Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

GO TO BOARDS


Does 0.9999(repeating) = 1?

Yes 705 56.9%
No 578 46.65%
Voters 1239 .

Does 0.9999(repeating) = 1?

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kaolla

Senior Member

01-29-2013

Quote:
Crowcide:
So your big qualm is that we write decimal notation? You get decimals are just notation and definition.


decimals are a notation in which infinite repeating numbers tend towards the values expressed in other fractional notations or functions. current math has defined these repeaters to be equal for convenience.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Peacë

Senior Member

01-29-2013

Well I just discovered that some of what I'm arguing has a name: Hyperreals.

I would argue that Reals cannot be complete without hyperreals (which is why I stated my first comment). Hyperreals allow for 0.999... not equal to 1.

Assuming the Archimedean principal is wrong, see pages 63-66: http://math.coe.uga.edu/TME/issues/v21n2/5-21.2_Norton%20&%20Baldwin.pdf



Born too late again, drats.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Crowcide

Senior Member

01-29-2013

Quote:
Folly Inc:

Do you agree that .999 does not -always- equal 1 in a linguistic comparison?

Of course I agree with that, they are expressed with different symbols


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Crowcide

Senior Member

01-29-2013

Quote:
Peacë:
Well I just discovered that some of what I'm arguing has a name: Hyperreals.

I would argue that Reals cannot be complete without hyperreals (which is why I stated my first comment). Hyperreals allow for 0.999... not equal to 1.

Assuming the Archimedean principal is wrong, see pages 63-66: http://math.coe.uga.edu/TME/issues/v21n2/5-21.2_Norton%20&%20Baldwin.pdf



Born too late again, drats.

So your point is based on if you assume the axioms for a system are wrong.

You get if the axioms are "wrong" I.e. lead to a contradiction you can prove anything true in the system

An axiomatic approach to the reals is mostly a short cut to avoid all the hassle with generating it from the set theory axioms, something you can do completeness included


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Folly Inc

Senior Member

01-29-2013

Quote:
Crowcide:
So your point is based on if you assume the axioms for a system are wrong.

You get if the axioms are "wrong" I.e. lead to a contradiction you can prove anything true in the system

An axiomatic approach to the reals is mostly a short cut to avoid all the hassle with generating it from the set theory axioms, something you can do completeness included


So I thought about this last night, before I fell asleep. I'm probably wrong and don't understand base numbers the way I think I do, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.

If we assume a Base 1 numerical system, wouldn't X = (1/y) 1 be mathematically sound? the equation is solely meant to define 1 as a number, so it doesn't work with other numbers. But it does work with one.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Crowcide

Senior Member

01-29-2013

Quote:
Kaolla:
decimals are a notation in which infinite repeating numbers tend towards the values expressed in other fractional notations or functions. current math has defined these repeaters to be equal for convenience.

Who should get to decide what numbers are equal too? You or current math.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Crowcide

Senior Member

01-29-2013

Quote:
Folly Inc:
So I thought about this last night, before I fell asleep. I'm probably wrong and don't understand base numbers the way I think I do, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.

If we assume a Base 1 numerical system, wouldn't X = (1/y) 1 be mathematically sound? the equation is solely meant to define 1 as a number, so it doesn't work with other numbers. But it does work with one.

The base 1 number system is essentially just making hash marks and i'm fairly sure it only related to the natural numbers.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kaolla

Senior Member

01-29-2013

Quote:
Crowcide:
Who should get to decide what numbers are equal too? You or current math.


we went through this already. logic


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Crowcide

Senior Member

01-29-2013

Quote:
Kaolla:
we went through this already. logic

logic disagrees with your interpenetration of decimals. You looked up axioms yet?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kaolla

Senior Member

01-29-2013

Quote:
Crowcide:
logic disagrees with your interpenetration of decimals


why would it?

i would assume this is the same logic you use to make 10 / 3 = 3