It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

.9 repeating = 1? Is our numerical system flawed?

page: 10
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Originally posted by 00Einstein
To ALLisONE

It is infinitely continuous as continuity implies infinity if there is no say of otherwise.

Infinity is immeasurable. A circle can be measured. A circle exists of the true nature of infinity but is not infinity itself. A circle is a limited line that is wrapped around to have its start and end conjoined and its "parts" amalgamed.


The definition of continuous is "without intermission or recurring regularly after minute interruptions" according to Merriam-Webster. So, the circle was continuous, but still finite, because, as you said, the "limited line that is wrapped around" is recurring regularly. That's what I was getting at, maybe poor word choice though. I was just saying that it wasn't infinite in that it could be measured, whereas infinity cannnot.

[edit on 4/2/08 by 00Einstein]

[edit on 4/3/08 by 00Einstein]

[edit on 4/3/08 by 00Einstein]

[edit on 4/3/08 by 00Einstein]




posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by 00Einstein
 


Oh, we're cohesive. I agreed with what you said I just also wanted to say it in another way in the case for ALLisONE so that, and in the prospect of one of the definitions may fit his mind better. There are many different hues of blue, but they're all considered to be blue. Sort of like that I suppose.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
reply to post by 00Einstein
 


Oh, we're cohesive. I agreed with what you said I just also wanted to say it in another way in the case for ALLisONE so that, and in the prospect of one of the definitions may fit his mind better. There are many different hues of blue, but they're all considered to be blue. Sort of like that I suppose.


Exactly!



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:47 PM
link   
It's like this. Here's an allegoric parable.

The universe is eternal and it consists therefore of an eternal amount of parts - galaxies, solar systems, black holes, planets, moons, living organisms, inanimate objects, atoms, molecules and etc.

A galaxy consists of many parts - solar systems, black holes, planets, moons, living organisms, inanimate objects, atoms, molecules and etc.

A solar system consists of many parts - potentially black hole(s), planets, moons, living organisms, inanimate objects, atoms, molecules and etc.

A "stable" planetary system consists of - [not likely but black hole(s)], planets, moons, living organisms, inanimate objects, atoms, molecules and etc.

And the further down we go the more we realize that everything consists of everything and we begin a regression. Watch.

A lunar system consists of - planets, moons, living organisms, inanimate objects, atoms, molecules and etc.

A lunar system is also of the universe, is also of a galaxy, etc. Living organism the same and so on.



Now. If I take 1 apple and cut it in half, or divide it by 2... rather it should be into two, but for the sake of lingual reference and predertermined definitions because of Human stupidity... we'll just say by 2. Really we could divide one by 1 by using 1 knife to cut one apple into 2 parts, you see? But I suppose that knife would need an action to get it going, let's say a Human... now we really do have 1 divided by 2!

So moving forth we have an answer of 1/2... but really what we have is 2/2. 2 parts (wholes) of the original whole, but still aspects of the same whole. Now if we again divide this in half we will have 1/4, but really we now have 4/4. 4 parts of the original one. And so it goes on forever. We can take 1 of those parts, let's call it the fourth. So we take 1/4 and decided to cut it in half all alone by itself. Now we again only have 2 parts because we made 1/4 it's own whole by secluding it from what it originally was and is... the whole apple.

Now you must also see that the apple is only a seclusion and a part of what it really is - the immeasurable singularity (the universe). We call the apple an apple but really, just like the solar system, it has many different orbitals about in it, many different electrons and atoms and molecules.

Use your mind to imagine the rest... I could go on, but mine is telling me to stop


Bon voyage!

[edit on 2-4-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
So you all are telling me i need to change my name to "ALLis.9..."


When you people can imagine "infinite" then come talk to me.

As of now you are all stuck in a finite world.

www.metacafe.com...


Saying that .0...1 does not exist, is like saying .9... doesnt either.

Numbers are infinite, there is infinite possibilities. Just because in your reality you can not imagine .0...1 doesn't mean you have to force your ignorance on others...

A fraction is a part, and if you have .9... of that part, then you will never have the entire thing. You will always be missing a infinitly small piece.

Please prove to me that .0...1 does not exist.

And stop rounding off numbers.






[edit on 2-4-2008 by ALLis0NE]

[edit on 3-4-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Then watch this.. maybe then you can see infinite like I do..

video.google.com...


He talks about infinite small.

[edit on 2-4-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


There's really no such thing as infinite small or infinite large. Infinity is undefinable. It simple is immeasurable. You may think you have measured it, but it is only a part. Never ending and never beginning. Infinity is eternity, eternity and infinity = absence. Can you have an infinitely small absence? An infinitely large absence?

You talk like you're above everyone, then maybe that's because we're infinitely smaller and you should learn to understand your own beliefs, that being us... the infinitely smaller ones.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
So you all are telling me i need to change my name to "ALLis.9..."


No you see because ALL really is ONE. An all is a totality or a whole, ergo one. But that one can be divided, even as stated by you.

So your definition is spot on. ALL is ONE. But remember that all consists also of many ones. It is endless and beginningless, the universe... eternity... hence it is not only an ALL like a circle is... it is an IMMEASRUABLE singularity... because it is the ONLY (one) Eternity (immeasurable).



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
There's really no such thing as infinite small or infinite large. Infinity is undefinable. It simple is immeasurable. You may think you have measured it, but it is only a part. Never ending and never beginning.


No, I know 0ne simple fact. Infinity is the faith in continuation.

So when you people say .9... is equal to 0ne you are putting faith in a belief that is not provable.

It's just a fact that all things come from 0NE so, .9... will always be less than 0ne.


[edit on 3-4-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 


This whole post kind of makes me miss my old math classes. Reminds me of Algebra and Calculus. Fun fun.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NESo when you people say .9... is equal to 0ne you are putting faith in a belief that is not provable.

It's just a fact that all things come from 0NE so, .9... will always be less than 0ne.


Actually, if you look through this thread, there have been many mathematical proofs that 0.9... equals 1. From the simple (1/3= .3..., so 1=.9...) to the more complex (like mine, sorry, I like complexity.) So you cannot say that we cannot prove it.


Originally posted by ALLis0NEPlease prove to me that .0...1 does not exist.


Simple, the ... after the 0 implies that it goes on infinitely. However, the 1 at the end implies that it is the last digit in that number. This cannot be, though, since we have already established that the 0's are infininte, never ending or terminating. The 1 at the end terminates that number, which is now not infinite. Anyway, the 1 cannot exist on the end of that number. You cannot say that it started as 0.1 and you simply added zeroes in the middle infinitely, and now is infinitely growing. A NUMBER CANNOT GROW! It is static. You can discover a new number by adding to the old one, but it will NEVER be that same number changed. 4=3+1, but 4 is not a overgrown 3. It is a seperate entity.
You also cannot say that it started as 0.1 and you simply added zeroes in the middle infinitely, and now is infinitely growing, because infinity is not something that can be reached by human work. Infinity is always beyond the grasp of all humans. It exists outside of us, something we can never fully understand, as much as you claim that you do. We can come close, but as soon as you begin to think about it as an amazingly large, but finite, number, you fall short. This is where I think you are confused.

[edit on 4/3/08 by 00Einstein]



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Numbers are infinite, there is infinite possibilities. Just because in your reality you can not imagine .0...1 doesn't mean you have to force your ignorance on others...


Actualy, you're the one putting limits on infinity. .0...1 means that at some point the number ends. .9... means it never ends, which is the proper definition of infinity.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


That's simply not true. Take pre-calc or calc and you will understand. If you can't understand infinite numbers, you're mind will be blown by limits.

reply to post by nataylor
 


It's not being limited, well, actually it sort of is. They are called limits. The number is .999999999999~ is constantly moving towards 1.

This is the basics of Calc, and it's the backbone of engineering.

[edit on 3-4-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Here's a good example of what I'm talking about:

Limits in Calc

1. Well, for this one, there really isn't much you can do but memorize the definition, just like you have to memorize a lot of other formulas in math.

lim [g(x+h)-g(x)]/h
h->0

g(x)=5x^2-7x-14

All the definition means is that take the equation, plug x+h into anywhere there's an x, subtract the entire original equation from it, and then divide it by h. Then you just try to simplify it down to a point where all the h is no longer in the denominator so that it won't be undefined when you divide by zero.

lim ([5(x+h)^2-7(x+h)-14]-[5x^2-7x-14])/h
h->0
lim ([5(x^2+2xh+h^2)-7x-7h-14]-5x^2+7x+14)/h
h->0
lim ([5x^2+10xh+5h^2-7x-7h-14]-5x^2+7x+14)/h
h->0
lim (5x^2+10xh+5h^2-7x-7h-14-5x^2+7x+14)/h
h->0
lim (5x^2-5x^2-7x+7x-14+14+10xh+5h^2-7h)/h
h->0
lim (10xh+5h^2-7h)/h
h->0
lim (h)(10x+5h-7)/h
h->0
lim (10x+5h-7) = 10x+5(0)-7
h->0

= 10x-7


Everything in there with the word "lim" in front is a limit. That is basically what we are discussing here. Some limits go to 0, some to infinity, and some to integers.

I can't say I understand everything that's written above, I haven't taken math in years, but the principles don't change.

[edit on 3-4-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
just popped back in to see how this has developed. allisone is on the same level i am, whether that's good or bad. i completely relate to his arguments. i would submit this to those that say because 3/3==.9... then .9... must == 1.

any first grade teacher or sane person will tell you that 3/3 is 1, not .9... when doing a fraction, you say i'm taking 3 divided by 3 which is 1. it's sort of convoluted logic to make the case that 3/3 == .9.... apparently you're getting that from (1/3*3=3/3) == (.3...*3=.9...). since you yourself say infitinity can't be quantified, then how can you say 1/3 * 3 == .3...*3? by using your own logic, you can't operate on .3..., it's a concept, an approximation derived from conversion between fraction and decimal, not a number.

[edit]

sublime: i actually mentioned limits in an earlier post. as you said it continually approaches 1 forever and ever and ever, but never actually intersects with it. i would like to resubmit that as evidence for my argument. =)

the same can be said when a number approaches zero, it never intersects with it but continually approaches it. someone said the idea of .0...1 is absurd but i would challenge you to describe that number in a more rational way that is not 0. i would do it by saying 1/infinity. you're right that it makes no sense in terms of calculation, but as a concept it's no different than 1/3 vs .3...

[edit on 3-4-2008 by an0maly33]



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I'm not really into math, but a friend brought something up to me today that really seemed very strange. (For the duration of this post, .999 will mean .9 repeating unless otherwise specified- just for the sake of ease)
.999=x
10x=9.999
10x - x = 9x
9x=9
1x=1.
.999 = 1.

And 1/3=.333
.333 x 3= .999

The first one didn't phase me too much, because the obvious conclusion in my mind is that you can't substract an infinite number. If you ask what happens when you do the impossible, you're bound to get a strange number.

The second one however involves a more interesting flawed assumption it would seem. 1/3 does not equal .333 repeating. You check an equation by reversing it- if the reverse doesn't work, how can it be true? It would seem, that we don't have the numbers to accurately express the answer.

As far as I can tell, we can't have a perfect system of maths unless there is a "lowest number" which can not be divided, subtracted from, or inverted to a negative.

I was wondering if anybody else had any insight on the matter.

[edit on 24-3-2005 by The Vagabond]


hello

Who says/said, how it came about and how can it be proved that 2+2 =4

seems mad but really think about it, who says that 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 et al is correct? who first thought of this and how do you prove this is true, just because we repeat it verbatim doesn't mean its accurate.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
not really sure what you're getting at...

if i have a stick then i have 1 stick...you can't dispute that
if i put a stick next to it then i have 2 sticks. you can't dispute that.

i'm not trying to be a jerk, i'll just say i think you missed the point of this discussion. =)



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by an0maly33
 


Yes, but you are forgetting one key component:

Much of math is theoretical. Limits never visibly reach their destination, but in theory, they most certainly do.

Same with .99999999~



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
i'll just say i'm open to the possibility that you are correct.


interesting stuff. good discussion. thanks for getting me thinking, guys!



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by drevill
 


Universal language. You change the name we used to represent the number, but 1 will always be 1.

It represents 1, no matter what you call it.




top topics



 
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join