This failed proof by Rasmus (WikiPedia) illustrates how the Archimedean Property is misinterpreted. The proof in this link firmly refutes Rasmus's proof in all its entirety. It also shows how unreliable Wikipedia can be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proof_that_0.999..._equals_1/Archive05#Rasmus.27_proof_and_its_error
2006-08-30 03:48:45 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Mathematics
Prometheus: The jist is we know that 0.999... < 1, not equal to 1. There is no proof that 0.999... = 1, not a single shred of mathematical proof. The fact that 0.999... < 1 is proved easily using mathematical induction.
2006-08-30 04:45:25 · update #1
Raz: Read the link before you answer in ignorance. Try to understand it.
2006-08-30 05:14:47 · update #2
Purely looking at this from a mathematical standpoint 0.999.... does not equal 1. Lets be realistic though in our real world these two quantities can be called equal.
2006-08-30 05:29:47 · answer #1 · answered by Scott S 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
This question pops up about 3 times a week. .999repeating does equal 1.
After class I had time to read the whole link. It seems to be two people arguing back and forth, which is one of the best things about mathematics: you can always approach a topic from more than one point of view. The link also suggests from authors viewpoint that .9repeating is not a real number from his proof. We know that .9repeating is a real number in fact a rational number (and =1). Like what was mentioned previously, wikpedia is a websource that anyone can make adaptions to.
At least this link illustrates why this question is on here 2 or 3 times a week, which was my original point that I didn't get to finish.
2006-08-30 04:53:19 · answer #2 · answered by raz 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
why don't u explore more statistics? They tell u clearly why that's not so! If .999 is equal to 1, more than 90% of the pop cans will be crushed and we'll have to drink from crushed, rusty pop cans... and there are so many more examples. 0.999... is as different from 1 as 98 is different from 20. The difference between them might be smaller, but the fact exists that the numbers are constants and don't suddenly increase. Do you need proof to prove that a constant doesn't increase?
2006-08-30 03:59:09 · answer #3 · answered by flit 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well, wikipedia and other web-based dictionaries are often written by the users. Others can edit them too.
I myself have made simple errors in some of my answers, and I consider myself to have above average intelligence. So, in the hands of some of the less than intelligent people that may choose to add things to wiki, the errrors could be astounding!
:) Never believe things you read without questioning the source... :)
2006-08-30 03:53:52 · answer #4 · answered by Loulabelle 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that may be true. it needs .001 to be equal to one..
Some info in wiki is not really reliable that's why wiki gives anyone the chance to edit whatever articles found there..
2006-08-30 03:52:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
so what are you asking... seeing as we know that .9999 infinitely repeating is equal to one, what's the jist...?
2006-08-30 03:57:11 · answer #6 · answered by promethius9594 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋