(no subject)

[theducks]

Here's an interesting article that postulates that .999 recurring = 1.

For those of you on my friends list who don't have a PhD in Mathematics, and the one of you who does but in an unrelated field.. the ideal is that since 1/3 = .333 recurring, and 2/3 = .666 recurring, and .333 + .666 = .999 and 1/3 + 2/3 = 3/3 = 1, .999 and 1 are the same number. The proof is further suggested by the fact that if .999 is less than 1, how much less? an infinate number of 0's, followed by a single one? :)

It's a cute read. For many purposes, .999 does equal one, but in other terms, it's like saying π = 4

Comments

[oliverm.livejournal.com]

Not that it's like me to be pedantic but....

Firstly, the article doesn't postulate that 0.999 recurring = 1, it proves it (which is a significant difference)

Secondly, 0.999 does not equal 1, 0.999 recurring does equal 1. This may be a typo on your part, but it is important. From a mathematical standpoint saying that 0.999 = 1 is as valid as saying that -12 = 10,000,000,000 (although for practical purposes I admit it is quite different)

The later parts of the proof are really not required, they are just an attempt to get non-mathematical people to realise the truth, that 0.999 recurring does equal 1. The argument that they are written differently is completely irrelevant, as an example consider 0.5 and 1/2 Would anyone argue that they are not equal? I doubt it.

If you do want to question the proof, I suggest finding anyone, anywhere, who has any evidence that 0.999 recurring does not equal 1

[david adam <zanchey> (from livejournal.com)]

But you're a mathematician! Surely you aren't supposed to make such grave logical errors as in yur last sentence!

[david adam <zanchey> (from livejournal.com)]

(I blame lag for the spelling error. Editing in Firefox is a process with latency, damnit.)

[oliverm.livejournal.com]

Apologies, I should of course have asked if anyone wanted to question the premise, not the proof.

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

Although in general if someone says "0.9 recurring doesn't equal 1" the response "what's the difference then?" should beat them down quite quickly :-)

[theducks.livejournal.com]

It *is* a typo/laziness. I was meaning .9 recurring for every instance of .999 (likewise .3 recurring and .6 recurring).. I'd have put a bar above it, but I have no idea how to do that with HTML :P

I could have been clearer I suppose, but c'mon, I did do TEE maths, I know that 1/3 = .3 recurring and not .3330 :)

And yes, you're right, it is a proof not a postulation.