I cant belevie ppl cant put this through their heads

[johnny-boy]

Maybe in practice, but not in theory
Hey, let's argue about the equation I gave above!

Then maybe the theory should be disposed of.

John

[yuc4h]

I have always thought the same about musical analyzation as well. I agree with your sig btw

[deja vu]

I disagree.  After revealing #3 it's a new ballgame. Now you have the choice between two; either keeping #1 or exchanging it for #2. So at this point your chances are 50 - 50. Picking one over the other doesn’t change the odds.

John - I hate to be rude, but I some some things to say to you,

First you say that 0.9999 recurring isn't the same as 1. I have already dissected that post and corrected it so I'm not going to bother doing it again.

If that wasn't enough, instead of covering your face in shame, you then go and say THAT!

Well, I'm sorry, but you are wrong again. Research the "Monty Hall Paradox". Actually, no, you probably won't do, so I am going to give you a link. Please read the page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_monty_hall_problem

alright. as you will see, there are so many explanations and ways of looking at this, that it is pointless me typing it all out here. Please just read the link.

still don't believe me? try it out yourself, using three cups and a coin under one. get your friend to put the coin under, guess a cup, and have him/her reveal one that doesnt have it in. you will find that if you always switch, you will win the game roughly two thirds of the time

[johnny-boy]

I have always thought the same about musical analyzation as well. I agree with your sig btw

We're on the same track with this yuc4h.

A publisher once told me I had questionable chord changes in my music. He further made some suggested chord changes. They were horrible.

Thank God I found publishers that were more interested in the music than being theoretically correct.

John

[deja vu]

I think I also remember someone disputing the fact that 1/3 equals 0.333333... (recurring)

Of course it equals that. Watch and learn:

let's say x = 0.333333...

x = 0.333333...
10x = 3.33333...  
9x = 3          
x = 3/9 which is the same as a third

Using the same principle, we can also proove that 0.999999 DOES equal 1:

x = 0.999999...
10x = 9.999999...
10x − x = 9
9x = 9
x = 1

Surely no one can argue with that? It is now clear. Concise. Proven. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let's not further discuss it, its so obvious.

Thank you.

[johnny-boy]

John - I hate to be rude, but I some some things to say to you,

First you say that 0.9999 recurring isn't the same as 1. I have already dissected that post and corrected it so I'm not going to bother doing it again.-deja vu

Yeah, and I still don't buy your dissection.

Often relying on common sense, rather than blindly accepting some complicated theory, is more in touch with reality - and much closer to the truth.

However, I do enjoy abstract lyrics in songs.

John

[steveie986]

Yeah, and I still don't buy your dissection.

Often relying on common sense, rather than blindly accepting some complicated theory, is more in touch with reality - and much closer to the truth.

I absolutely agree. Common sense says the earth is flat. I mean, what, otherwise we'd fall off right? And even an idiot can see the sun goes up and comes down, so obviously the sun goes around us. Screw Newton, Galileo, and their complicated theories.

 

Actually, Johnny, you're an imbecile. You don't know shite and you know it. I have nothing against imbeciles, because most of them didn't choose to be born stupid, but imbeciles who pretend to know what they're talking about deserve to be called out.

[steveie986]

I understand what you were getting at. I’ve heard this one many years ago in school (it’s nothing new). The bottom line is that you have two choices in the final decision - that's 50 -50.

I doubt a moron like you knows much history, but here's one for you. When Galileo saw Jupiter's moons with his telescope and realized that the other planets have moons just like the earth, the Catholic church refused to believe him. Galileo simply asked them to look through the damn telescope to see for themselves. The bishops refused, because they were more comfortable believing a comfortable fallacy.

You are absolutely dead wrong on this one. But in spite of your intense stupidity in the rest of this thread I will admit that this Monty Hall problem has tricked many people, including mathematicians. You see, it's not about common sense vs abstract theory. It's just about truth. And in this case you are wrong, very wrong. Just read the article, though I doubt you'll understand it.

[Derek]

Yes. the key word here is TENDS.  .9999etc.   TENDS towards 1, but is not, in fact, 1. 

[johnny-boy]

I doubt a moron like you knows much history, but here's one for you. When Galileo saw Jupiter's moons with his telescope and realized that the other planets have moons just like the earth, the Catholic church refused to believe him. Galileo simply asked them to look through the *** telescope to see for themselves. The bishops refused, because they were more comfortable believing a comfortable fallacy.

You are absolutely dead wrong on this one. But in spite of your intense stupidity in the rest of this thread I will admit that this Monty Hall problem has tricked many people, including mathematicians. You see, it's not about common sense vs abstract theory. It's just about truth. And in this case you are wrong, very wrong. Just read the article, though I doubt you'll understand it.

I'm sorry steveie-girl but I don't converse with idiots. You sound like a pre-teeny bopper with a pimple complex.  


John

[steveie986]

I'm sorry steveie-girl but I don't converse with idiots. You sound like a pre-teeny bopper with a pimple complex.  

With that breathtaking statement you have demonstrated your supreme grasp of such incredibly bitter irony.

I actually desperately wish that you are a teenager, because that makes your stupidity somewhat excusable. But the prospect that there might be adults out there so insistent in their ignorance is a disturbing reality and it is my fault to have ever believed otherwise. What a sad world we live in, filled with such lies and idiots. Poor sod. I'm shedding tears for you.

[johnny-boy]

Have a nice life Steveie-girl.

[kelly_kelly]

Yes. the key word here is TENDS.  .9999etc.   TENDS towards 1, but is not, in fact, 1. 

Yes it is! Have you read ANY of the replies on this thread?

I absolutely agree. Common sense says the earth is flat. I mean, what, otherwise we'd fall off right? And even an idiot can see the sun goes up and comes down, so obviously the sun goes around us. Screw Newton, Galileo, and their complicated theories.

 

I think I also remember someone disputing the fact that 1/3 equals 0.333333... (recurring)

Of course it equals that. Watch and learn:

let's say x = 0.333333...

x = 0.333333...
10x = 3.33333... 
9x = 3           
x = 3/9 which is the same as a third

Using the same principle, we can also proove that 0.999999 DOES equal 1:

x = 0.999999...
10x = 9.999999...
10x − x = 9
9x = 9
x = 1

Can someone who disputes that .999999999999999... = 1 please dispute this in a logical manner?

[steveie986]

Have a nice life Steveie-girl.

Fantastically eloquent (and coherent), as usual. Not to mention the blatant sexism.

I do have a feminine side, in fact.

Luv ya lots, silly...    XOXOXOXOXOXO

[johnny-boy]

They can't dispute it logically Kelly. They let their text books do their thinking.

John

[steveie986]

They can't dispute it logically Kelly. They let their text books do their thinking.

I don't think Kelly's on your side, Moron.

Kelly is saying that no one who disputes 0.999... = 1 has yet made a logical case for this yet.

God I love flaming idiots!!!! Fun, fun fun.

[johnny-boy]

Fantastically eloquent (and coherent), as usual. Not to mention the blatant sexism.

I do have a feminine side, in fact.

Luv ya lots, silly...    XOXOXOXOXOXO

Sorry for the mistake. I thought since you spell your name like a girl, you were a girl. I guess I should have used common sense instead of spelling analysis (you just can’t trust what you read in text books).

No, I’m not a sexist. Now apologize for your mistake.

 

[johnny-boy]

I don't think Kelly's on your side, Moron.

Kelly is saying that no one who disputes 0.999... = 1 has yet made a logical case for this yet.

God I love flaming idiots!!!! Fun, fun fun.

Well, it's a good thing you love yourself.

 

[steveie986]

 

[johnny-boy]

Anyone have a flyswatter? I have a gnat that’s bothering me. 

[kelly_kelly]

I don't think Kelly's on your side, Moron.

Kelly is saying that no one who disputes 0.999... = 1 has yet made a logical case for this yet.

God I love flaming idiots!!!! Fun, fun fun.

Correct. Except for the flaming idiots part. Flaming idiots are entertaining for a certain amount of time, but after a while... *pats pocket dagger menacingly*

[johnny-boy]

Correct. Except for the flaming idiots part. Flaming idiots are entertaining for a certain amount of time, but after a while... *pats pocket dagger menacingly*

I never suggested you were on my side Kelly. I'm an independent soul, unlike the insecure person that showed his/her mentality by bringing up the subject of "sides". 

John

[pianistimo]

so spirals, daggers, lucky boxes ( i liked that one, btw), and feminine sides have entered the picture.  can anyone tell me how close this is to one?  .999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

is it really really really really close - or can u just stop at two or three digits beyond the decimal and people get the idea.  i think u are proving that spirals exist.

[prometheus]

You need infinitely more 9's to approach the number we are talking about.

.97 cents are rounded down to one euro here, eventhough we have one cent coins. So .97 can approach the limit of one of practice. But that is irrelevant.

[yuc4h]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_monty_hall_problem

The answer to the monty hall problem is easy. As you can see in this picture copied from wikipedia:



If the host opens the third door you can see that the car is in the first door since clearly the second door contains the remaining part of the goat.

[johnny-boy]

I agree; in the beginning the chance of selecting the prize is one in three. However, when the rules change, so does the odds - to 50-50. 

[steveie986]

I agree; in the beginning the chance of selecting the prize is one in three. However, when the rules change, so does the odds - to 50-50. 

Since you're so keen on common sense, why don't you actually try it for yourself instead sticking by your own stubborn "theories?" It's very simple, just try it at home with some playing cards. Blindly sticking to your own preconceived (and wrong) ideas is just as wrong as blindly trusting the textbooks. Or you can try this simulation:

https://math.ucsd.edu/~crypto/Monty/monty.html

[prometheus]

Marilyn Vos Savant has one of the highest measured IQ's ever.

[stevie]

hahaha

want to see what a conversation between 2 SDC chairmen on this subject looks like?

here goes :

da taniwha says:
ahahaha this eazy
da taniwha says:
0.999999 is not 1
da taniwha says:
this 0.999999   
fashionably away says:
hahahaha
fashionably away says:
zo u dizagree wiz this?
fashionably away says:
this 0.99999 ad infinitum
fashionably away says:
Okay. Now let's convert "one third" to a decimal. It equals 0.3333333 (recurring, obviously)

fashionably away says:
hahaha but da fact is, this an imperfect decimal sheet
da taniwha says:
hahaha when u add da recurrin sheet this becummah a bit confuzo
fashionably away says:
even if it go on foevah it needz 1 mo to make it a true sheet 
da taniwha says:
correctly
fashionably away says:
hahaha actually this debate is about da concept of infinity
fashionably away says:
which is evidently hard to grazp cuz nosheeyat is infinite
fashionably away says:
possibly
da taniwha says:
uzelezz 
fashionably away says:
x = 0.999999...
10x = 9.999999...
10x − x = 9
9x = 9
x = 1
fashionably away says:
hahaha now this
fashionably away says:
i contend wiz da x = 0.999999...
10x = 9.999999...
fashionably away says:
becuz if this cummah to a definite numbah
fashionably away says:
when u tymz this by 10 it becummah 1 lezz 9 on de end
fashionably away says:
which , when compacted back down divided by 10
fashionably away says:
createz a flaw
fashionably away says:
hahaha da poco is extremely obzezzed wiz this
da taniwha says:
this is correct
fashionably away says:
zhe zay 'i vil block u n not talk to u if u dun agree dat 0.9999infinity = 1'
da taniwha says:
hahaha da comme actually take da zide of a true intahllect? 
fashionably away says:
hahahaha
fashionably away says:
[11:07:08 AM] I'm done, yo: hey
[05:43:16 PM] fashionably : mmm franknezz
[05:43:44 PM] drink coffee: i'm not talking to you unless you admit
              that 0.9999.... (recurring) equals exactly 1
[05:44:21 PM] fashionably : right, explain why it does
[05:45:02 PM] drink coffee: okay, I will do
fashionably away says:
hahaha da poco went on to queote herzelf in da thread
da taniwha says:
hahahah this thread
da taniwha says:
even da TONY make a random entry
fashionably away says:
Yes, .333~ and .999~ are attempts to write down fractions as real numbers. So if you are going to see .999~ as the fraction it is trying to express then it does equal one.

fashionably away says:
hahaha da prometheuz knowz hiz sheet
da taniwha says:
hahahah no this is completely wrong 
da taniwha says:
a fraction exprezin da .999 recurrin vil nevah equal to 1
fashionably away says:
hahahaha he mean dat .333infinity is an attempted exprezzion of 1/3
da taniwha says:
hahah DAT part is correct
da taniwha says:
but den he confuzo himzelf wiz da 0.999 sheet
fashionably away says:
but this is purely becuze this a fraction dat is impozzible to perfectly decimalize
da taniwha says:
this impozzible end up wiz da 0.999rec wiz 2 natural numbahz
fashionably away says:
1 is a perfectly demicalable sheet
da taniwha says:
this is correct
fashionably away says:
hahaha zo this debate is bazically rooted in de confuzo inherent in da concept of infinity, n da imperfection of da decimal zyztem
fashionably away says:
hahaha zhud i pozt n compete wiz da poco? 
da taniwha says:
u is up againzt da 88ztreet intahllect 
fashionably away says:
hahahaha i vil this convo 
fashionably away says:
this an eg of da sdc intahllect vz da 88ztreet intahllect

[kelly_kelly]

I never suggested you were on my side Kelly. I'm an independent soul, unlike the insecure person that showed his/her mentality by bringing up the subject of "sides". 

John

They can't dispute it logically Kelly. They let their text books do their thinking.

John

Well, it sure sounds like it. Somehow, I feel that the person who attempts (badly) to cover up their mistakes is really the insecure one.

[stevie]

hahaha actually, im not sure how it goes, but im confused a little about what happens when multiplying and dividing numbers with 'infinite qualities'.
because surely to do anything with a number, you must have a definite number, and infinity isnt definite, its a concept.

again, the difficulty in understanding all this also is the result of mathematics being an abstract thingy, because practical logic obviously doesnt always sympathise with the conclusions it sometimes comes up with.

[johnny-boy]

Well, it sure sounds like it. Somehow, I feel that the person who attempts (badly) to cover up their mistakes is really the insecure one.

By using your name I was inferring you were on my side. I'll be careful from now on when I use people's name. You must not be used to kindness.

BTW Kelly, what was I trying to cover up? I don’t get it.

There Steveie.999, you don’t have to worry about Kelly being on my side anymore – so relax.

Best, John

[anekdote]

I think I get the Monty Hall thing... The first time you choose a door your probability of getting it right is 1/3. When a wrong door is revealed, your chance of selecting the right door is now 2/3. But you have already selected the first door with a probability of 1/3. So if you switch doors you take on the new 2/3 probability?

Here's another interesting probability thing:
Flip a coin. You get heads 100 times in a row. What is the probability that your next flip will be heads again? The answer is 50-50.

[prometheus]

Because a door that has a goat is revealed the result is influenced. To open a correct door, not the one with the car by accident, information is needed. This influences the result. One third of the chance of failure is removed, the chance to pick the door that is opened is reduced. So you get 33% more chance to pick the correct door. But the current door is still one out of 3. This is why the 33% chance of failure is added to the door one would switch to.

Flip a coin. You get heads 100 times in a row.

I tried this but it doesn't seem to work. How do I get one hundred in a row?

[anekdote]

Don't take the coin flipping thing literally. It only serves to illustrate a point that probability is not always as it should seem.

[bflatminor24]

Whoa!

Enough of this puerile nonsense. If nay-sayers don't buy the whole "1/3 = .333, so 1 = .999" argument, then buy this.

Let's assume the nay-sayers are correct, and 1 ? .999etc. Then there must be a difference of .0111etc. But this is not a number. Therefore there is no difference. Don't believe me? Google and your calculator will verify that .01bar is not a number. Therefore there is no difference and 1 must equal .999etc. QED.

-Max

[stevie]

On the other hand, the terms of the associated sequence, 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999, ..., do "get arbitrarily close" to 1, in the sense that, for each term in the progression, the difference between that term and 1 gets smaller and smaller. No matter how small you want that difference to be, I can find a term where the difference is even smaller.

This "getting arbitrarily close" process refers to something called "limits". You'll learn about limits later, probably in calculus. And, according to limit theory, "getting arbitrarily close" means that they're equal: 0.999... does indeed equal 1.

Note regarding all of the above: To a certain extent, each of these arguments depends on a basic foundational doctrine of mathematics called "The Axiom of Choice". A discussion of the Axiom of Choice is well beyond anything we could cover here, and is something that most mathematicians take on faith.

this is interesting, and it clears up some of the confusion...

like all sciences, maths is based on a few fundamental rules that must be accepted as the 'ground base' for all arguments that are posed about the possibilities above it.
that an 'infinite decimal' is EQUAL to the absolute number above it is a very difficult concept to grasp, but it must be grasped, with FAITH,  in order to go on and work above it's basis.

this random similarity between maths and religion is mildly hilarious, and seemingly oxymoronical...

so, does 0.999... = 1?


i remain agnostic 

[pianistimo]

yes.  what about infinity.

but, i understand the calculator bit.  and, in terms of higher thinking - i confess!  i can't get to those higher levels.  i can't even understand half the operating procedures for things u find in radio shack.  the gibberish that my son and the salesmen had about ubs ports and connectors and downloading music (btw, we had a total loss of all our e-mail due to a malfunction of some kind of duped connection he made before to get music).  anyway - my point is ...

where do u actually use this in real life?  programming?  are computers capable of a certain sort of infinity or are they like calculators and very finite when it comes down to it?

with this new navigation system stuff - if u thank the voice for giving u directions, it doesn't say 'ur welcome.' (althoug u can choose a female voice or a male voice).  if it were that interactive, i'd ask some math questions like this.

[johnny-boy]

Well, it sure sounds like it. Somehow, I feel that the person who attempts (badly) to cover up their mistakes is really the insecure one.

You still didn't answer me Kelly. What mistakes???

Best, John

[steveie986]

You still didn't answer me Kelly. What mistakes???

Dear retard,

We already told you you were dead wrong about the Monty Hall problem. Here's my earlier post:

Since you're so keen on common sense, why don't you actually try it for yourself instead sticking by your own stubborn "theories?" It's very simple, just try it at home with some playing cards. Blindly sticking to your own preconceived (and wrong) ideas is just as wrong as blindly trusting the textbooks. Or you can try this simulation:

https://math.ucsd.edu/~crypto/Monty/monty.html

Regards,

Your superior (yes, I'm smarter & better than you)

 

[steveie986]

EDIT: sorry, repost

[johnny-boy]

Since you're so keen on common sense, why don't you actually try it for yourself instead sticking by your own stubborn "theories?" It's very simple, just try it at home with some playing cards. Blindly sticking to your own preconceived (and wrong) ideas is just as wrong as blindly trusting the textbooks. Or you can try this simulation:

https://math.ucsd.edu/~crypto/Monty/monty.html

Because it wouldn't prove anything. If that's how you gather your facts, I can understand why they're so faulty.

[johnny-boy]

Dear retard,

We already told you you were dead wrong about the Monty Hall problem. Here's my earlier post:

Since you're so keen on common sense, why don't you actually try it for yourself instead sticking by your own stubborn "theories?" It's very simple, just try it at home with some playing cards. Blindly sticking to your own preconceived (and wrong) ideas is just as wrong as blindly trusting the textbooks. Or you can try this simulation:

https://math.ucsd.edu/~crypto/Monty/monty.html

Regards,

Your superior (yes, I'm smarter & better than you)

 

I think Kelly can answer for herself. Your statement has nothing to do with what Kelly thinks I'm covering up. Read - then comprehend - then answer - you may make more sense that way.
 
I was tempted to call you a name, but by not doing so it makes me better than you - which I am.

 

[kelly_kelly]

I thought it was fairly obvious, but here goes:

They can't dispute it logically Kelly. They let their text books do the thinking.

John 

This was in response to my asking anyone whether they could dispute the equations which prove that .999999...=1. From these two pieces of information, it would logically follow that John was saying that it is impossible to dispute the fact that .99999...=1 logically. However, I disbelieved this because John has expressed a strong refusal to accept this fact several times already. I therefore came to the conclusion that John was saying that those who believe that .999999...=1 can't dispute the fact that it doesn't logically. Clearly, this was a blatant misinterpretation of my post; the "it" he uses doesn't correlate with what I was referring to. This was a mistake. And a mistake which wouldn't have bothered me had John not attempted to "cover it up" by saying:

I never suggested you were on my side Kelly. I'm an independent soul, unlike the insecure person that showed his/her mentality by bringing up the subject of "sides".   

Agreeing (wrongly) with my post in order to prove your point isn't (to leave out the concept of sides) assuming that you and I are arguing the same thing? By agreeing, you clearly suggested this! This is why I referred to the above post as a bad cover up.

I think other posters have already covered (in detail) your other mistakes (please don't force me to point these out to you); therefore, I will refrain from being redundant.

[deja vu]

stevie: I cannot believe that you disputed what I was telling you, and then copied and pasted my proof to someone else.

johnny: in my opinion I think you should be banned from this forum. pocorina was banned for pretending she had TB and I think the crime you are commiting here is about 30 times worse. do yourself a favour: f*ck off

[johnny-boy]

stevie: I cannot believe that you disputed what I was telling you, and then copied and pasted my proof to someone else.

johnny: in my opinion I think you should be banned from this forum. pocorina was banned for pretending she had TB and I think the crime you are commiting here is about 30 times worse. do yourself a favour: f*ck off

I don't get it. I honestly state my views and all of a sudden I'm covering something up. It's amazing that I've been initially attacked with the insults and insinuations and I’m the bad guy; the fact is steveie986 started the insults just because I stated opposing views – then a couple other members jumped on the bandwagon  like déjà vu who had no idea what the hell he was talking about.

Kelly, please be more specific, it's not making any sense. I think you want to be accepted into the Steveie986 Idiot Club so bad that it's fogging up you sense of reality. The only way you'll become part of their club Kelly is to turn over your free thoughts and believe whatever they tell you on blind faith.

Here's a suggestion; copy this entire thread, then in a couple years come back and read it - I think you'll be surprised at how differently you interpret this thread.

Best, John

[deja vu]

John - I'm not jumping on any bandwagon at all, I can think for myself

I'm not saying you are covering anything up. I have not been following that aspect of this thread. The crime that you are commiting is that you are wrong in saying that 0.9999... doesn't equal 1. I'm sorry but that is like telling me that the world is not spherical (as I'm sure someone else has pointed out).

Also, you are obviously an extremely poor judge of gender. I am a GIRL. So before you go blatantly assuming that I am male, why don't you go check my profile, you idiot.

Instead of us coming back to read this thread in a couple of years, why don't you spent a couple of years studying maths?

[johnny-boy]

John - I'm not jumping on any bandwagon at all, I can think for myself

I'm not saying you are covering anything up. I have not been following that aspect of this thread. The crime that you are commiting is that you are wrong in saying that 0.9999... doesn't equal 1. I'm sorry but that is like telling me that the world is not spherical (as I'm sure someone else has pointed out).

Also, you are obviously an extremely poor judge of gender. I am a GIRL. So before you go blatantly assuming that I am male, why don't you go check my profile, you idiot.

Instead of us coming back to read this thread in a couple of years, why don't you spent a couple of years studying maths?

No need to call me an idiot deja vu. Your gender is rather irrelevant in this discussion anyway.  You have your views and I have mine - no need to get nasty just because someone disagrees with you.

Best, John

[johnny-boy]

I just checked your profile deja vu. No where is there any indication of your gender.

John

[deja vu]

doesn't it say my name is Martha?

look, whatever. the point is that this isn't like a discussion on fox-hunting or abortion, where there are views either side.

you can't dispute things that are FACT. so you are wrong

it is not the fact that you are wrong that I have a problem with. it is the fact that you believe you are right and believe that you can diss other members who have got the right idea, or be sarcastic about it, when I have not even seen you come up with any mathematical proof that it doesn't equal one.