Is 0 divided by 0 equal to any number?

[matt grime]

Hi Zurtex,

Please prove that I am not talking about R members.

He (or she) doesn't have to do anything of the sort. It is up to you to demonstrate that you are using the Real Numbers correctly, which you evidently aren't. SImple way to show you are would be to explain clearly if you think 0.99.. and 1 are the same real number. A simple, yes they are, or no they're not. It appears that you're saying they're different, but given your misuse of XOR it's hard to tell.

 

[Organic]

Ok Matt,

...Not to mention the mistakes in the post anyway such as asserting that a variable IS the x-axis. No it isn't.

All you proved is you cannot go beyond the convetional point of view of Math language.

Dear Zurtex,

Please reply more to the point, prove that my point of view is an illegal one from Math languge point of view.

 

[Zurtex]

Ok Matt,


All you proved is you cannot go beyond the convetional point of view of Math language.

Dear Zurtex,

Please reply more to the point, prove that my point of view is an illegal one from Math languge point of view.

Well seemingly this means you are talking in a slightly different maths language to the rest of us. Care to explain what this language is and how it works? In maths you must rigorously prove something, not write something down and wait for somebody to disprove it and if they point out a seeming mistake just say they have no idea what they are talking about.

Please by all means explain to us simpletons who do not understand your maths why exactly it is correct and how it proves that 0.999.. and 1 can be different numbers under mysterious and strange circumstances.

 

[matt grime]

The point is that your language is not the language in which one does mathematics if one wants to be understood, or say things that are not stupid and wrong. Remember if you go to a foreign country it might be advisable to learn to speak their language, and a very good idea not to tell them they are speaking it incorrectly and yours is the correct way of doing it. It smacks of arrogance and crass stupidity.

If any moderator wants to delete all these pointless posts please do so, I won't bat an eyelid.

 

[Organic]

Matt,

Again you don't prove anything about my point of view.

misuse of XOR it's hard to tell.

Please show where is the mistake of using XOR to show that one case prevents the other?

 

[matt grime]

Your mistake here is to use badly constructed sentences such as that which uses a mathematical symbol in its centre when it isn't what you ought to write . Here's a simple one: are 0.999... and 1 different real numbers (where we are using decimal expansions)?

 

[Organic]

Matt,

The difference between my view and your view is this:

Matt's view: A one eye view where a number is a "quantity-only" information form.

Organics view: Two eyes view where a number is at least structural/quantitative information form.

Organic can see Matt's one eye view.

Matt cannot see Organic's two eyes view.

In one eye view 0.999... = 1

 

[matt grime]

No, Organic, the point is that BY DEFINITION 1 and 0.999... (when considered as base 10 expansions) are the same real number (didn't you read the bit about non-standard analysis? not that I'd expect you to understand), as has been proven in this thread MANY times. That you cannot seem to understand this is because you are an ill-informed mathematical-illiterate who isnt' prepared to learn what is necessary to talk about mathematics. Nor are you prepared to answer simple questions. Now someone please close this thread!

 

[Organic]

Matt,

I am talking about 2Iview.

Non-standard analysis of A.Robinson and standard analysis of Epsilon-Delta Definition are both 1Iview.

 

[Integral]

Organic,
As long as you have been posting to these forums you should know and understand that the place for your ideas is in the Theory Development forum. I will request once again that you please refrain from posting your non standard concepts in the Math forums. This is the place where a student can come to learn the STANDARD ACCEPTED Mathematics. Your contributions only serve to confuse those who are uncertain.

I have requested that the Math mentors lock this thread. I have no special privileges here or it would have been locked already. Preferably would be to shovel out Organics posts and let Matt and I finish the perfectly good conversation we were having.

 

[JonF]

ok if

$.\bar{9}= 1$

then

$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} .\bar{9}^n =1$

correct?

 

[quantumdude]

ok if

$.\bar{9}= 1$

then

$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} .\bar{9}^n =1$

correct?

No, because .999... does not equal lim_n->∞0.9ⁿ

 

[JonF]

doesn't
$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} 1^n =1$

 

[Integral]

ok if

$.\bar{9}= 1$

then

$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} .\bar{9}^n =1$

correct?

You need an n on the RHS of the second expression for the limit to have any meaning.

it is correct that

$$\lim_{N \rightarrow \infty}9 \Sigma_{n=0}^N .1^{-n}=1$$

Edit: Opps, I some how missed your superscript n on my first go round.

 

[quantumdude]

I had granted Integral and Matt's request that the thread be locked, but as I was doing it people were still posting. Make up your mind, guys!

doesn't
$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} 1^n =1$

Whoops, I hadn't noticed the bar above the 9 in the limit.

 

[JonF]

I’m just now about ½ way through my first semester of calculus. I have no clue what an RHS is. What I’m trying to say is:

Isn’t it true that .9999…. to the power of infinity = 1


I’m not trying to troll or bait here, it’s just that 1 = .9999… goes against all the math intuition I’ve have so far.

 

[JonF]

Sorry just got home from school and have been thinking about this problem all day... Is it ok if they finish explaining it to me really quick?

 

[quantumdude]

I’m just now about ½ way through my first semester of calculus. I have no clue what an RHS is.

RHS=Right Hand Side

I'll let Integral continue.

 

[matt grime]

Tom, and others, I started an answer to some of JonF's question in a new thread if you want to clean it up a little. Though I was doing it from memory in case this should get locked, so it might not be an accurate recollection of the question

 

[square_root_beer]

nope...

A mathematical issue about this arose when I tried to find a constructive bijection between IR^1 and IR^2 (or IR^k for that matter) (how do I get LaTeX here?). My idea is best illustrated with the following example:

f: 573491.14387469712 |--> (741.48491, 539.137672)
f inverse: (741.48491, 539.137672) |--> 573491.14387469712

The only problem is that certain (pairs of) real numbers map to the same 2-space point.

.0391949195999296959... (digits from pi interspersed with 9's)

and .1301040105090206050...

both map to (.314159265..., .1)

So we don't have a bijection at all.

BUT, we do get a surjective function from IR^1 to IR^2 which is INTERESTING, in that we can think of a different surjection from IR^2 to IR^1, and the combination of these is all we need to prove that A BIJECTION EXISTS.

This double representation of the same real actually CAN be a problem!

Any thoughts would be appreciated (such as a constructive bijection).

 

[square_root_beer]

the subject heading "nope" was in response to "all mathematical ideas have been aptly addressed concerning this phenomenon of .9repeating=1...".

I must have gotten lost navigating the messege board.

 

[square_root_beer]

The difference between .9repeated and 1 is the diameter of a point... :) can you argue with that?

 

[KingNothing]

Also, when calculating something that involves .999999...you use 1, then apply the appropriate thing to the end. I know that sounds really dumb, but if you were to say "What's n*0.9999" you would just use 1, and say "infinitely close to n" or soemthing liek that.

 

[Hurkyl]

What a lovely thread to come home to after a miserable day.

(a) Don't hijack threads.
(b) Don't insult people.

The discussion seems to have moved to a new thread, so I'm locking this one.