Uh-oh....checking out the homepage of english wikipedia

[TraumaRN]

Just when you thought it was safe to say that .99999999 != 1

Wiki decided to put it as their featured article. Maybe someone from ATOT suggested it

Link to .999 article

 

[randay]

you should see the new plane takes off thread in HT.

 

[Trey22]

Not this crap again !

 

[rocadelpunk]

what's wrong with a correct article?

The only reason why there would be any dispute is between those who know math/definitions/set building and those who don't.

 

[TheoPetro]

Originally posted by: randay
you should see the new plane takes off thread in HT.

that makes me sick. Anyone saying it doesnt needs to be locked out of HT FOREVER. Atleast so they cant post.

 

[thesurge]

Man... I was reading that article the other day and was like this should be featured.

 

[DanTMWTMP]

hehehe, we all knew all along that 0.9999infinity = 1. I was in that camp during that thread. I could no understand those who said it didn't.
I'll refrain from insulting the people who thought otherwise. I guess I can see why they thought otherwise, but they were thinking way too shallow'ly (lol is that even a word? heh).

and the plane does take off wtf. sigh.

 

[ChooChooChooseMe]

Originally posted by: thesurge
Man... I was reading that article the other day and was like this should be featured.

Wikipedia can read minds! :Q

 

[chambersc]

I like the fraction proof, myself.

0.333? = 1/3
3 × 0.333? = 3 × 1/3
0.999? = 1

 

[fs5]

that article is going to be so defaced.

 

[yosuke188]

Originally posted by: chambersc
I like the fraction proof, myself.

0.333? = 1/3
3 × 0.333? = 3 × 1/3
0.999? = 1

I always knew it by the algebra proof, but this works just as well

 

[Born2bwire]

With the rise of the Internet, debates about 0.999? have escaped the classroom and are commonplace on newsgroups and message boards, including many that nominally have little to do with mathematics. In the newsgroup sci.math, arguing over 0.999? is a "popular sport", and it is one of the questions answered in its FAQ.[55] The FAQ briefly covers 1/3, multiplication by 10, and limits, and it alludes to Cauchy sequences as well.

A 2003 edition of the general-interest newspaper column The Straight Dope discusses 0.999? via 1/3 and limits, saying of misconceptions,

"The lower primate in us still resists, saying: .999~ doesn't really represent a number, then, but a process. To find a number we have to halt the process, at which point the .999~ = 1 thing falls apart.
Nonsense."[56]
The Straight Dope cites a discussion on its own message board that grew out of an unidentified "other message board ... mostly about video games". In the same vein, the question of 0.999? proved such a popular topic in the first seven years of Blizzard Entertainment's Battle.net forums that the company's president, Mike Morhaime, announced at an April 1, 2004 press conference that it is 1:

"We are very excited to close the book on this subject once and for all. We've witnessed the heartache and concern over whether .999~ does or does not equal 1, and we're proud that the following proof finally and conclusively addresses the issue for our customers."[57]
Blizzard's subsequent press release offers two proofs, based on limits and multiplication by 10.

Even in the WORLD of warcraft .999...=1. Text

 

[BoberFett]

While the mathematical proofs can't be argued, people like DanOMGWTFBBQ who call others idiots for disagreeing should be slapped silly for being elitist, ignorant assholes. Perhaps it's you who should be insulted for not being able to fathom a concept like infinity?

Plot the point (.9, .9) on a graph. Then add another decimal and plot that point. Continue ad infinitum. At what point does the resulting line intersect the point (1,1)?

Oh, I just realized, DanOMGWTFBBQ probably still works with chubby crayons, so I'm sure (.9, .9) not only intersected with (1,1), but (0,0) and (2,2) as well.

 

[pray4mojo]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
While the mathematical proofs can't be argued, people like DanOMGWTFBBQ who call others idiots for disagreeing should be slapped silly for being elitist, ignorant assholes. Perhaps it's you who should be insulted for not being able to fathom a concept like infinity?

Plot the point (.9, .9) on a graph. Then add another decimal and plot that point. Continue ad infinitum. At what point does the resulting line intersect the point (1,1)?

Oh, I just realized, DanOMGWTFBBQ probably still works with chubby crayons, so I'm sure (.9, .9) not only intersected with (1,1), but (0,0) and (2,2) as well.

not too sure what you mean but if you mean plot (.9,.9) then (.99,.99) then (,999,,999) and so on, then yes it will intersect (1,1) when you do that an infinite amount of times.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: yosuke188

Originally posted by: chambersc
I like the fraction proof, myself.

0.333? = 1/3
3 × 0.333? = 3 × 1/3
0.999? = 1

I always knew it by the algebra proof, but this works just as well

I came for the

0.333? = 1/3
3 × 0.333? = 3 × 1/3
0.999? = 1

and I stayed for the

x = 0.9999...
10x = 9.9999...
10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999...
9x = 9
x = 1.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: pray4mojo

Originally posted by: BoberFett
While the mathematical proofs can't be argued, people like DanOMGWTFBBQ who call others idiots for disagreeing should be slapped silly for being elitist, ignorant assholes. Perhaps it's you who should be insulted for not being able to fathom a concept like infinity?

Plot the point (.9, .9) on a graph. Then add another decimal and plot that point. Continue ad infinitum. At what point does the resulting line intersect the point (1,1)?

Oh, I just realized, DanOMGWTFBBQ probably still works with chubby crayons, so I'm sure (.9, .9) not only intersected with (1,1), but (0,0) and (2,2) as well.

not too sure what you mean but if you mean plot (.9,.9) then (.99,.99) then (,999,,999) and so on, then yes it will intersect (1,1) when you do that an infinite amount of times.

It will? If you keep zooming in further and further the two will intersect? Not logically.

 

[randay]

Now repeat after me, "Three thirds equals one."

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: fs5
that article is going to be so defaced.

Yeah. People were changing it back and forth between "exactly equal to" to "not exactly equal to."

I'm sure there are more, but that was the one that stuck out since it was at the top.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
While the mathematical proofs can't be argued, people like DanOMGWTFBBQ who call others idiots for disagreeing should be slapped silly for being elitist, ignorant assholes. Perhaps it's you who should be insulted for not being able to fathom a concept like infinity?

Plot the point (.9, .9) on a graph. Then add another decimal and plot that point. Continue ad infinitum. At what point does the resulting line intersect the point (1,1)?

Oh, I just realized, DanOMGWTFBBQ probably still works with chubby crayons, so I'm sure (.9, .9) not only intersected with (1,1), but (0,0) and (2,2) as well.

Somehow I feel that being able to see that the two are equal requires a lack of ignorance and a decent understanding of infinity.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: pray4mojo

Originally posted by: BoberFett
While the mathematical proofs can't be argued, people like DanOMGWTFBBQ who call others idiots for disagreeing should be slapped silly for being elitist, ignorant assholes. Perhaps it's you who should be insulted for not being able to fathom a concept like infinity?

Plot the point (.9, .9) on a graph. Then add another decimal and plot that point. Continue ad infinitum. At what point does the resulting line intersect the point (1,1)?

Oh, I just realized, DanOMGWTFBBQ probably still works with chubby crayons, so I'm sure (.9, .9) not only intersected with (1,1), but (0,0) and (2,2) as well.

not too sure what you mean but if you mean plot (.9,.9) then (.99,.99) then (,999,,999) and so on, then yes it will intersect (1,1) when you do that an infinite amount of times.

It will? If you keep zooming in further and further the two will intersect? Not logically.

Instead of "intersect" I would say "reach", but anyway, by doing that you can't get 0.999... because the number of times you draw the next point is countable.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: rocadelpunk
what's wrong with a correct article?

The only reason why there would be any dispute is between those who know math/definitions/set building and those who don't.

While everyone who is familiar with math would agree that they're the same number, a philosopher would argue that they're different.

Different ways of thinking about a problem.

Of course, this all goes back to those philosophical questions such as "Is the universe that you see exactly the same as the one I see?", and "How can you prove that anything really exists outside of your head?"

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: randay
you should see the new plane takes off thread in HT.

that makes me sick. Anyone saying it doesnt needs to be locked out of HT FOREVER. Atleast so they cant post.

Given the facts of that problem means the plane never takes off.

I really don't see why this is so difficult for folks to understand.

 

[sandorski]

hehe

 

[JujuFish]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: randay
you should see the new plane takes off thread in HT.

that makes me sick. Anyone saying it doesnt needs to be locked out of HT FOREVER. Atleast so they cant post.

Given the facts of that problem means the plane never takes off.

I really don't see why this is so difficult for folks to understand.

I hope you're joking.

 

[JavaMomma]

Originally posted by: yosuke188

Originally posted by: chambersc
I like the fraction proof, myself.

0.333? = 1/3
3 × 0.333? = 3 × 1/3
0.999? = 1

I always knew it by the algebra proof, but this works just as well

Isn't this one the Algebra proof?

x = 0.9999...
10x = 9.9999...
10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999...
9x = 9
x = 1