Thread: .999~ = 1?
View Single Post

Re: .999~ = 1?
Old 12-23-2003, 11:44 PM   #23
Rndm_Perfection
Interrogator
 
Rndm_Perfection's Avatar
 
Rndm_Perfection is offline
Location: St. Joseph, Michigan
Now Playing: Valkyrie Profile
Posts: 1,716
Default Re: .999~ = 1?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GiMpY-wAnNaBe
it isn't equal...similar to how a hyperboly will never hit the axis...it comes infinitely close....but its never quite there
That's all of your problems.

You're all thinking in terms of the foolish scientific theory... the theory that if someone aims to reach a destination, they will fail 100% of the time. Why, you ask? Because to get somewhere, you must travel half the distance... then half that distance... To get anywhere, you must infinitely travel half the distance. How does one manage to skip traveling half the distance? It's because infinite is irrelevant to real world applications. Infinite is a term.

A Hyperbola has limitations that this situation does not. A hyperbola gets infinitely close on purpose. A hyperbola that gets infinitely close to 1 does not cross .99(repeating), I guarantee it. A hyperbola not only gets infinitely close to a point, it also continues infinitely in a "parallel" direction (only parallel by appearance). Because it also continues infinitely and must infinitely get closer to the point... then there has to be space between the hyperbola and the line, no matter how small... so that it can get closer. In other words, since there is no number between .999(repeating) and 1 (as you can not put a number at the end of an infinite), then the point cannot feasably fit on the hyperbola, and therefor must also equal one.

I must emphasize once again that infinite is not a real number. It's applied a lot in mathematics, but it cannot be found on a number line.


If it cannot be understood that .99(repeated) is the same number as 1, then I will conclude any attempt of sensibility and leave it at the fact that this is merely a a gaming forum.

Last edited by Rndm_Perfection : 12-23-2003 at 11:49 PM.
  Reply With Quote