| Revision as of 21:47, 6 May 2005 editBradBeattie (talk | contribs)6,888 edits →Abra-cadabra← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:47, 6 May 2005 edit undoBradBeattie (talk | contribs)6,888 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| 0,999... is ''irrational'' and so is the article. Basis on "the proof" that 0.9999...=1 one could argue that ''irrational'' is '''rational''' which is simply jargon. | 0,999... is ''irrational'' and so is the article. Basis on "the proof" that 0.9999...=1 one could argue that ''irrational'' is '''rational''' which is simply jargon. | ||
| : How about <math>\frac{999\ldots}{1000\ldots}</math>? Might want to take a look at ]. --] 20:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC) | : How about <math>\frac{999\ldots}{1000\ldots}</math>? Might want to take a look at ]. --] 20:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:47, 6 May 2005
Creation of this entry
I created this page in response to two threads I saw and the confusion that arose. Figured it was something worth noting. --BradBeattie 18:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think you are right. I submitted it first for deletion because the title looked a bit misleading. This is not a series of nines, the series is if you wish of
Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 19:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
True, the title was a little slap-dash. Thanks for the improvement. --BradBeattie 19:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Abra-cadabra
"In mathematics, one could easily fall in the trap of thinking that while 0.999... is certainly close to 1, nevertheless the two are not equal. Here's a proof that they actually are."
0,999... is irrational and so is the article. Basis on "the proof" that 0.9999...=1 one could argue that irrational is rational which is simply jargon.
- How about ? Might want to take a look at limits. --BradBeattie 20:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
? Might want to take a look at If 0.999... is 1 then the whole basis of mathematics should be re-written. Mathematics is considered to be exact science. If 0.999... was EXACT 1 then it would not make any difference to say exempli gratia (for example) that domain is same than [0,1[ or 0.000...0001 is 0 which is the basis of differential calculus. One should not confuse the concept of irrationality with the concept rationality, or infinity with finity, or inexact with exact.
- Could you please prove your statement? This page has a proof as to why 0.999~ = 1. Please provide your counter-proof. --BradBeattie 20:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
1/3 is often writen as 0.333... If you multiply 1/3 (or in your case referred as 0.333...) by 3 you get exact 1. It's not proofing. Is's abracadabra id est (that is) mumbo jumbo in magic industry. If you geometrically plot function Y=1/X where X= (instead of domain ]0,1]) what value do you get for Y when X=0 or how do you present it?
"~=" is different than "=" (equality)
- What's your point? The number 0.9999... is not in
"What's your point? The number 0.9999... is not in [0, 1[. Oleg Alexandrov 21:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC)"
- Well, 0.999... is not the zero, it's the other bound i.e. number of the domain/range [0,1[. It think you can guess which one of the bounds it is.
- 0,999... approaches its limit 1 BUT not equals 1. (anon forgot to sign)
- Well, that's the very purpose of this article, to convince you that 0.999.. equals 1. You either show that this theorem is wrong, or believe it. :) Oleg Alexandrov 21:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- To be convinced that 0.999~ doesn't equal 1, you'd have to give me a proof. Any of the following methods are not acceptable: Alternative Proofs