Cogman
Lifer
- Sep 19, 2000
- 10,264
- 109
- 106
No, it equals 1, duh!Originally posted by: pray4mojo
new question.
does 0.000.... = 0?
No, it equals 1, duh!Originally posted by: pray4mojo
new question.
does 0.000.... = 0?
Sure it is. It is what you get when subtract .99999... from 1.Originally posted by: mugs
There is no such thing as 0.000....1. You can't have something that comes after something that repeats infinitely.
No, that would be 0.Originally posted by: smack Down
Sure it is. It is what you get when subtract .99999... from 1.Originally posted by: mugs
There is no such thing as 0.000....1. You can't have something that comes after something that repeats infinitely.
Yes, that would be zero...and that is exactly his point.Originally posted by: Aflac
No, that would be 0.Originally posted by: smack Down
Sure it is. It is what you get when subtract .99999... from 1.Originally posted by: mugs
There is no such thing as 0.000....1. You can't have something that comes after something that repeats infinitely.
I know, I was just trying to stir the pot.Originally posted by: PowerEngineer
Yes, that would be zero...and that is exactly his point.Originally posted by: Aflac
No, that would be 0.Originally posted by: smack Down
Sure it is. It is what you get when subtract .99999... from 1.Originally posted by: mugs
There is no such thing as 0.000....1. You can't have something that comes after something that repeats infinitely.
We've had long (and painful to read) threads arguing whether or not .99999... = 1. It should be obvious that 1 - 0.99999... = 0.000...1, and that if .99999... = 1, then 0.000...1 = 0.
Here we go again.
Isn't everyone?Originally posted by: Aflac
I know, I was just trying to stir the pot.Originally posted by: PowerEngineer
Yes, that would be zero...and that is exactly his point.Originally posted by: Aflac
No, that would be 0.Originally posted by: smack Down
Sure it is. It is what you get when subtract .99999... from 1.Originally posted by: mugs
There is no such thing as 0.000....1. You can't have something that comes after something that repeats infinitely.
We've had long (and painful to read) threads arguing whether or not .99999... = 1. It should be obvious that 1 - 0.99999... = 0.000...1, and that if .99999... = 1, then 0.000...1 = 0.
Here we go again.
you can't have 0.000....X ever...you can never tack on an "X" to the end b/c the end keeps on going forever.Originally posted by: PowerEngineer
Yes, that would be zero...and that is exactly his point.Originally posted by: Aflac
No, that would be 0.Originally posted by: smack Down
Sure it is. It is what you get when subtract .99999... from 1.Originally posted by: mugs
There is no such thing as 0.000....1. You can't have something that comes after something that repeats infinitely.
We've had long (and painful to read) threads arguing whether or not .99999... = 1. It should be obvious that 1 - 0.99999... = 0.000...1, and that if .99999... = 1, then 0.000...1 = 0.
Here we go again.
Edit: yes, 0.000...2 is also zero. 0.000...X where X is anything will be zero.
It's close enough. Your notation is wrong, but if you're asking something like "after a decimel point there's an infinite number of zeros followed by a 1, does this equal zero" then my answer is yeah, it's close enough to be insignificant to anything and everything, and thus may as well be zero.Originally posted by: Sentrosi2121
If something has the smallest amount of a 'thing' in it, it no longer weighs 0 (insert preferred weight measurement here)
But that's just an observation.
It doesn't matter. Do a search for the old thread - some people won't be convinced no matter how many sound proofs you post. Not coincedentally, these people admit to not having a strong background in math, although they still reason that they are correct, and the rest of the math world is wrong.Originally posted by: Hyperion042
I'm nipping this in the bud:
Consider the number 0.1.
This is equivalent to 10^(-1).
Then 0.01 = 10^(-2), 0.001=10^(-3), etc.
Then if there are n 0s between the decimal and the one, the number is 10^(-(n-1)), clearly.
Now we increase n arbitrarily, to 0.000...1:
lim (n->infinity) 10^(-(n-1)) = 10*lim (n->infinity) 10^(-n).
Now, consider ANY arbitrarily small number, call it a.
Then 10^(-n) < a if and only if n > -log a.
Since for any arbitrarily small number a, there is a FINITE n for which 10^(-n) < a, we then have that the limit as n->infinity of 10^(-n) <= 0.
But 10^(-n) > 0 for all real n. Then the limit as n-> infinity of 10^(-n) <=0 and >= 0.
Then limit as n-> infinity of 10^(-n) = 0.
Problem done. This solution is mathematically and logically complete, sound, and excepting any basic typos I've made, irrefutable. If this thread grows to 5 pages after this, I'm disowning people.