Is 1 = 0.9999......

[dxkj]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=38&threadid=954453&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=&STARTPAGE=30

Here it is...

how many posts per page do you have set?

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: dxkj

Originally posted by: TuxDave
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=38&threadid=954453&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=&STARTPAGE=30

Here it is...

how many posts per page do you have set?

Try 50, that works for me.
Edit: Post #1500

 

[bleeb]

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: dxkj

Originally posted by: TuxDave
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=38&threadid=954453&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=&STARTPAGE=30

Here it is...

how many posts per page do you have set?

Try 50, that works for me.

The 2000th post is somewhere near page 49 or 50.... then the moron (ie dxkj) did that idiotic post++^50

 

[tranceport]

woot i'm in

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: bleeb
That's just it though, you simply add the 1 - 0.9999.... = left over stuff.... that you can add to 0.9999... = 1.

Therefore 0.9999 != 1.

BOO to dxkj... that's unsportsman like and retarded. MOD's I believe that deserves a BAN.

Well, although this seems like a good arguement, the other side of the debate has made it as well. to say .99999+ something or - something = something else, you are presupposing your conclusion to prove itself. 1-.99999 =0 only if .99999=1. but does it really? Is there "stuff left over" or not? I don't think people can say that because .99999=1 is unknown. it has to be proven using other methods.

btw. I second the BOO to dxkj and all those that continue to keep posting like they do. Some of us find this interesting...

 

[bleeb]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: bleeb
That's just it though, you simply add the 1 - 0.9999.... = left over stuff.... that you can add to 0.9999... = 1.

Therefore 0.9999 != 1.

BOO to dxkj... that's unsportsman like and retarded. MOD's I believe that deserves a BAN.

Well, although this seems like a good arguement, the other side of the debate has made it as well. to say .99999+ something or - something = something else, you are presupposing your conclusion to prove itself. 1-.99999 =0 only if .99999=1. but does it really? Is there "stuff left over" or not? I don't think people can say that because .99999=1 is unknown. it has to be proven using other methods.

btw. I second the BOO to dxkj and all those that continue to keep posting like they do. Some of us find this interesting...

I believe the entire argument is flawed due to the fact that we are working with theory (limits and boundaries) and an absolute number 1. Sort of like comparing apples and oranges, if you will.

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: dxkj

Originally posted by: Chu
My mailbox just exploded

oops

LMAO!

Oh sh!t, now I have to check my mail account.

Fortunately all email from anandtech goes to a special folder.

*delete all*

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: bleeb

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: bleeb
That's just it though, you simply add the 1 - 0.9999.... = left over stuff.... that you can add to 0.9999... = 1.

Therefore 0.9999 != 1.

BOO to dxkj... that's unsportsman like and retarded. MOD's I believe that deserves a BAN.

Well, although this seems like a good arguement, the other side of the debate has made it as well. to say .99999+ something or - something = something else, you are presupposing your conclusion to prove itself. 1-.99999 =0 only if .99999=1. but does it really? Is there "stuff left over" or not? I don't think people can say that because .99999=1 is unknown. it has to be proven using other methods.

btw. I second the BOO to dxkj and all those that continue to keep posting like they do. Some of us find this interesting...

I believe the entire argument is flawed due to the fact that we are working with theory (limits and boundaries) and an absolute number 1. Sort of like comparing apples and oranges, if you will.

Good point, bleeb. I'm no mathematician, but this has to be provable some other way than what I state. We have to work within mathematical theory to prove a lot of things in many different mathematical fields. We can't discount theory completely. I was just saying a lot of what people had said I didn't think was adequate because they weren't using theory...just making suppositions without anything to back it up.

 

[amdhunter]

bump

 

[Schfifty Five]

bump

why?

 

[Red Squirrel]

Oh this again. lol. Comes up every now and then.

My philosophy is that, from a math point of view they're not the same, but no matter where we apply it in our world, it is the same, because any system will round it off and it will become 1. Even if you do round off to the last 3 digits or what not, 0.8888... should be 0.889 so if it's already 0.999 then.... 1.

That still leaves the answer to: It depends.

 

[amdhunter]

why?

I just felt the need to add .9999999999999... more posts to this thread.

 

[Anarchist420]

1/3 = 0.3333...

1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1
0.3333... + 0.3333... + 0.3333... = 0.9999...

1 = 0.9999...

you beat me to it.

 

[Schfifty Five]

Oh this again. lol. Comes up every now and then.

My philosophy is that, from a math point of view they're not the same, but no matter where we apply it in our world, it is the same, because any system will round it off and it will become 1. Even if you do round off to the last 3 digits or what not, 0.8888... should be 0.889 so if it's already 0.999 then.... 1.

That still leaves the answer to: It depends.

In other words, you don't understand math.

 

[Schfifty Five]

you beat me to it.

by 9 years.

 

[Red Squirrel]

In other words, you don't understand math.

I never said I was good at math. So you're saying the php round function is wrong then? That's what I used to test my theory.

<?php
$value = 0.99999999999999999;

echo("value:".round($value,2));

?>

Output:

Value: 1

And the c++ one too.

ryan@falcon:~/Desktop$ cat test.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include <math.h>

using namespace std;

int main()
{
	float value = 0.99999999999999999;
	
	
	float nearest = floorf(value * 100 + 0.5) / 100;  //found formula online

	cout<<endl<<"value:"<<nearest<<endl;		

	return 0;
}ryan@falcon:~/Desktop$ g++ -o test test.cpp
ryan@falcon:~/Desktop$ ./test

value:1
ryan@falcon:~/Desktop$

I was specifically posting about what the value is equal to when it is applied in a system, as it will always be rounded as no system can possibly process infinite decimal points, or anything that is infinite for that matter.

 

[Schfifty Five]

I was specifically posting about what the value is equal to when it is applied in a system, as it will always be rounded as no system can possibly process infinite decimal points, or anything that is infinite for that matter.

Oh this again. lol. Comes up every now and then.

My philosophy is that, from a math point of view they're not the same, but no matter where we apply it in our world, it is the same, because any system will round it off and it will become 1. Even if you do round off to the last 3 digits or what not, 0.8888... should be 0.889 so if it's already 0.999 then.... 1.

That still leaves the answer to: It depends.

From a math point of vew, they are the same.

 

[DrPizza]

I never said I was good at math. So you're saying the php round function is wrong then? That's what I used to test my theory.

<?php
$value = 0.99999999999999999;

echo("value:".round($value,2));

?>

Output:

Value: 1

And the c++ one too.

ryan@falcon:~/Desktop$ cat test.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include <math.h>

using namespace std;

int main()
{
    float value = 0.99999999999999999;
    
    
    float nearest = floorf(value * 100 + 0.5) / 100;  //found formula online

    cout<<endl<<"value:"<<nearest<<endl;        

    return 0;
}ryan@falcon:~/Desktop$ g++ -o test test.cpp
ryan@falcon:~/Desktop$ ./test

value:1
ryan@falcon:~/Desktop$

I was specifically posting about what the value is equal to when it is applied in a system, as it will always be rounded as no system can possibly process infinite decimal points, or anything that is infinite for that matter.

At least you admitted you're not good in math. How are you qualified about what you can and can't do in programming in regard to mathematics? Mathematicians can manipulate values that expressed in a decimal representation would have an infinite number of digits. Let's say sqrt(3) and sqrt (12). Both of these numbers, have an infinitely long decimal representation. However, they can be manipulated symbolically.

Your only argument might be that I can't enter an infinite number of digits into a computer. Using standard notation, yes I can. A program can easily be written to understand the input ".333333..." or ".27272727..." An algorithm could be written to manipulate these symbolically.

Likewise, "sqrt(3)" can also be manipulated symbolically. Hell, you used .888.... above as an example. I'm incredibly rusty at programming, yet I'm certain that I could write a program to convert that representation of an infinitely repeating string of decimals into two numbers, a and b, such that a=8 and b=9, and a/b represents the exact value of your infinite number of decimal places. Then, I can multiply by 9, by dividing 9 by 9, then multiplying by 8. Of course, technically we'd have to get into a discussion about algorithms for how 9 divided by 9 is carried out on a computer.

 

[Rastus]

1 = potato

 

[Red Squirrel]

Actually if there is a calculation that gives 0.9999999999 as the answer, you could probably input that calculation "as" a variable then it will be calculated in place. Though internally the computer will still round I'd imagine.

But upon further reading it does seem that the general consensus is that even mathematically it is equal to 1. I always figured it was more like an asymptote where the line gets closer and closer and closer but never actually touches.

 

[Destiny]

bump

I just felt the need to add .9999999999999... more posts to this thread.

Awww crap... I got baited into this old thread... I had a heated argument with a few people about this awhile ago...

my explaination is that based on deductive reasoning of only a yes or no answer (true or false) 1.0 = 0.99999999... is false...

 

[Schfifty Five]

Awww crap... I got baited into this old thread... I had a heated argument with a few people about this awhile ago...

my explaination is that based on deductive reasoning of only a yes or no answer (true or false) 1.0 = 0.99999999... is false...

Depending on how often you visit ATOT, you should be able to tell that a 4000+ thread that you didn't see recently is probably a thread that was started awhile back. I visit daily, so if I all of a sudden see a thread that's a few hundred posts and I hadn't seen it the day before, chances are it was an old thread bumped.

Oh, and your "deductive reasoning" is wrong. The correct answer is True, 1 = .999...