Re: .99999999999999 = 1 No it doesn'ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt..........
From: S. Enterprize Company (smart1234_at_aol.com)
Date: 10/25/04
- Next message: edA-qa mort-ora-y: "arctan identities / simplifications?"
- Previous message: William Elliot: "a joke I can't not make"
- In reply to: S. Enterprize Company: "Re: .99999999999999 = 1 No it doesn'ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt.........."
- Next in thread: S. Enterprize Company: "Re: .99999999999999 = 1 No it doesn'ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt.........."
- Reply: S. Enterprize Company: "Re: .99999999999999 = 1 No it doesn'ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt.........."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 25 Oct 2004 09:39:55 GMT
>Show us what,
>
>1.0 - .9999.... = ?
>
>.999...., has an infinite amount of significant digits. Partial Sums
>converges
>to .999.... to 1 significant digit.
>
> This is a contradiction.
>
>Using Partial Sums Online Math Function
>s[ 1] = 0.9
> s[ 2] = 0.99
> s[ 3] = 0.999
> s[ 4] = 0.9999
> s[ 5] = 0.99999
> s[ 6] = 0.9999990000000001
> s[ 7] = 0.9999999
> s[ 8] = 0.9999999900000001
> s[ 9] = 0.999999999
> s[10] = 0.9999999999
> s[11] = 0.99999999999
> s[12] = 0.999999999999
> s[13] = 0.9999999999999
> s[14] = 0.99999999999999
> s[15] = 0.999999999999999
> s[16] = 0.9999999999999999
> s[17] = 1
>
>After 16 terms in the series, Partial Sums says it converges to 1. Then how
>do
>you explain this?
>
>.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
>99999999999999........
>
> There are more than 16 terms in this series. Partial Sums fails after 16
>terms.
>
> But,
>
>.9999..... is the same as
>
>.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
>99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999......
Name calling time.... . Usually when people lose a debate they start calling
the other person names, like troll or they even go so far as to say everything
at a persons Website is wrong, and that has nothing at all to do with the
debate at this time.
It's real sad that I must enlighten you people in physics, chemistry, .....
and now math.
You people even go so far as to say,
4/3 pi r^3 = the volume sphere
It DOESN"T equal the volume of a sphere. It is approximately equal to the
volume of a sphere. The perfect volume of a sphere can ONLY be approximated.
It is also divergent and indeterminate at the limits of infinity. Using the
"radius of convergence" method, the finite value of convergence is used, not
the infinite convergence value, for a sphere. Because, you can NEVER reach the
convergence value of an infinite convergence spherical volume even with a
finite radius.
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: edA-qa mort-ora-y: "arctan identities / simplifications?"
- Previous message: William Elliot: "a joke I can't not make"
- In reply to: S. Enterprize Company: "Re: .99999999999999 = 1 No it doesn'ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt.........."
- Next in thread: S. Enterprize Company: "Re: .99999999999999 = 1 No it doesn'ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt.........."
- Reply: S. Enterprize Company: "Re: .99999999999999 = 1 No it doesn'ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt.........."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|