Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Still struggling

  1. Jul 2, 2005 #1

    bs

    User Avatar

    still struggling!!!!

    normally when a number v repeated digit
    such as 0.333.... can b expressed in fractional form,ie 1/3 for this case

    for more examples
    0.142857142857... = 1/7
    0.090909090909....= 1/11
    0.285714285714.... = 2/7

    n now this is my quest..
    what is 0.999999999... in the fractional form
    i try to solve it by using the method of sum to infinity,S=a/(1-r)
    but it gives me the ans of 1..
    y does it so!!
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 2, 2005 #2

    AKG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    because it is 1
     
  4. Jul 2, 2005 #3

    bs

    User Avatar

    ????
    how can u say tat 0.999999999... equals to 1
    it just approaches to 1
    but yet it cant b considered as 1
     
  5. Jul 2, 2005 #4

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    search these very forums for this, but save yourself the time. they are equal, just like 1/2 adn 2/4 are equal. this is a mathematical property of the real numbers and the decimal expansions as *representations* of them. they are different representations of the same real number nothing more nor less. but please don't spend time argunig against this fact.
     
  6. Jul 2, 2005 #5
    Find out 1 - 0.999999999...
    Isn't it 0.000000000... ???
     
  7. Jul 2, 2005 #6

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    It isn't "approaching" anything- it isn't changing. Any infinite decimal is, by definition of the base 10 number system, the limit of the "partial sums". You might well say that the sequence {.9, .99, .999, .9999, ...} is "approaching" 1 but the number 0.999999... is, by definition, the limit of that sequence, 1.
     
  8. Jul 2, 2005 #7

    Zurtex

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    As stated above,

    [tex]1 - 10^{-n} \quad \text{or} \quad \sum_{r=1}^{n} \left( 9 \cdot 10^{-r}\right)[/tex]

    These approach 1 as n approaches infinity, 0.9999999... is 1.
     
  9. Jul 3, 2005 #8
    I find it odd that you accept the other repeating decimals as their respective fractions yet do not accept 1 as 0.9r. Especially considering you know that 0.333... = 1/3 ---> 3*0.333... = 3*(1/3) = 0.999... = 3/3 = 1.
     
  10. Jul 3, 2005 #9

    bs

    User Avatar

    how if i reverse the calculation:
    1/7 = 1 divided by 7 = 0.142857142857...
    1/11 = 1 divided by 11 = 0.090909090909....
    2/7 = 2 divided by 7 = 0.285714285714....
    1 = 1 divided by 1 = 1 ( y not 0.9999999......)
    can u explain?
     
  11. Jul 3, 2005 #10

    lurflurf

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    .99999999999999999999...=1
    It is just two ways of writing the same thing.
    1-10^-n<.9999999...<1 for all n=1,2,3,...
    The only real number that can do that if 1.
     
  12. Jul 3, 2005 #11

    Curious3141

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Is it the same troll beating the same dead horse an infinite number of times ?
     
  13. Jul 3, 2005 #12

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper


    explani what? there's nothin wrong here. you just think there is.decimals are representations of numbers just like the symbols 1/2 2/4 are representations of rational numbers. it is perfectly alright for their to be two representations of certain decimal numbers. not all have this property. oddly, there are infinitely many representations for EVERY rational yet you probably have no problem accepting that 1/2 and 2/4 are the same. your attitude is very common. but you are attempting to read things into these representations that simply need not be true and indeed cannot be true.
     
  14. Jul 3, 2005 #13
    Notice, for example, that 1/7 does not equal to [tex]0.142857142857[/tex], but rather [tex]0.\overline{142857}[/tex]. Similiarly, 1/1 is not [tex]0.99999[/tex], but [tex]0.\bar{9}[/tex].

    I know "..." was your way of representing recurring decimals, but you feel somehow it's "OK" for 1/7 to be a recurring decimal, yet not 1/1.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 3, 2005
  15. Jul 3, 2005 #14

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think what troubles bs here is that while the other decimal representations can be generated as outputs of an algorithm (ie: long division) whose input parameters are the numerator and denominator of the rational fraction, this doesn't "seem to" work for [itex]0.\overline{9} [/itex].
     
  16. Jul 3, 2005 #15

    lurflurf

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    And also the fact that even if one developed a (necessisarily stupid) algorithm to generate .999999... one would have to avoid rounding to prevent getting 1.
     
  17. Jul 3, 2005 #16

    Zurtex

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Eh?

    What has any of this got to do with rounding?
     
  18. Jul 3, 2005 #17

    James R

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    The fact that 0.999... = 1 is an artifact of our base 10 representational system.

    Suppose we work in base 3, for example. Then, counting from one to ten would look like this:

    1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 100, 101.

    The number one in base 3 can also be represented as 0.222...

    i.e. in base 3 we have 1 = 0.222..., just as in base 10 we have 1 = 0.999...
     
  19. Jul 3, 2005 #18

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There really isn't a problem with the long division algorithm at all...it can easily be tweaked to generate recurring 9s ( by replacing the odd "[itex]\leq[/itex]" in the common version with a "<" and make other related changes).
     
  20. Jul 3, 2005 #19

    lurflurf

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I have a feeling someones was sitting with their calculator and noticing 1/3=.333333... then .333333333....*3=1, but this person does not belive .9999999...=1 so when .99999 occurs it is rounded, but wen they do 1/1 the calculator does not show .999999999 hence confusion. Here is a stupid algorith to generat 1=.99999... we do silly long division 1=10/10=9/10+1/10=9/10+9/10^2+1/10^3+9/10+9/10^2+9/10^3+1/10^3. Just be use to throw away the 1/10^n terms are rounding error and don't round up.
     
  21. Nov 30, 2005 #20
    Another way to prove this that may help you understand is if take x=.9r, and multiply by 10, u get 10x=9.9r. if you then take 10x-x, u'd get 9x=9, therefore x=1 and 1=.9r.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Still struggling
  1. Still that problem. (Replies: 3)

Loading...