1 is 0.9999999999999............

We do though. 0 = 0.0 = 00.00 = ... = (0)*.(0)*.
We don't write leading zeros, and we don't write trailing zeros for finite numbers, but they're still there.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, you seem to share the same fringe views with Undefined , then. No wonder that you were so eager to agree with him when he "corrected" you. The irony is that you got it initially right, only to correct yourself the wrong way.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No, no one in his right mind writes leading zeroes. For good reason, for ANY numbers.
But this is not the original debate, this is just a diversion from the original debate. The original debate was caused by the insertion of zeroes to the right of the decimal point, remember? This new thing with "leading zeroes" is just another one of Undefined's diversions when he's shown to be wrong, so why do you play into his hand?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now you're just being stupid.

Are you really sure that 9.0 is not equal to 09.0, or 009.0, or perhaps it's not equal to 0009.0000 either? Are you saying writing a number that way means you aren't "in your right mind"?

As I said, we don't write leading or trailing zeros.
What kind of mind would you require in order to prove there aren't any zeros there? Would this proof ahow that 9.0 and 09.00 are different numbers?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Read in full context so far please, Tach.

If you write a decimal FRACTION string value for the ratio 9/10 measurement/analytical 'result', you can write .9 or 0.9 or .90 or .900 or etc, depending on what 'accuracy/precision' of measurement result/process you wish to convey to whomever reads that 'value' result of that measurement 'degree of precision/accuracy' applied by the measurement/analytical method/construct. Yes?

And when you write a decimal FRACTIONAL string value for a ratio 9/100 'measurement result', you can write .09 or 0.09 or .090 or 0.090 or 0.0900 or etc, again for conveying the degree of measurement precision accuracy and value employed to arrive at that fractional result. Yes?

Now, more importantly, do you see the crucial role of the ACTIVE leading 0 when the decimal fractional string MUST include the LEADING ZERO in order to make the value 9/100ths in decimal format?

Do you see that if you left out that leading 0, it would be 9/10ths! not 9/100ths value. Different values when leading zeros are written in for the decimal fractional string values, yes?

Please just think about that and read/understand in context, and then you will see that your leading/trailing zeros "blanket assertions" and "corrections" are not tenable in the context. Thanks.

 

Talking to yourself in the mirror again?

Of course that they are equal, this is not what I objected to. What I objected to is your singing the same tune as Undefined. Maybe you two are not so different after all.

But this is not the original debate, this is just a diversion from the original debate. The original debate was caused by the insertion of zeroes to the right of the decimal point, remember? This new thing with "leading zeroes" is just another one of Undefined's diversions when he's shown to be wrong, so why do you play into his hand?

 

Nope, what you write is 0.9. You have to live with the facts.

Nope, normal people write 0.09. OK, mate?

There isn't any, mate.

But this is not the original debate, this is just a diversion from the original debate. The original debate was caused by the insertion of zeroes to the right of the decimal point, remember? This new thing with "leading zeroes" is just another one of your diversions when you've been shown to be wrong, get it, mate?

 

In that (my red highlighting) response from you above, you effectively assert that when writing 0.09 there is no leading zero to distinguish that from 0.9 ??!!

Amazing.

And you (who claim to be an "experimental physicist") do not know that the inclusion of leading/trailing zeros is also a means/convention of/for quickly and effectively indicating/conveying to the reader additional information regarding the specific level/degree of precision/accuracy the measurement was made to?

Amazing.


What is there left to say, except....????!!!!

 

You reading and comprehension skills are as bad as your math skills. Enjoy beating up your newly created strawman.

 

I only made the point that although we don't "normally" write leading zeros to the left of significant digits or trailing zeros to the right of fractions, they're still "there".
It's a valid, if somewhat trivial matter.

So where does "singing the same tune" as Undefined come from? Your desperate need to put other people down?

And this is my initial uncorrected post: if you have a number like 0.999 and multiply it by 10[sup]-2[/sup], the result is 0.00999, the single zero on the left of the decimal point must really be like a string of zeros extending infinitely to the right (which is inductively true since we can multiply by 10-2 indefinitely)

And as Undefined pointed out, this single zero must extend to the left (it's the same as an infinite string), since it's on the left of the decimal point, not the right. So 0.d = (0)*.d, means there is an infinite string of zeros on the left of the decimal point, or on the left of the first nonzero digit. If the decimal point is where you start from, how does it make sense to say this string of zeros extends to the right?
As I also noted, you need to be careful about left and right, and of what. So your objection amounts to you not reading things too closely, or perhaps you're suffering from selective blondness.

 

...and I pointed out that no one does that , in practice.

It comes from the fact that you are repeating the same trivialities as Undefined. <shrug> . It comes from getting things initially right and then switching your tune to his tune after he "corrected" you.

 

Which has no real bearing on the mathematics, since 0 = 00 = 000 = ..., is true regardless of what people do in practice.

So you're still claiming that 0.d has a string of zeros extending infinitely to the right? Of what, may I ask?

 

No, you either don't get your error or you pretend that you don't. Let's try again: when you multiplied 0.9 with \(10^{-2}\) and you obtained 0.009, in what direction did the zeroes extend from the decimal point?
You initially answered it correctly (to the right) but after Undefined bullied you a little , you switched to the wrong answer.

 

They extend to the right of the decimal point, of course.

But since I was referring to the single zero on the left of the decimal point, my corrected statement stands, and Undefined was also therefore correct to point out the mistake I made. You're flogging a dead horse.

 

Excellent, so your initial answer was right. Which makes your reversal, under Undefined's tutelage, wrong.

Let's try a simple exercise. Start with 0.n

1. Multiply be \(10^{-1}\). You get 0.0n, right? In what direction from the decimal point did zero propagate? (hint: you were taught the answer in 5-th grade)
2. Multiply again by \(10^{-1}\). You get 0.00n, right? In what direction from the decimal point did zero propagate?

 

We were talking arithmetic, as in multiplying with \(10^{-n}\) , not file naming conventions. Did you miss that?

 

But this is about zeros on the right of the decimal point, not the left. The 0 in 0.9 is still equivalent to an infinite string of zeros, and my corrected statement still stands.
It stands, because it's (also) true when you don't divide the number by 10s.

FS.

 

..as in your post that started to controversy. The one that you answered initially right only to switch to the wrong answer.

This is a different issue, trivially correct but can you stick to the point and not resort to diversions? One issue at a time. Do you agree that the zeroes inserted by the multiplication of 0.n by \(10^{-m}\) extend to the right, from the decimal point? Yes or no?

 

Based on your post, you missed it , since you introduced an unrelated subject

What does this have to do with the discussion? I know, you know I know, so what is the point?