at all... maybe you should reread my post.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by buh_buh
well actually, 1/3 does not equal 0.333 repeating. It is best expressed as 0.333 repeating because there's no number that actually represents 1/3. So 1/3 + 2/3 still = 1. 0.333 repeating + 0.666 repeating = 0.999 repeating.

Well its the only number that expresses it. Dividing by thirds and dividing by 9ths aside, there then still leaves the issue that

N=0.99999999......

10N=9.9999999.....

10N-N=9

Therefore 9N=9

Which means N=1.

[pf0sh0]

Originally posted by buh_buh
that's not what I'm saying at all... maybe you should reread my post.
I see it now, I should have joined Kumon as a young child.

[jdm_eg6]

END THREAD:

it doesnt matter....

if in deed it comes down to a point where it may... add 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

and we now have 1..... ditch the thread it can be argued more than the moon landing because this is all theoretical...

(do not start moon landing thread:drama: )

[Xaroxantu Zero]

1/3 does not perfectly equal 0.333r. This is why we don't convert fractions into decimals when we calculate, because it is inaccurate.

[pf0sh0]

:werd: who needs theory, stick to facts.

[mo_money2supe]

:repost:

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the link because I can't search with the parameters "1."

As for my answer to this age old math question, think asymptotes. In other words, I do not believe they are equal.

[Xaroxantu Zero]

Here's an interesting article:

http://polymathematics.typepad.com/polymath/2006/06/no_im_sorry_it_.html

Be sure to read the comments as well.

EDIT: Yeah, this thread is a repost:
http://forums.beyond.ca/st/115127/-99999999999999999999999999999999999999/

[redline_13000]

Lol 1 is "HIGHER" but .999 repeating would appear "BIGGER" on a screen or paper;)

[rx7boi]

I got another game: who's got bigger balls?

- Mike Tyson
- Kimbo Slice

BEGIN!

[pf0sh0]

Kimbo Slice FTW

[swak]

neither... both are small as shit.
try 87

[962 kid]

.999 repeating is the same as 1, it's not even up for debate. Any two distinct real numbers will have an infinite amount of numbers between them. There are no numbers between .999r and 1, which is why they are the same number.


Originally posted by jdm_eg6
END THREAD:

it doesnt matter....

if in deed it comes down to a point where it may... add 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

and we now have 1..... ditch the thread it can be argued more than the moon landing because this is all theoretical...

(do not start moon landing thread:drama: )

There is no such point. Your concept of repeating/infinite are incomplete.

[szw]

repost....10 ppl are right so far

[icecreamvan]

Originally posted by szw
repost....10 ppl are right so far

You mean 9.999999999999 ppl are right.

[$lick_rYz]

0.99999 repeating is rounded upwards to 1...so 1 is a bigger number

no matter how many repeating 9s are after the the decimal it won't be even equal to 1 let alone being greater than 1

[TimG]

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/failboatnowboarding.jpg

[icecreamvan]

Originally posted by TimG
http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/failboatnowboarding.jpg

Mosh girl!:rofl:

[Euro_Trash]

In any practical sense, they are the same. It doesn't matter how precise something needs to be, 0.999r will be the same as 1.
Plus, if something costs 0.999r, I am going to just give them a dollar and tell them to keep the change ;)

[supe]

I second that they are equal and this guy said it right. Anyone who thinks that 1 is bigger is a fool who never understood higher level math.


Originally posted by 962 kid
.999 repeating is the same as 1, it's not even up for debate. Any two distinct real numbers will have an infinite amount of numbers between them. There are no numbers between .999r and 1, which is why they are the same number.



There is no such point. Your concept of repeating/infinite are incomplete.

[Heff]

They are not equal.

Fractions deal in absolute values.
Decimal repeating integers deal in approximated values.

(...and the .3r +.6r = .9r decimal quandary demonstrates the difference between absolute values and approximated values. It is our minds that discards the remainder to 'approximate' a whole. There is an infinitesimal and infinitely reducing difference between .3r and 1/3, and a similarly infinitesimal and infinitely reducing difference between .6r and 2/3.)

There will always be an infinitesimal and infinitely reducing difference between .9r and 1.

Any 'rounding' or 'overlooking' of that infinitesimal and infinitely reducing difference is arbitrary and exists outside of the actual value of the number(s) or ratio(s) in question.

[Euro_Trash]

Heff, I think you are looking for a different word than "absolute", since absolute only has to do with the sign (positive or negative) of the number

[Heff]

Originally posted by Euro_Trash
Heff, I think you are looking for a different word than "absolute", since absolute only has to do with the sign (positive or negative) of the number

Only if I'm using the word absolute in a mathematical sense.

[adam c]

1 > .9999

move the demical

10 > 9.9

1,000,000,000,000,000 > 999,999,999,999,999

1 WILL ALWAYS BE BIGGER DAMMIT:drama:

[Euro_Trash]

Numbers, rounding, repeating, "10N-N=9", decimals..... can I assume we are talking about mathematics?

[962 kid]

Originally posted by Heff
There will always be an infinitesimal and infinitely reducing difference between .9r and 1.

Any 'rounding' or 'overlooking' of that infinitesimal and infinitely reducing difference is arbitrary and exists outside of the actual value of the number(s) or ratio(s) in question.

No, there won't be any such number. Just the same as jdm_eg6, your concept of infinite is incomplete.


Originally posted by adam c
1 > .9999

move the demical

10 > 9.9

1,000,000,000,000,000 > 999,999,999,999,999

1 WILL ALWAYS BE BIGGER DAMMIT:drama:

Grade 10 math ftw.
.999r = 1
9.999r = 10
1 000 000 000 000 000 = 999 999 999 999 999.999r

That's the whole point of infinite.

[JoniBoy]

Originally posted by 962 kid
.999 repeating is the same as 1, it's not even up for debate. Any two distinct real numbers will have an infinite amount of numbers between them. There are no numbers between .999r and 1, which is why they are the same number.



+1

[adam c]

Originally posted by 962 kid
.999 repeating is the same as 1, it's not even up for debate. Any two distinct real numbers will have an infinite amount of numbers between them. There are no numbers between .999r and 1, which is why they are the same number.



There is no such point. Your concept of repeating/infinite are incomplete.

so in your theory

3.0 = 2.99999999999r

[icecreamvan]

Originally posted by 962 kid


No, there won't be any such number. Just the same as jdm_eg6, your concept of infinite is incomplete.


Offtopic for the nerds.

If 10 = 9.999r
then is 9.998r = 9.999r?

[pf0sh0]

Wouldn't be that be the same "theory" as 1 = .99r

[Dave P]

RIDICULARS!!!!!!!!!!!

[JoniBoy]

Originally posted by icecreamvan


Offtopic for the nerds.

If 10 = 9.999r
then is 9.998r = 9.999r?

You're obviously not getting it

[Euro_Trash]

Originally posted by icecreamvan


Offtopic for the nerds.

If 10 = 9.999r
then is 9.998r = 9.999r?

For the thoery above, 9.998r would be 9.999 (no r)

Edit: I'm wrong, Joniboy is correct below

[JoniBoy]

Originally posted by Euro_Trash


For the thoery above, 9.998r would be 9.999 (no r)

No, 9.9989999999r would be 9.999 (no r)

[wjjeeper]

Who cares. Get back to your World of Warcraft you nerds.

[pf0sh0]

Originally posted by wjjeeper
Who cares. Get back to your World of Warcraft you nerds.

We've moved on to COD4

[wjjeeper]

Originally posted by pf0sh0


We've moved on to COD4

hahahaa. :thumbsup:

[962 kid]

Originally posted by adam c


so in your theory

3.0 = 2.99999999999r

why wouldn't it be

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by kertejud2


Well its the only number that expresses it. Dividing by thirds and dividing by 9ths aside, there then still leaves the issue that

N=0.99999999......

10N=9.9999999.....

10N-N=9

Therefore 9N=9

Which means N=1.


Ummmm N does not equal 1


N=0.999...

10N=9.999...

10N-N=N(10-1)=9N=9(0.999...)

N=9(0.999...)/9

therefor N=0.999...

[suen17]

Originally posted by broken_legs



Ummmm N does not equal 1


N=0.999...

10N=9.999...

10N-N=N(10-1)=9N=9(0.999...)

N=9(0.999...)/9

therefor N=0.999...

Check your math. You made a mistake in the third line. You're supposed to minus "N=0.999r" from BOTH sides of the equation.

[a social dsease]

1 is bigger

[adam c]

Originally posted by 962 kid


why wouldn't it be

because it isn't

which is further?

3km or 2.9999km?

3 will always be longer since 2.999r can NEVER reach 3, it will always be 0.00000000000...1 shorter

end of story

[pf0sh0]

^ he has a point, no theory there, just truth

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by adam c


because it isn't

which is further?

3km or 2.9999km?

3 will always be longer since 2.999r can NEVER reach 3, it will always be 0.00000000000...1 shorter

end of story

Again, your concept of infinity is incomplete.

It can't be 0.00000.....1 shorter because then it wouldn't be 0.999r

0.999r is another representation of 1, just as 3/3, 9/9, 1435/1435, 1^2, (0.1x10^1), N^0 are various representations of 1.

[962 kid]

He has no valid point, just more incorrect thinking and assumptions. 2.999r will not always be 0.000...1 shorter than 3. Show me the point on the road that is inbetween 2.999r and 3.

[pf0sh0]

Fuck, I totally disregard the "r" everytime lol, because tehre would be no .0001... if its repeating, cause that shit goes on fo' days

[icecreamvan]

Originally posted by JoniBoy


No, 9.9989999999r would be 9.999 (no r)

So, if we were to follow this reasoning for all numbers, then all numbers are equal to each?

ie. 1 = 9.99999 = 9.99998999 looped? So everything is a circle?
Higher math screws around with my head.

[adam c]

2.999 doesn't have to have a number in between since its the next step up

[adam c]

if you work in whole numbers

does 99 = 100?

for your theory, theres nothing in between, so 99 would have to equal 100 right?

[suen17]

Fuck.

Here's the formal mathematical proof, assuming everyone's done high school math and intro calculus:


All philosophical implications & definitions of infinity aside, use the infinite geometrical series, http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/9/d/f9d60aca60f3e7fc00759b27f419645c.png to prove that 0.999r=1

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a359/suen17/DSC00339.jpg

goddamn! .999r=1, same as 2.999r=3

[Speedy]

I think what were are talking about here is more about English language then higher level math.

Yes, I understand what you are saying about there being an infinite set of numbers between 0.99r and 1 but the instance we moved from any 0.99r to 1 we recognize it as a different option on the poll in this forum therefor it was different to us.

To be fair each 0.99r number should have had its own own option on the poll.

[suen17]

Originally posted by Speedy
I think what were are talking about here is more about English language then higher level math.

Yes, I understand what you are saying about there being an infinite set of numbers between 0.99r and 1 but the instance we moved from any 0.99r to 1 we recognize it as a different option on the poll in this forum therefor it was different to us.

To be fair each 0.99r number should have had its own own option on the poll.

THere is not an infinite set of numbers between 0.99r and 1. There are none.

[ZorroAMG]

Originally posted by 962 kid
Show me the point on the road that is inbetween 2.999r and 3.

That's a theoretical point that cannot be "shown"

You "zoom in and show" me that point where they are the same and I'll show you the difference between the two.

Chicken or egg stuff here...

[Mitsu3000gt]

The numbers are equal.

For those who don't understand give this a read:

http://premium.uploadit.org/AlphaNumeric/Recurring.pdf

[adam c]

sure, we can make an equation to make anything true

1lbs will always be heavier then .999lbs

1 lemon will always be more then .999 lemon

blah blah blah.. real world here people

heres an equation

every man is gay

every man starts off as a woman when being created
but over the development, are ovaries drop and become testicles
we all started off as women, had a sex change and became men, therefore us liking girls makes us gay

[JoniBoy]

Originally posted by icecreamvan


So, if we were to follow this reasoning for all numbers, then all numbers are equal to each?

ie. 1 = 9.99999 = 9.99998999 looped? So everything is a circle?
Higher math screws around with my head.

you're forgetting the r.
1 = 9.99999r

and
9.998999r = 9.999 (no r)

1 is not equal to 9.999 (no r) and 9.99999r is not equal to 9.999(no r)

...reading that over i think i might have just made it more confusing haha

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by adam c
sure, we can make an equation to make anything true

Well, you can make equations to make true things true.

For example, try to prove 1+1=3


1lbs will always be heavier then .999lbs

1 lemon will always be more then .999 lemon

If you have a measuring system which can determine infinites, you'd have a point. As it stands, that .999r of a lemon is 1 lemon.


blah blah blah.. real world here people
The real world determines that .999r is 1.


heres an equation

every man is gay

every man starts off as a woman when being created
but over the development, are ovaries drop and become testicles
we all started off as women, had a sex change and became men, therefore us liking girls makes us gay

Well this is just wrong. Every human being starts off with a generic undifferentiated pair of reproductive organs at conception. Those with an XX chromosome develop ovaries, those with XY chromosomes develop testes. Prior to this differentiation, we are merely an ambiguous collection of unspecified cells who's DNA code will provide the directions for our sexual differentiation.

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by suen17
Fuck.

Here's the formal mathematical proof, assuming everyone's done high school math and intro calculus:


All philosophical implications & definitions of infinity aside, use the infinite geometrical series, http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/9/d/f9d60aca60f3e7fc00759b27f419645c.png to prove that 0.999r=1

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a359/suen17/DSC00339.jpg

goddamn! .999r=1, same as 2.999r=3

wut :confused:

[icecreamvan]

old man at soup place say you wrong. if he give me $0.01 discount he close down!

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by adam c
if you work in whole numbers

does 99 = 100?

for your theory, theres nothing in between, so 99 would have to equal 100 right?
Well no. 99+1=100 which means 99+1(-1)=100(-1)

99=99

0.999r+0.000r=1

0.000r=0, therefore .999r=1

[szw]

adam go beyond what you learned in Jr high and try to think about what a number actually is, how its defined, and what it means. Don't think of a number as "how many things" or "how far", those aren't numbers those are just how numbers are used to represent other things.

[Speedy]

I think its all relative...

Would you be just as mad if I stole 0.9r of your sisters virginity then 1 of it

but

would Mr. Pimp man let me pay $0.99r for his $1 crack hoe...I think not! :bigpimp:

[Euro_Trash]

Originally posted by adam c


1lbs will always be heavier then .999lbs

1 lemon will always be more then .999 lemon




Originally posted by JoniBoy


you're forgetting the r.

[Heff]

Originally posted by kertejud2


Again, your concept of infinity is incomplete.

It can't be 0.00000.....1 shorter because then it wouldn't be 0.999r

0.999r is another representation of 1, just as 3/3, 9/9, 1435/1435, 1^2, (0.1x10^1), N^0 are various representations of 1.

only in theoretical mathematics can this "round-up" be made.

[szw]

"
would Mr. Pimp man let me pay $0.99r for his $1 crack hoe...I think not! " think jayz rapped about that...

"if you owe me ten dollars you ain't givin me 9.....r"

[szw]

Heff is wrong

[Speedy]

Originally posted by szw
"
would Mr. Pimp man let me pay $0.99r for his $1 crack hoe...I think not! " think jayz rapped about that...

"if you owe me ten dollars you ain't givin me 9.....r"

was that "I have 99 problems repeating but a bitch ain't 1"

OMG I am such a nerd! I am leaving this thread in risk of never having sex again!

[theken]

moon landing was a farce
whats bigger 99.9% or 100% just look to torrent world, and your stuck on 99.99 % of your porn or movie youll wish that it was bigger

[BenC]

^^ now that is the truth!:closed:

[TimG]

Originally posted by suen17
F
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a359/suen17/DSC00339.jpg



there are two errors in that derrivation:

one is going from line 3 to 4

the MAJOR error is in line two.

your geometric series is defined to start at n=1 where it should be starting at n=0

answer is right, tho

see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

near the bottom for the proof that 1 = 0.9r

[sabad66]

I think the problem here is that most people don't realize that the "r" means it repeats forever. 962 kid said it best saying that two distinct real numbers are defined by having an infinite number of numbers "between" them. There is no number that is between 1 and .9999r

[Heff]

Originally posted by szw
Heff is wrong


No. Only on paper does this particular "proof" work. For any and all practical applications, it will not.

[szw]

Who said anything about practical applications? Damn people are stubborn.

[Heff]

Its either a blanket statement or a qualified statement.

As a blanket statement it is wrong. As a qualified statement, one may find correct applications for the 'proof'.

[szw]

no, you're just being stubborn. I'm out!

OK u sucked me back in. WHy do you say "proof"? Its not really a proof...its a DEFINITION. as in..how its DEFINED...lol

[Euro_Trash]

Originally posted by szw
[B

"if you owe me ten dollars you ain't givin me 9.....r" [/B]

:rofl: :rofl:

[Speedy]

I still don't agree with it....but LOLCat has spoken so it must be true!

http://www.tacticalmedics.com/lolcat.jpg

[kerry]

2 is bigger than both.
All of these numbers in inches are bigger than most of your guys' wangs!

[Heff]

Originally posted by szw
no, you're just being stubborn. I'm out!

OK u sucked me back in. WHy do you say "proof"? Its not really a proof...its a DEFINITION. as in..how its DEFINED...lol

Sorry swz. I read, and understood every word in the Weatherill document. (..who, btw is pretty pompous in his little essay)

But a the concept of 0.9r is simply a contruct. An arbitrary contstruct that is useful in mathematics, but outside of math and math-related disciplines it simply doesn't exist.

If 1 and 0.9r were equal to each other, then there would be no need for its use or construct in the first place. If 1=0.9r, then in every application where 0.9r occurs in notation, is used in equation, or is required to form an explanation, it could be replaced with 1.

Conceptually this should work, but in actual practice, it can't work that way. Therefore, as close as the contruct is (conceptually) to 1, it is not equal.

[adam c]

Originally posted by kertejud2

Well no. 99+1=100 which means 99+1(-1)=100(-1)



actually

99 + 1(-1) = 99 -1 = 98
100(-1) = -100

98 = -100 ??