The Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: reason why 1=.99999....99(10/9) and why 1/3 = .333333......33(1/3),
never that nonsense 1=.999.... 1/3 = .3333.....

Replies: 17   Last Post: Oct 8, 2017 3:37 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
bursejan@gmail.com

Posts: 4,571
Registered: 9/25/16
Re: reason why 1=.99999....99(10/9) and why 1/3 = .333333......33(1/3),
never that nonsense 1=.999.... 1/3 = .3333.....

Posted: Oct 6, 2017 11:01 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Dont ask so difficult questions, AP brain farto
cannot answer. He is even not aware that Newton

introduced compleat Quotients to calculate with
rational numbers, and that for example sqrt(2)

doesn't have compleat Quotient representation.
Newton doesn't use our modern name rational

numbers, but he writes:
"This method of reduction (*) may be thus very
conveniently imitated in numbers..."
https://archive.org/stream/methodoffluxions00newt#page/162/mode/2up

An it appears in book part called "Annotations",
so I guess its not from Newton himself.

sqrt(2) comes only later, and for example on page
171 the author atributes some of the developments

to A. D. Moivre:

In the theory of series, de Moivre developed a
polynomial theorem encompassing Newton's binomial
theorem and, in particular, a theorem of recurrent
series useful in the calculus of probability.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00411630

(Thats maybe also where Euler got his diverging
series from, not sure)

(*)
The geometric series from the previous section.


Am Freitag, 6. Oktober 2017 16:48:01 UTC+2 schrieb Markus Klyver:
> Den tisdag 3 oktober 2017 kl. 04:21:37 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> > Newsgroups: sci.math
> > Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 08:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > Subject: Why is there a difference between fractions 1/3 and .333 repeating
> > multiplied by 3
> > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > Injection-Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 15:32:50 +0000
> >
> >
> > Because you cannot mix fraction with a decimal unless the decimal ends in 0's
> >
> > For example 10 divided by 3 is 10/3 or written as 3+1/3
> >
> > But completely wrong when writing it as 3.333.... Because the dots mean nothing, unless you write it as 3.3333...33(1/3) so you include the carryover at infinity
> >
> > This means that .99999.... is not 1, unless you included the carryover at infinity border as this
> >
> > .99999....99(10/9) which in fact is 1
> >
> > For you divide 10 by 9 carry the 1 leaving behind 0, 1 added to 9 is 10, carryover the 1, leaving behind another 0, finishing off with
> >
> > .9999....99(10/9) = 1.0000.....
> >
> > You see Old Math was too dumb and lazy to define how those dots ......... Interfaces with fractions, too dumb too lazy
> >
> > AP
> >
> > Newsgroups: sci.math
> > Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 19:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > Subject: the reason why 1=.99999....99(10/9) and why 1/3 = .333333......33(1/3)
> > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 02:10:39 +0000
> >
> > the reason why 1=.99999....99(10/9) and why 1/3 = .333333......33(1/3)
> >
> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:33:05 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> > > Because you cannot mix fraction with a decimal unless the decimal ends in 0's
> > >
> > > For example 10 divided by 3 is 10/3 or written as 3+1/3
> > >
> > > But completely wrong when writing it as 3.333.... Because the dots mean nothing, unless you write it as 3.3333...33(1/3) so you include the carryover at infinity
> > >
> > > This means that .99999.... is not 1, unless you included the carryover at infinity border as this
> > >
> > > .99999....99(10/9) which in fact is 1
> > >
> > > For you divide 10 by 9 carry the 1 leaving behind 0, 1 added to 9 is 10, carryover the 1, leaving behind another 0, finishing off with
> > >
> > > .9999....99(10/9) = 1.0000.....
> > >
> > > You see Old Math was too dumb and lazy to define how those dots ......... Interfaces with fractions, too dumb too lazy
> > >
> > >

> >
> > Alright, let me expand and expound on the ideas above, of undefined and ignorant dots .............
> >
> > The snobs, and slobs of Old Math who think that 1/3 = .333333..... and that 1 = .999999.....
> >
> > Well, ask those slobs and snobs, ask them to add
> >
> > 0.9999999.....
> > +.9999999.......
> >
> > watch the goon squad try to get rid of this 1.99999.....9998
> >
> > ask the goon squad how they got rid of the "8"
> >
> > But, on the other hand, when you well define the ellipsis, for those series of dots ...... is called Ellipsis
> >
> > If you well define the ellipsis with an infinity border and where you include all REMAINDERS in division.
> > Then you have a correct and proper mathematics.
> >
> > The example that must always be followed in division is the remainder
> >    ________
> > 3| 1000       = 333+1/3
> >
> > We never imagine that the correct final answer is without that fraction 1/3 added on
> >
> > Thus, when we have
> >
> >    ________
> > 3| 1.000...       = .333....(+1/3)
> >
> > for we have a ending fraction of (+1/3)
> >
> > Now, the slobs and snobs never realized how important that (+1/3) was for they boneheadedly did this
> >
> > .3333333333.......... plus .3333333...........  = .666666666........ and thought everything was A-okay
> >
> > But look what the true addition is like:
> >
> > .333333.....33(+1/3) + .333333.....33(+1/3) = .66666666........66(+2/3)
> >
> > You see how unmessy that is, because, well look at this by the boneheads:
> >
> > .99999999..... + .99999999..... = 1.999999......998
> >
> > Whereas true math has
> >
> > .9999999......99(+10/9) + .9999999.....99(+10/9) = 1.999999.....98(+20/9) = 2.00000....(+0)
> >
> > So, you see how clean that all is, rather than what the slobs, snobs and boneheads dish out in their fantasies of math.
> >
> > They are failures, regular failures of math for they refuse to define infinity with a borderline and then they make up this crap that .9999.... is the same as 1, or that .33333.... is the same as 1/3 when they forgot about the remainder.
> >
> > AP

>
> 1) Do you understand that decimal expansions are defined in terms of limits?
>
> 2) Do you understand limits?





Date Subject Author
10/2/17
Read Re: reason why 1=.99999....99(10/9) and why 1/3 = .333333......33(1/3),
never that nonsense 1=.999.... 1/3 = .3333.....
bursejan@gmail.com
10/3/17
Read So, Newton called it Complete-Quotient; I will do the same Re: reason
why 1=.99999....99(10/9) and why 1/3 = .333333......33(1/3), never that
nonsense 1=.999.... 1/3 = .3333.....
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/3/17
Read Re: reason why 1=.99999....99(10/9) and why 1/3 = .333333......33(1/3),
never that nonsense 1=.999.... 1/3 = .3333.....
bursejan@gmail.com
10/3/17
Read Re: reason why 1=.99999....99(10/9) and why 1/3 = .333333......33(1/3),
never that nonsense 1=.999.... 1/3 = .3333.....
bursejan@gmail.com
10/2/17
Read Re: reason why 1=.99999....99(10/9) and why 1/3 = .333333......33(1/3),
never that nonsense 1=.999.... 1/3 = .3333.....
Me
10/3/17
Read Completed Quotient of Newton Re: reason why 1=.99999....99(10/9)
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/3/17
Read Fixing the representation of numbers Re: Completed Quotient of Newton
Re: reason why 1=.99999....99(10/9)
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/3/17
Read Re: Fixing the representation of numbers Re: Completed Quotient of
Newton Re: reason why 1=.99999....99(10/9)
bursejan@gmail.com
10/4/17
Read let us look in history where Newton's Compleat Quotient was not
adopted Re: Completed Quotient of Newton Re: reason why 1=.99999....99(10/9)
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/4/17
Read We instantly recognize 200/3 = 66+2/3, why do we fail with 2/3 =
.66(+2/3) Re: reason why 1=.99999....99(+9/9)
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/5/17
Read Newton called it Compleat Quotient, I called it the suffix, or
remainder suffix Re: We instantly recognize 200/3 = 66+2/3, why do we fail
with 2/3 written as .6666(+2/3)
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/6/17
Read silly chapter in math history of the buffoons with .999...=1 Re: We
instantly recognize 200/3 = 66+2/3, why do we fail with 2/3 written as .6666(+2/3)
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/3/17
Read Re: Fixing the representation of numbers Re: Completed Quotient of
Newton Re: reason why 1=.99999....99(10/9)
bursejan@gmail.com
10/6/17
Read Re: reason why 1=.99999....99(10/9) and why 1/3 = .333333......33(1/3),
never that nonsense 1=.999.... 1/3 = .3333.....
Markus Klyver
10/6/17
Read Re: reason why 1=.99999....99(10/9) and why 1/3 = .333333......33(1/3),
never that nonsense 1=.999.... 1/3 = .3333.....
bursejan@gmail.com
10/7/17
Read 2) Is Stockholm University's Per Martin-Lof, Erik Palmgren as stupid
in trigonometry as Markus Klyver-- Not knowing Sine is a Semicircle Wave
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/8/17
Read Re: 2) Is Stockholm University's Per Martin-Lof, Erik Palmgren as
stupid in trigonometry as Markus Klyver-- Not knowing Sine is a Semicircle Wave
zelos.malum@gmail.com

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.