View Poll Results: Is 0.999... exactly equal to one?

Voters
86. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, they are equal.

    52 60.47%
  • No, they are not equal.

    34 39.53%
Page 317 of 1834 FirstFirst ... 2172673073153163173183193273674178171317 ... LastLast
Results 3,161 to 3,170 of 18334
Like Tree2556Likes

Thread: Is 0.999... equal to one?

  1. #3161
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    61

    Default Re: Is 0.999... equal to one?

    I'm not attracted by finitism (and not just because it seems to need invective to be expressed).

    I don't think "exists" can be applied to mathematical concepts, even the natural numbers. I'd say that they are answers to questions - in the case of the natural numbers, "how many". More complex questions require different concepts, and I see the jump to infinity, perhaps unbridgeable in terms of existence, as simply the result of asking more demanding questions.

    I see mathematics as having the form: "If I say X then I am compelled to say Y" (X being only limited by Y not containing not-X, not by the plausibility of X).

    As for Dedekind cuts, I can see that finitists will reject the concept, whereas I think it answers a difficult question about defining arithmetic for what the finitists call magnitudes, and therefore about the centrally important ordered complete field we call the "reals".

    If I allow myself to talk about infinite sets of rationals then there are two exemplary cases:

    for zero, the lower set is all the negative rationals and the upper set is zero itself and all the positive rationals.

    for root two, the lower set is all the rationals whose square is less than two and the upper set is all the rationals whose square is greater than two.

    Then it's actually quite easy (always accepting that we can talk about infinite sets) to define arithmetic with lower sets, the operations yielding the appropriate lower set, and therefore a cut.

    Sadly, I know that this post, which I have tried to make as uncontentious as possible, will not be found acceptable.

  2. #3162
    Senior Member john_gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    I am a nomad.
    Posts
    7,362

    Default Re: Is 0.999... equal to one?

    Quote Originally Posted by agingjb View Post
    I'm not attracted by finitism (and not just because it seems to need invective to be expressed).
    What makes you think it needs invective to be expressed? "Infinitism" does a pretty solid job of denouncing itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by agingjb View Post
    I don't think "exists" can be applied to mathematical concepts, even the natural numbers.
    Of course it can. It is central to mathematical concepts that are well defined. The natural numbers have always existed because they are well defined.

    Quote Originally Posted by agingjb View Post
    I'd say that they are answers to questions - in the case of the natural numbers, "how many".
    That's extremely vague. The natural numbers exist as a consequence of measure in terms of whole units.

    Quote Originally Posted by agingjb View Post
    More complex questions require different concepts, and I see the jump to infinity, perhaps unbridgeable in terms of existence, as simply the result of asking more demanding questions.
    Well, you are clearly confused. Mathematics is not about asking questions. It's the study of measurement and the properties of numbers that arise as a result thereof. Questions are asked in every field of knowledge but have their roots in philosophy, which is the source of all knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by agingjb View Post
    I see mathematics as having the form: "If I say X then I am compelled to say Y" (X being only limited by Y not containing not-X, not by the plausibility of X).
    You are thinking of logic which is one of the main tools of mathematics, but by no means that which defines it.

    Quote Originally Posted by agingjb View Post
    As for Dedekind cuts, I can see that finitists will reject the concept, whereas I think it answers a difficult question about defining arithmetic for what the finitists call magnitudes, and therefore about the centrally important ordered complete field we call the "reals".
    Um, no. What you think of as an ordered field is clearly ill-defined nonsense because you don't understand what is a magnitude. There is no question about defining arithmetic for magnitudes - arithmetic is ONLY defined for numbers. Magnitudes are not numbers unless they have been measured.

    Quote Originally Posted by agingjb View Post
    If I allow myself to talk about infinite sets of rationals then there are two exemplary cases:

    for zero, the lower set is all the negative rationals and the upper set is zero itself and all the positive rationals.
    You are such a pompous ass. "if YOU allow yourself"?! Tsk, tsk. You obviously do not understand what is a Dedekind cut. May I suggest some serious study of my previous comments in that regard?


    Quote Originally Posted by agingjb View Post
    Then it's actually quite easy (always accepting that we can talk about infinite sets) to define arithmetic with lower sets, the operations yielding the appropriate lower set, and therefore a cut.
    You can talk about many things, but doing so does not mean you know what you are talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by agingjb View Post
    Sadly, I know that this post, which I have tried to make as uncontentious as possible, will not be found acceptable.
    If you call this uncontentious, I would hate to see one of your contentious posts. May I remind you once again Aging JB, mathematics is not about opinion or like or dislike, it is about cold, hard facts and concepts that are well defined.

    One can only ever be certain that concepts and ideas exist if and only if, the same are well defined.

    The rest is simply idle horseshit! (Oh, please do pardon the invective!).
    Last edited by john_gabriel; 06-28-2013 at 03:41 AM.
    The more I publish the truth, the more society hates me.
    There is no sympathy for those who expose deeply flawed mainstream ideas.

    The official New Calculus site
    The 9 applet New Calculus course
    Die Neue Analysis
    新微积分

  3. #3163
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    463

    Default Re: Is 0.999... equal to one?

    Quote Originally Posted by john_gabriel View Post
    What makes you think it needs invective to be expressed?
    If finitism doesn't need invective to be expressed, why do you keep saying things like

    You are such a pompous ass.
    and

    The rest is simply idle horseshit! (Oh, please do pardon the invective!).
    What is the need for the invective?
    agingjb likes this.

  4. #3164
    Senior Member john_gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    I am a nomad.
    Posts
    7,362

    Default Re: Is 0.999... equal to one?

    Quote Originally Posted by Colin View Post
    If finitism doesn't need invective to be expressed, why do you keep saying things like

    and

    What is the need for the invective?
    Probably because I do not consider it to be invective. Would you like to know what I consider to be invective?

    I didn't think so!

    Say Colin, what kind of tone does the following phrase carry?

    If I allow myself to talk about infinite sets... - Aging JB

    Pompous ass?

    It is extremely arrogant and condescending. You're so naive that you don't realize it. Tsk, Tsk.

    Let me help you:

    Do you think anyone can prevent him from talking about infinite sets or anything else?
    Do you think that perhaps he thinks it's beneath him and that he might be mocking everyone else?
    Do you think that perhaps his nose is turned upwards so much that he can't see everyone else around him?

    Do you need more clues Colin? You have not answered any of the previous refutations of your wrong arguments. Not that it matters, but it's so unlike you not to.
    Last edited by john_gabriel; 06-28-2013 at 06:06 AM.
    The more I publish the truth, the more society hates me.
    There is no sympathy for those who expose deeply flawed mainstream ideas.

    The official New Calculus site
    The 9 applet New Calculus course
    Die Neue Analysis
    新微积分

  5. #3165
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,785

    Default Re: Is 0.999... equal to one?

    Quote Originally Posted by agingjb View Post
    Sadly, I know that this post, which I have tried to make as uncontentious as possible, will not be found acceptable.
    It appears that you have made an accurate mathematical prediction.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  6. #3166
    Senior Member john_gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    I am a nomad.
    Posts
    7,362

    Default Re: Is 0.999... equal to one?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    It appears that you have made an accurate mathematical prediction.
    Well, you must be able to see something I've missed. None of Aging JB's comments contain any math.

    Sadly, most of the comments don't.
    The more I publish the truth, the more society hates me.
    There is no sympathy for those who expose deeply flawed mainstream ideas.

    The official New Calculus site
    The 9 applet New Calculus course
    Die Neue Analysis
    新微积分

  7. #3167
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    463

    Default Re: Is 0.999... equal to one?

    Quote Originally Posted by john_gabriel View Post
    pi as an approximation can be used to describe the length of a line, the size of an angle, the volume of a cylinder or the amount of paint in a can. pi is not a number. However, an approximation of the magnitude pi is a number.

    In the statement:

    The circumference of a circle of 1 meter diameter is pi meters.

    Are the expressions "1 meter" and "pi meters" different in character? Is either of these expressions any more or less accurate than the other? Is either expression an approximation?

    Or consider the following 2 statements

    Each angle of an equilateral triangle is 60 arc degrees.

    Each angle of an equilateral triangle is pi/3 radians.

    Are the expressions "60 arc degrees" and "pi/3 radians" different in character? Is either of these expressions any more or less accurate than the other? Is either expression an approximation?

  8. #3168
    Senior Member astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wanganui New Zealand
    Posts
    1,194
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Is 0.999... equal to one?

    Quote Originally Posted by Colin View Post
    In the statement:

    The circumference of a circle of 1 meter diameter is pi meters.

    Are the expressions "1 meter" and "pi meters" different in character? Is either of these expressions any more or less accurate than the other? Is either expression an approximation?

    Or consider the following 2 statements

    Each angle of an equilateral triangle is 60 arc degrees.

    Each angle of an equilateral triangle is pi/3 radians.

    Are the expressions "60 arc degrees" and "pi/3 radians" different in character? Is either of these expressions any more or less accurate than the other? Is either expression an approximation?
    ~ Yes Colin if the diameter is 1. meter the circumference must be 3.14... meters.

    If you DO NOT make a approximation of that sum it continues to infinity... undefined.

    In ALL cases of working with pi we make that approximation. Are you confused by pi ?

    ~ Yes Colin the deg., of a equilateral triangle must be of 60 deg..each.

    ~ I can not answer what I do not comprehend.. pi/3 radians is not a term I would use.

    ~~ and I return to answer the question asked.. Yes the terms are very different.

    I meter is a well defined sum, while pi meters is not.
    Last edited by astromark; 06-29-2013 at 01:02 AM.

  9. #3169
    Senior Member john_gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    I am a nomad.
    Posts
    7,362

    Default Re: Is 0.999... equal to one?

    Quote Originally Posted by Colin View Post
    In the statement:

    The circumference of a circle of 1 meter diameter is pi meters.

    Are the expressions "1 meter" and "pi meters" different in character? Is either of these expressions any more or less accurate than the other? Is either expression an approximation?
    Yes. 1 meter is well defined. pi meters is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Colin View Post
    Or consider the following 2 statements

    Each angle of an equilateral triangle is 60 arc degrees.

    Each angle of an equilateral triangle is pi/3 radians.

    Are the expressions "60 arc degrees" and "pi/3 radians" different in character? Is either of these expressions any more or less accurate than the other? Is either expression an approximation?
    There is no such thing as "60 arc degrees". If you mean 60 degrees and pi/3 radians, then YES, they are different in character - the one is a number and the other is not.

    By the way, the number of degrees chosen in a circle is arbitrary. I could have chosen 30pi degrees for each circle, in which case, an equilateral triangle would have 5pi degree angles.

    Perhaps in some other solar system, they use the convention of 30pi degrees in each circle. Ha, ha.
    So tempted to use a nasty invective here, but I will refrain!

    Did you think very long about this Cornelius? Ha, ha. Tsk, tsk.

    I am still waiting on for your response to my proof that Dedekind cuts do not define real numbers. Or is that simply something you can't fathom, so you've chosen to ignore it?

    "Real numbers" as you imagine them, do not exist. Neither Dedekind cuts nor Cauchy sequences define a "real" number.

    is well defined if and only if, m is an integer on completion of the limit.

    For if m is not an integer, then there is no sense in calling









    definitions of different "real" numbers k, l, p and q because m is the same for them all, that is, . And pray tell, what sort of cut is ? Ha, ha.

    I love it when ignorant modern mathematicians are so routed using their very own ill-defined concepts and ideas. Too funny!


    So, let's see what happens to the rest of your simian mathematics when one of your fundamental notions fails (the fact that real numbers do not exist):

    1. All the theory derived based on the ill-defined concept of real number is suspect.
    2. The transfer principle is bollocks.
    3. Infinitesimals are a dream because they are a subset of the "real" interval (0,1).
    4. Hyperreals, surreals, incredibly stupid "reals" and all their simian relatives also do not exist.

    Tsk, tsk. Colin. Tsk, tsk. Primate mathematicians are unbelievably stupid, aren't they?

    Caveman1917 was blurting off his ignorance about cardinality and other bullshit. Turns out the moron did not even understand the basic concepts in his theory. Hilarious!

    What truly astounds me is how these modern academic idiots have not yet capitulated in the face of mountains of evidence that debunks all their wrong ideas!


    Test:

    Answer follows at end of comment.

    Choose ONLY the one most correct answer:

    In the light of all this evidence, the theory of real analysis:

    a) Must be sound and reliable.
    b) Has some quirks but works most of the time.
    c) Is nonsense because it is based on ill-defined concepts.
    d) Is rot because John Gabriel claims it is.
    e) (c) and (d).

    My Asian students love these type of questions where they have to determine the most correct. They find the simple ones too boring. Well, no wonder so many of them score 2400 on SAT II.

    Sigh, wouldn't it be nice if American students could someday be the same? Dream on...

    Choice (e) is the correct answer.
    Last edited by john_gabriel; 06-29-2013 at 01:32 AM.
    The more I publish the truth, the more society hates me.
    There is no sympathy for those who expose deeply flawed mainstream ideas.

    The official New Calculus site
    The 9 applet New Calculus course
    Die Neue Analysis
    新微积分

  10. #3170
    Moderator grapes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    4,008

    Default Re: Is 0.999... equal to one?

    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    Yet you are not . Forms of a.bc... are quite obviously strings of symbols (to be precise, they are elements of a formal language) while a real number is an element of a model over that formal language. Models aren't unique, that's why we can't identify the model with the formal language. Especially in our case since the hyperreal numbers are an alternative model to the real numbers over the same formal language.

    A model (or a structure) over a formal language is defined by an interpretation function, that's what are.
    Yes, we use strings of characters to write and communicate, but it is valid to say red is a color, rather than have to say red is a string of characters that we interpret as the name of a color. Just as it is valid to say 0.333... is a number, whereas "0.333..." is a string of characters. In my posts I thought I was careful to distinguish between the two (or three) cases.




    I don't think the next step is valid. Hyperreals addition is component-wise. In other words, the sum of the hyperreals (3, 3, 3, ...) and (.1, .1, .1, ...) is (3.1, 3.1, 3.1, ...). Another way of saying it, is, as hyperreals, 3 + .1 = 3.1. It's what you'd expect as images of reals in the hyperreals.


    So the RHS of both are equal to eachother, and thus Pi is either equal to both or equal to neither.
    I disagree.

LinkBacks (?)

  1. 12-05-2013, 04:43 PM
  2. 03-17-2013, 09:22 AM
  3. 09-28-2012, 09:36 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •