Page 1 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

deep-techno
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2006
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,127
Location: Exeter, UK

16 Apr 2006, 2:41 pm

Here's some proof that 2.9 recurring is 3 (When a decimal digit reccurs then I will put a ¬ after it, eg. 2.9¬):

If 2.9¬ = x
Then 10x = 29.9¬ = 9x + x
9x = 10x - x = 29.9¬ - 2.9¬ = 27
x = 27/9 = 3



AbominableSnoCone
Cybernetic Vampiric Werewolf Ninja
Cybernetic Vampiric Werewolf Ninja

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,691
Location: Jersey

16 Apr 2006, 3:41 pm

k3wlz0r



deep-techno
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2006
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,127
Location: Exeter, UK

16 Apr 2006, 4:18 pm

AbominableSnoCone wrote:
k3wlz0r


Well I understand the k3wl part but 'z0r'ry I don't understand the rest! :D


_________________
If the phrase "you are what you eat" is correct, technically we must all be cannibals.


Emettman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,027
Location: Cornwall, UK

16 Apr 2006, 5:27 pm

Did you discover this while staying at Hilbert's Hotel?



medianmistermustard
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 69

16 Apr 2006, 5:31 pm

Works on any repeating decimal sequence really;

let x = .3repeating
10x = 3.3repeating = 9x + x
9x = 10x - x
9x = 3.3repeating - .3 repeating
9x = 3
x = 3/9 = 1/3

A lot easier that using geometric sums, which is how I first learned to prove stuff like that.

Neat.



alex
Developer
Developer

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,112
Location: Beverly Hills, CA

16 Apr 2006, 5:49 pm

i figured this out in 6th grade although someone told me that the fraction thing was just a rough conversion and what you're stipulating to be true is actually not true and just something people say is true to make conversions easy.

Now I'm just confused. As a result, I haven't gotten a good grade in math since then.


_________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/alexplank

Personal FB: http://fb.me/alexplank1


reneviht
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3
Location: Probably in front of a computer.

16 Apr 2006, 7:05 pm

It could be they didn't notice the repeating decimal was supposed to be repeating. 0.9 repeating is most certainly a geometric series, and as long as you're working in decimal, it's equal to 1. Unless, of course, there's some funky metric that you're using... I've heard of metrics where the sequence 7, 49, 343, 2401, ..., 7^n, ... converges to a real number. But for the life of me, I can't remember where I heard it in reference to.



jonathan79
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 532
Location: FoCo

16 Apr 2006, 11:44 pm

Emettman wrote:
Did you discover this while staying at Hilbert's Hotel?


I think it was a Holiday Inn-



jammie
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: UK

17 Apr 2006, 3:50 am

hiya,

We did this in maths a while ago. the thing is it proves that 2.9¬ x 9 = a whole number.

2.9¬ will always be 2.9¬ at no point is it 3.

jammie



deep-techno
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2006
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,127
Location: Exeter, UK

17 Apr 2006, 6:19 am

It was in a science magazine I bought last August and it says that 2.9¬ = 3. Well, everybody makes mistakes.


_________________
If the phrase "you are what you eat" is correct, technically we must all be cannibals.


Emettman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,027
Location: Cornwall, UK

17 Apr 2006, 2:05 pm

jonathan79 wrote:
Emettman wrote:
Did you discover this while staying at Hilbert's Hotel?


I think it was a Holiday Inn-


Do they have infionite rooms too? And are they all full?



Bland
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jan 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,430
Location: USA

17 Apr 2006, 9:27 pm

What can I say? I've only recently figured out the subtle differences between natural and whole numbers and integers. (sad, huh? Either a testament to my stupidity or public education)


_________________
"Honey, would you buy me some boobles for my 40th b-day?" "No way, they're too expensive. Your own baubles will have to do."


TheBladeRoden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,273
Location: Wisconsin

17 Apr 2006, 9:37 pm

jonathan79 wrote:
Emettman wrote:
Did you discover this while staying at Hilbert's Hotel?


I think it was a Holiday Inn-


Holiday Inn Express


_________________
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own" -Adam Savage


reneviht
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3
Location: Probably in front of a computer.

21 Apr 2006, 1:59 pm

jammie wrote:
2.9¬ will always be 2.9¬ at no point is it 3.


Which of the maths did you do this in?

I assumed that we were talking about real numbers with the metric defined as d(x, y) = |x - y|, and that 2.9¬ was referring to the limit of the sequence

a_0 = 2
a_n = 9/10^n + a_(n-1)

(normally, I'd define it as a series using summation notation, but I don't think HTML can do that). The axiom of completeness applies to the reals, so the limit of a_n = a is a real number. Since for all e > 0, |a - 3| < e, doesn't this mean the limit is equal to 3 (unless I made a typo in the definition of the sequence)?



DrizzleMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 903

22 Apr 2006, 7:56 am

Yeah, as far as I know it's just two ways of writing 3. Just like 23426345.3269¬ is another way of writing 23426345.327

Anyone who says 0.9¬ isn't the same as 1 is confusing notation with storage. Computers storing 0.3¬ might round it to 0.3333333 (a finite number of 3's) so when you multiply you get 0,9999999 which doesn't equal 1. (Of course, computers round in binary, not decimal, this is just an analogy)


_________________
The plural of platypus.