.999999 = 1
h: u guys are arguing over this :chuckles: who cares? :dunno:
CHRISTMASTIME IN IRAQ
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,413
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
I can't believe that his arguement for taking a fraction that cannot be properly expressed as a precise number, taking our closest decimal approximation, and then using the failure of a decimal approximation to prove such a thing.
It's a cute theory, yes, but inherently flawed as we're dealing with the mathmatical equivilent of apples to oranges.
It's a cute theory, yes, but inherently flawed as we're dealing with the mathmatical equivilent of apples to oranges.
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by clickwir
.999 is not the same thing as saying 1.
It doesn't matter what this jackhole uses for an equation. When people mean 1, they say 1. They don't say .9999 repeating, but it's close enough.
1.999 repeating is not 2. Just adding .99 repeating to any number does not make it equal to that number. They are simply diffrent numbers, therefore, not able to be equal to each other.
There are simply some equations that are not 100% precise. This guy takes advantage of those to try and prove something that is just simply wrong.
Some portion of some number is not equal to the whole of that number, no matter how close it gets to being a whole, it's not a whole until it is 1. Untill you make it a 1, it's just a portion of 1.
It doesn't matter what this jackhole uses for an equation. When people mean 1, they say 1. They don't say .9999 repeating, but it's close enough.
1.999 repeating is not 2. Just adding .99 repeating to any number does not make it equal to that number. They are simply diffrent numbers, therefore, not able to be equal to each other.
There are simply some equations that are not 100% precise. This guy takes advantage of those to try and prove something that is just simply wrong.
Some portion of some number is not equal to the whole of that number, no matter how close it gets to being a whole, it's not a whole until it is 1. Untill you make it a 1, it's just a portion of 1.
CHRISTMASTIME IN IRAQ
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,413
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
Originally Posted by Buyimports2
Are you getting this from layman's logic or do you have a math source to prove it?
Originally Posted by Epoch
I can't believe that his arguement for taking a fraction that cannot be properly expressed as a precise number, taking our closest decimal approximation, and then using the failure of a decimal approximation to prove such a thing.
It's a cute theory, yes, but inherently flawed as we're dealing with the mathmatical equivilent of apples to oranges.
It's a cute theory, yes, but inherently flawed as we're dealing with the mathmatical equivilent of apples to oranges.
Live Free Or Die
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,388
Likes: 1
From: San Diego County
Originally Posted by reno96teg
remind me not to buy, use, drive through, or in any way interact with whatever it is you work on.