Does .9-repeating equal 1?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Just because you'd never say it doesn't mean it isn't true. They are two different ways of representing the same number.

In math, they're equivalent: 0.999... = 1.

In spoken English, you can't always replace "one" with "point nine nine nine..." without people looking at you funny.

[Kuciwalker]

See?

[Ramo]

I guess I should've refreshed before posting that..

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Jaguar

In math, they're equivalent: 0.999... = 1.

In spoken English, you can't always replace "one" with "point nine nine nine..." without people looking at you funny.

By people, you mean normal people; not math geeks, right?

[Kuciwalker]

I was talking about Jag

xpost

[Elok]

Hey, I'm an English major at a liberal arts college and I don't buy whatever PoMo crap he's spouting. I'm PoMophobic and proud of it. Don't tar me with that brush.

[Kuciwalker]

It's a shame GePap hasn't posted in this thread

It could go on for days

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jaguar

In math, they're equivalent: 0.999... = 1.

In spoken English, you can't always replace "one" with "point nine nine nine..." without people looking at you funny.

I'm not to blame for the shortcomings of others.

[civman2000]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


ah. Just seemed you were making some sort of odd claim there.

Anyhow, I don't think it's reasonable to ask that things be true regardless of how we define them....

My point is that the reason some people don't accept that .9 repeating is 1 is that they want to use a different definition of .9 repeating. And I find it hard to accept that there is an objectively/Platonically "right" definition of what ".9 repeating" should mean. The standard definition is far more useful than any other definition, all the more so because it is the standard definition, but there's no deep philosophical reason that we should define it that way; that would imply that ".9 repeating" exists without us creating it in our minds, which I find hard to believe.

I feel the same way about all of mathematics, though.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I'm not to blame for the shortcomings of others.

Yea, pretty much. Mathematics is based on rigorous proofs. Language is based on common usage. That's why in math the two are interchangeable, and in language they aren't.

[KrazyHorse]

civman

That's fine. And I can conceive of a decimal system in which .9 repeating dne 1

But it's far more counterintuitive in many of its claims than is this one simple ambiguity.

Given the choice I'd say that the general public would take the one quirk of the current decimal system over the many quirks of alternative systems...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jaguar

Yea, pretty much. Mathematics is based on rigorous proofs. Language is based on common usage. That's why in math the two are interchangeable, and in language they aren't.

What?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


What?

In mathematics, you can make a proof of something and settle the issue.

In the English language, you can't. People use two phrases differently, and that makes them different. Just like if someone coins a new phrase, and it becomes popular, it becomes part of the language.

[KrazyHorse]

Do you have a point? As far as I know, there is no generally accepted convention on the usage of 0.9 repeating.

In fact, the only people who are likely to use that phrase at all are those who have at least some real mathematical training, and thus they should be aware of the equality.

[TCO]

This is from grammar school. You little wussie dogs.