Re: ((.99999.... == 1) == 1) = 1
From: S. Enterprize Company (smart1234_at_aol.com)
Date: 10/05/04
- Next message: shedar: "Re: T1 topology"
- Previous message: Gerry Myerson: "Re: Smarter than Euler"
- In reply to: David Bandel: "Re: ((.99999.... == 1) == 1) = 1"
- Next in thread: David Bandel: "Re: ((.99999.... == 1) == 1) = 1"
- Reply: David Bandel: "Re: ((.99999.... == 1) == 1) = 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 05 Oct 2004 04:41:07 GMT
>smart1234@aol.com (S. Enterprize Company) wrote in message
>news:<20041003151801.19398.00005072@mb-m17.aol.com>...
>> >smart1234@aol.com (S. Enterprize Company) wrote in message
>> >news:<20041003075319.15331.00001109@mb-m22.aol.com>...
>> >> >.99999... = sigma 9 * 10^-i from i = 1 to infinity
>> >> >
>> >> >10 * .9999999999.... = 10 * sigma 9 * 10^-i from i = 1 to infinity
>> >> >
>> >> >10 * .9999999999.... = sigma 9 * 10^(1-i) from i = 1 to infinity
>> >> >
>> >> > = 9*10^(1 - 1) + sigma 9 * 10^(1-i) from i = 2 to infinity
>> >> > = 9 + sigma 9 * 10^(1-i) from i = 2 to infinity
>> >> > = 9 + sigma 9 * 10^-i from i = 1 to infinity
>> >> > = 9 + .9999....
>> >> > = 9.9999....
>> >> >
>> >> >so now we know that 10 * .9999..... = 9.9999.....
>> >> >
>> >> >that's sufficient to show that .9999.... = 1.
>> >> >
>> >> >because 9 * .9999.... = 10 * .9999.... - .9999.... = 9
>> >> >
>> >> >and if at any point you doubt my rightness in doing arithmetic like
>> >> >thi with an infinitely repeating decimal. just replace it with the
>> >> >sigma and you will see that the algebra works out fine.
>> >> >
>> >> >if you disprove this, then you've made a mistake.
>> >>
>> >> This isn't correct. You are evaluating something else.
>> >>
>> >> 10 * .9999.... does equal 9.99999....
>> >>
>> >> But,
>> >>
>> >> 9.9999999...... = 9 + .9999999....
>> >>
>> >> You have proven that 9 does appear in the series but it still doesn't
>> >> account for .99999..... . So that isn't sufficient enough to show that
>> >>
>> >> .9999.. = 1
>> >>
>> >> If we use your logic then,
>> >>
>> >> 10*.333333... = 3.33333....
>> >>
>> >> so 3.33333.... = 3 + 1/3
>> >>
>> >> If .99999... = 1 then .3333... = .4
>> >>
>> >> 2/5 =\= 1/3
>> >>
>> >> If we do say this then
>> >>
>> >> instead of 3.3333.... you have
>> >>
>> >> 10*.33333... = 3.4
>> >>
>> >> divide both sides by 10 and you get
>> >>
>> >> .3333.... = .34
>> >>
>> >> This isn't even the same thing. It's not a repeating series of .3
>and
>> it's
>> >> not the same number or value.
>> >>
>> >> So you are disproven that .9999... = 1 .
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
>> >> http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
>> >> S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
>> >> http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
>> >
>> >this dolt clearly only understands the basics of proofs in math and
>> >that if starting from some supposition leads to a contradiction then
>> >you've discredited the supposition. however.. his way of leading to a
>> >contradiction was just inserting some bogus statement.
>> >
>> >> 10*.333333... = 3.33333....
>> >>
>> >> so 3.33333.... = 3 + 1/3
>> >>
>> >> If .99999... = 1 then .3333... = .4
>> >
>> >how in the HELL does one go from .99999... equalling 1 to .33333...
>> >euqalling .4? there is no logical step in there.. you might as well
>> >just say that if 1 + 1 = 2 then 2 + 2 = 5.
>> >
>> >or you might disprove 2 + 2 = 5 by saying
>> >
>> >if 2 + 2 = 5 then apples are squares.
>> >
>> >this boy is a fool.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I think you are finally getting point. By showing foolishness, we can
>see
>> that the same logic was used with,
>>
>> .999999.... = 1
>>
>> Now here is more proof with a logical approach showing that,
>>
>> .999999.... =\= 1
>>
>> Do this on your calculator.
>>
>> log ( 1 ) = 0
>>
>> log(.999999.....) = -4.3429 X 10^-31
>>
>> I could only enter so many 9's on my calculator. But, no matter how
>many
>> 9's you could possibly enter,
>>
>> log (1) =\= log( .9999....)
>>
>> .9999... will never equal 1
>>
>>
>> Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
>> http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
>> S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
>> http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
>
>all your proofs either fail to take... math into account.. or at
>least... the concept of infinity. mine takes infinity into account my
>proof using sigmas was perfectly valid.
>
>
My proof shows that nothing in math or math functions support that
.99999.... = 1.
What you believe with the tooth fairy at infinity is your business.
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
- Next message: shedar: "Re: T1 topology"
- Previous message: Gerry Myerson: "Re: Smarter than Euler"
- In reply to: David Bandel: "Re: ((.99999.... == 1) == 1) = 1"
- Next in thread: David Bandel: "Re: ((.99999.... == 1) == 1) = 1"
- Reply: David Bandel: "Re: ((.99999.... == 1) == 1) = 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|