- #1

- 38

- 0

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter LittleWolf
- Start date

- #1

- 38

- 0

- #2

mathwonk

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

2020 Award

- 11,266

- 1,468

you are right. but it needs proof of course.

- #3

Zurtex

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 1,120

- 1

It is of course wrong to assume the distributive property applies to an infinite number of terms. Once you however learn the maths to prove it, you'll find in fact it does (under more strict cirumstances).

Last edited:

- #4

NateTG

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 2,450

- 6

Zurtex said:It is of course wrong to assume the distributive property applies to an infinite number of terms. Once you however learn the maths to prove it, you'll find in fact it does (under more strict cirumstances).

Actually, the distribution is only necessary accross two terms:

[tex]x(9.\bar{9})=x(9+0.\bar{9})=x9+x0.\bar{9}[/tex]

The original question, which I assume is really, "Is it correct distribute across [itex]\sum_{i=1}{\infty}\frac{9}{10^i}[/itex] as if it were a real number." Is still hard to answer well without resorting to higher math.

- #5

vsage

- #6

mathwonk

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

2020 Award

- 11,266

- 1,468

- #7

- 26

- 0

I thought this topic was beaten to death.

Twice.

Right?

Twice.

Right?

- #8

Zurtex

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 1,120

- 1

This topic has been beaten to death at least a few dozen times on this forum, I remember one thread that went on for over 400 posts.Night Owl said:I thought this topic was beaten to death.

Twice.

Right?

- #9

NateTG

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 2,450

- 6

- #10

Curious3141

Homework Helper

- 2,850

- 87

We need a "beating a dead horse icon" in our smilie list.

- #11

cronxeh

Gold Member

- 974

- 10

oH you wont believe just **where** I've found it :rofl:

On catholics forums! :rofl:

Here you can either use their link or mine:

http://carboninside.com/deadhorse.gif

Speaking of distributive properties:

1 = 0.999.. can be represented as:

[tex]\begin{document}

$\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^\infty \frac{9}{10^i}$.

\end{document}

[/tex]

So when you multiply by 10 it makes perfect sense since you can divide or multiply the Sum by any number, therefore both multiplication and division will hold for distributive property

On catholics forums! :rofl:

Here you can either use their link or mine:

http://carboninside.com/deadhorse.gif

Speaking of distributive properties:

1 = 0.999.. can be represented as:

[tex]\begin{document}

$\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^\infty \frac{9}{10^i}$.

\end{document}

[/tex]

So when you multiply by 10 it makes perfect sense since you can divide or multiply the Sum by any number, therefore both multiplication and division will hold for distributive property

Last edited by a moderator:

- #12

- 2,193

- 2

Anyway, here it goes:

Instead of 1,2,3,4, etc..., it should be .999~, 1.999~, 2.999~, etc..

And .5 should be .4999~

What my theory posits is that any number can not be an absolute quantity, rather that is must be held in an infinite form.

- #13

jcsd

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 2,097

- 12

cronxeh said:oH you wont believe justwhereI've found it :rofl:

On catholics forums! :rofl:

Here you can either use their link or mine:

http://carboninside.com/deadhorse.gif

Speaking of distributive properties:

1 = 0.999.. can be represented as:

[tex]\begin{document}

$\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^\infty \frac{9}{10^i}$.

\end{document}

[/tex]

So when you multiply by 10 it makes perfect sense since you can divide or multiply the Sum by any number, therefore both multiplication and division will hold for distributive property

Well no, though it's often called a 'sum to infinity' and shares some properties of 'finite sums' it clearly doesn't share all properties, for example an infinite sum whose terms are all real numbers does not necessarily have a real number even though the reals form a field. If the sum to infinfity doesn't presevre such fundmanetal properties as closure why should we expect it to preserve distribuitivity? To check whether or not distrbuivty applies we have to examine the defintion of a sum to infinity which is the limit of the sequence of partial sums).

Last edited by a moderator:

- #14

Zurtex

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 1,120

- 1

All real numbers are represented in infinite form, e.g:pallidin said:

Anyway, here it goes:

Instead of 1,2,3,4, etc..., it should be .999~, 1.999~, 2.999~, etc..

And .5 should be .4999~

What my theory posits is that any number can not be an absolute quantity, rather that is must be held in an infinite form.

[tex]1 = \ldots 0000000000001.000000000000 \ldots[/tex]

0.5 and 0.49999... are the same number in real numbers so it does't make any difference.

- #15

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,950

- 19

- #16

Zurtex

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 1,120

- 1

Would that be when one wants to fit it on the page? Or perhaps when one is a silly physicist and can't get their head round the real number line?Hurkyl said:

I think I've had too much caffeine tonight :!!)

- #17

- 236

- 2

Hurkyl said:

Could you elaborate on this please? Under what circumstances would one want to do that either way? And most importantly, what are the consequences of doing it? What's to be gained by prohibiting a number ending in an infinite string of nines, when they have to be allowed to end in an infinite string of threes?

This might relate to a different question I'm struggling with, so additional information might provide the wedge I'm searching for. Thanks.

- #18

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,950

- 19

Share: