Why .999... is not 1 (April Fool's Joke)

[Smoblikat]

Divide a pie into three pieces. 1/3 = .333333333333333

Where did the .000000000000000001 go?

 

[T_Yamamoto]

Divide a pie into three pieces. 1/3 = .333333333333333

Where did the .000000000000000001 go?

black hole ate it

 

[KevinCU]

This whole thread is troubling.

 

[Schfifty Five]

Divide a pie into three pieces. 1/3 = .333333333333333

Where did the .000000000000000001 go?

At the sake of being trolled, 1/3 != .333333333333333,

instead, it is 1/3 = .333... (notice the ..., that means repeating/recurring, it repeats the 3 infinitely which is completely different than what you wrote).

 

[diesbudt]

Divide a pie into three pieces. 1/3 = .333333333333333

Where did the .000000000000000001 go?

Well I know when I cut pie into 3 pieces, crumbs fall behind.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well, .9(9repeating) is still not 1. It's still less than 1.

How much less?

That's not a snarky question, either. If you cannot tell me what the difference is between them, then you are making a baseless assertion.

This whole thing is so much fail because these people are too high up on their horses to realize that dividing by 3 still means you have, at the end of the day, a .xxxxxxxx4 somewhere because you're truncating. If you're going to say that 1/3+1/3+1/3 = 1. Then sure, that's fine. But the minute you make it a repeating decimal and don't round one of the results to a .xx4, fail.

This is as wrong as a three-sided square. Congrats on pegging yourself as "one of those people."

 

[thraashman]

A friend of mine posted one of her other vids on Facebook the other day and I went and watched several of them, including this one. I must say they are very entertaining and she is one damn smart woman. If more math teachers could be like her then more of us would enjoy math, she makes it fun.

 

[destrekor]

infinities inside infinities inside OMG infiniception!
::head asplodeded::

 

[DrPizza]

A friend of mine posted one of her other vids on Facebook the other day and I went and watched several of them, including this one. I must say they are very entertaining and she is one damn smart woman. If more math teachers could be like her then more of us would enjoy math, she makes it fun.

Remember, the video is fast forwarded (edited) while she talks very fast over it. What she does is awesome either as an extension, else introduction to many math topics. I absolutely loved her series on the Fibonacci series and nature; it compressed into 15 minutes what I would have needed multiple days to accomplish. I don't have multiple "free" days in the curriculum to do so, but felt that I could spare the 15 minutes to give the students a very solid taste.

 

[zinfamous]

Well I know when I cut pie into 3 pieces, crumbs fall behind.

what if we were to freeze that Pie in LN2, and then slice it evenly with a heat beam?

 

[RPD]

what if we were to freeze that Pie in LN2, and then slice it evenly with a heat beam?

Then you'd lose part of the pie to the heat =P

 

[diesbudt]

In all seriousness, the problem with this "dilemma"

is that 1/3 != 0.3333333333(repeating). 0.3333333(repeating) is the closest numerical value to the fraction 1/3, and thus is used for it.

Same as in calculus when limits are used with infinities, X values converage to Y values and can be mathmatically considered Y because they are the closest numerical value for it, when in reality they are not.

what if we were to freeze that Pie in LN2, and then slice it evenly with a heat beam?

Then you have exact 1/3s. But you will still lose some to heat, and crumbs while eating and/or setting on the plate.

 

[zinfamous]

Then you'd lose part of the pie to the heat =P

hmm, okay, that's actually worse than not freezing it and "losing" crumbs...

OK, how about we freeze the pie in LN2, and then chip it with a hammer? we have chunks of pieces, crumbs and what-not, that can "easily" be scooped up and total 3 complete slices, without any real, physical loss.


even with the crumbs in a dry pie, the crumbs are still there, on the plate....so it's not like they are ever lost.

 

[diesbudt]

hmm, okay, that's actually worse than not freezing it and "losing" crumbs...

OK, how about we freeze the pie in LN2, and then chip it with a hammer? we have chunks of pieces, crumbs and what-not, that can "easily" be scooped up and total 3 complete slices, without any real, physical loss.


even with the crumbs in a dry pie, the crumbs are still there, on the plate....so it's not like they are ever lost.

Yet, on a molecular level, I bet pieces of the pie were left behind. pieces too small to really see, and unless using a vacuum or chemical solvent would not be able to get them off.

And since 0.9999(repeating) is such a tiny, little fraction from 1, a single atom can be theorized to push it over the edge. Thus still meaning you cannot get a full pie when scooping it either.

 

[Paul98]

In all seriousness, the problem with this "dilemma"

is that 1/3 != 0.3333333333(repeating). 0.3333333(repeating) is the closest numerical value to the fraction 1/3, and thus is used for it.

prove it.

Same as in calculus when limits are used with infinities, X values converage to Y values and can be mathmatically considered Y because they are the closest numerical value for it, when in reality they are not.

You are trying to conclude something about a limit that isn't true.

Just look at something where there are x 9's after a decimal, take the limit as x->inf. Now what do you think this means in the context of .999.... = 1?

 

[martixy]

Not sure if trolling or genuinely ignorant.

In the second case:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=507002

 

[zinfamous]

Yet, on a molecular level, I bet pieces of the pie were left behind. pieces too small to really see, and unless using a vacuum or chemical solvent would not be able to get them off.

And since 0.9999(repeating) is such a tiny, little fraction from 1, a single atom can be theorized to push it over the edge. Thus still meaning you cannot get a full pie when scooping it either.

OK, I forgot to mention that the pie has a diameter of 1nm, and we are using a TEM to image and slice it.

 

[glenn1]

Divide a pie into three pieces. 1/3 = .333333333333333

Where did the .000000000000000001 go?

Remember you're dealing with abstract concepts here, and common sense rules don't apply. If you accept the concept of infinity or infinitesimals, you should accept .9999... = 1 under the same logic of mathematics. Neither is empirically provable so accepting one and rejecting the other makes no sense.

Also, this proves the futility of arguing these subjects. You're foolish to debate people whose ideas by their own internal logic can't be disproved; whether it's a schizophrenic with his imaginary friends or a mathematician with his imaginary numbers.

 

[DrPizza]

Yet, on a molecular level, I bet pieces of the pie were left behind. pieces too small to really see, and unless using a vacuum or chemical solvent would not be able to get them off.

And since 0.9999(repeating) is such a tiny, little fraction from 1, a single atom can be theorized to push it over the edge. Thus still meaning you cannot get a full pie when scooping it either.

*sigh* it is NOT a tiny, little fraction from 1, it is EXACTLY equal to one. Perfectly equal, not a bit of a difference.


And, with the pie, if you freeze it, you remove energy. Thanks to E=mc², you've lost some pie. Yes, E=mc² applies to chemical reactions, etc.; it's not limited in scope to nuclear reactions, though when you take the little bit of energy and divide by c², it's an incredibly tiny amount of mass.

 

[Howard]

*sigh* it is NOT a tiny, little fraction from 1, it is EXACTLY equal to one. Perfectly equal, not a bit of a difference.


And, with the pie, if you freeze it, you remove energy. Thanks to E=mc², you've lost some pie. Yes, E=mc² applies to chemical reactions, etc.; it's not limited in scope to nuclear reactions, though when you take the little bit of energy and divide by c², it's an incredibly tiny amount of mass.

What is the mass that is lost during heat loss?

 

[zinfamous]

*sigh* it is NOT a tiny, little fraction from 1, it is EXACTLY equal to one. Perfectly equal, not a bit of a difference.


And, with the pie, if you freeze it, you remove energy. Thanks to E=mc², you've lost some pie. Yes, E=mc² applies to chemical reactions, etc.; it's not limited in scope to nuclear reactions, though when you take the little bit of energy and divide by c², it's an incredibly tiny amount of mass.

but you don't lose mass....oh wait, I guess you do?

:hmm:

 

[PowerEngineer]

In all seriousness, the problem with this "dilemma"

is that 1/3 != 0.3333333333(repeating). 0.3333333(repeating) is the closest numerical value to the fraction 1/3, and thus is used for it.

Same as in calculus when limits are used with infinities, X values converage to Y values and can be mathmatically considered Y because they are the closest numerical value for it, when in reality they are not.

Watch the video!

If you can't describe a number that fits between two numbers, then those two numbers are equal. It follows that 1/3 = 0.3333333333(repeating).

The problem with this "dilemma" is solved by your own assertion!

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Watch the video!

If you can't describe a number that fits between two numbers, then those two numbers are equal. It follows that 1/3 = 0.3333333333(repeating).

The problem with this "dilemma" is solved by your own assertion!

That's a very interesting observation. I never thought of it that way.

 

[glenn1]

Watch the video!

If you can't describe a number that fits between two numbers, then those two numbers are equal. It follows that 1/3 = 0.3333333333(repeating).

The problem with this "dilemma" is solved by your own assertion!

Or more simply, flip the question around. If you disagree that .9999... = 1 , then please advise what the solution is for .999.... minus one is if not zero.

 

[Howard]

This thread isn't as good if you give away the fact that it's a joke.