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

Post 874 has been clarified and moved here (Hoping for criticism):

This post is the promised proof / explanation as to why my Room Assignment Algorithm, RAA, using only ONE integer squared and at worst, only ONE finite list of passengers, only 2N-1 long, where N is the number of the just arriving bus, fills all rooms in the infinite hotel, even when an infinite number of buses, each with an infinite number of passenger brings new guests to hotel with all even number rooms empty. B*P is notation (not Cartesian coordinates) naming the passenger number P on bus number B. The buses are given their number in the order they park in the infinite lot and open their exit door. Passenger always gets off in order. I. e. P before passenger (P+1) does. At worst, the determination of the room assigned to any passengers uses a finite list of ordered passengers, such as ONE of the red colored blocks below, and probably only one simple calculation, directly assigns each a room, but that has not yet been proven.

An infinite set of squares are named by the positive integers, N = 1, 2, 3, 4, … and have areas: S1 = 1, S2 = 4, S3 = 9, S4 = 16, etc. This is the same set of squares as I defined in my quickly written post 811 describing my RAA. The "S-numbers" tell the number of passengers inside or on the boundary of square N. All these “in or on boundary” passengers get the first N^2 even room numbers before any passenger leaves bus N+1 to (or a higher number bus) gets his. The first out of bus N+1 gets room # = 2{(N+1)^2 +2} not 2{(N+1)^2 +1} as that room goes to a still unassigned passenger from bus 1, who is 1*N. The order of room assignments my RAA produces is illustrated below for the first 6^2 +1 = 37 even numbers:

1*1 . 1*2 . 2*1 . 2*2 . 1*3 . 3*1 . 2*3 . 3*2 . 3*3 . 1*4 . 4*1 . 2*4 . 4*2 . 3*4 . 4*3 . 4*4 . 1*5 . 5*1 . 2*5 . 5*2 . 3*5 . 5*3 . 4*5 . 5*4 . 5*5 . 1*6 . 6*1 … etc in B+P pairs until 6*6 . 1*7 ….

Where color changes (between none and red) when a new group of "square boundary" passengers begins to fill and for more convenient reading, dots separate the passengers.
Note that with this "lowest B+P sum pairs first" (in any boundary group) ordering plain:
(1) The boundary of square N always has an odd integer of passengers on it. I. e. each of the colored (or not) blocks above has 2n -1 passengers where n is an integer. E.g. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 etc. and are "boundary passengers" of different "boundary passengers blocks or groups."
(2) That the last passenger filling the Nth square is always N*N and that the first passenger joining a new group of "square boundaries" passengers added to make square N+1, always comes from bus 1. He is 1*(N+1). The second second passenger helping fill the new square's boundary is always the first off the new bus N+1. I. e. he is (N +1)*1.
(3) That the RAA rules assign two consecutive room #s to passengers with the same B+P sum except for the last of each square boundary group block, N*N who has no "partner." E. g. a*b and b*a are consecutively assigned rooms with the one from the lower bus number getting the room # less by 2 than his "partner."
(4) That the RAA rule that when P + B from two different buses are equal, the lower B is given a room before the passenger on the later to arrive bus is applied ONLY WITH IN the same boundary group of passengers; not when the passenger "belong to" different boundary groups. For example: 4*4, with B+P= 8 gets a lower room # than 1*5 did even thought 1*5's B+P is only 6.

In general, note that when N*1, the first off of bus N, gets his Room#, (N-1)^2 +1 Room #s have already been assigned to the first (N-1)^2 +1 passengers. So his Room # is 2x[(N-1)^2 + 2], as is illustrated in the order assignment list above. This ordering of the 2N -1 passengers in the boundary group of the Nth square could be different, as I noted in post 811. For example, the N passengers, all with bus # + N could be assigned in order of their increasing P, starting with P =1, then N*N is assigned his room, and then N remaining passengers of that boundary group, could be assigned starting with the highest bus number first, and then decreasing to B = 1. This would be working thru the 2N+1 boundary passengers going "counter clockwise" around the boundary. I need / want to know what assignment order plan corresponds to the formulae of the RAA given.

The "lowest B+P sum pairs first" ordering plain illustrated with alternating red / black boundary groups above had the N = 5 boundary group order as:
1*5 . 5*1 . 2*5 . 5*2 . 3*5 . 5*3 . 4*5 . 5*4 . 5*5. With the "counter clockwise" plain, the ordering would be:
5*1 . 5*2 . 5*3 . 5*4 . 5*5 . 4*5 . 3*5 . 2*5 . 1*5. I. e. passenger 1*5 is the Last, not the First, of the group so would have a longer wait, even though his bus was the first to arrive! However the "best" ordering plain is the one which makes the RAA most simple. AFAIK, that is the same as the first N+1 passengers as in the "counter clockwise" plain and last N with order reversed or "clockwise" so that ordering plain will be used and again illustrated with boundary group 5, which is numerically the same as the "just arriving" bus B = 5. I. e. the following room assignment order: 5*1 . 5*2 . 5*3 . 5*4 . 5*5 . 1*5 . 2*5 . 3*5 . 4*5. Then the RAA becomes only one short sentence with very easy to calculate terms, which is:

When P is < or = B, passenger B*P's room is 2[(B-1)^2 +P], otherwise it is 2[(B-1)^2 + B + P].
Note that P is not larger than B when this RAA is applied and passenger with P = B, B*P, (or B*B or P*P or P*B as all four point to same guy) gets his room by the "pre-otherwise" part.
The "otherwise part" assigns room to Ps = 1 ,2,3, ... up to P = B-1 after the "first part" gave rooms to B passengers (P numbers = 1 thru B) from bus B. The "B" in last part of the RAA notes / accounts for fact / that the first part has just given out B more rooms. In earlier, poorly worded, post 811, I tried to do this accounting with reference to a B by P rectangle.

As stated earlier this post was to show the room numbers assigned do fill EVERY even number room, only with one passenger. That objective has been achieved. However, it concluded the simple RAA of the bold, larger type, sentence above.

SUMMARY: It is the fact than the total number of passengers in or on boundary of smaller squares is simply an integer squared that makes it so easy to immediately tell the next group of boundary passengers their room numbers via a simple formula sentence since there are always just 2B+1 of them in their Bth boundary group to assign to the next not yet assigned rooms. I probably will make a post numerically illustrating how easy a couple of B*P passengers with large value of B & P, like a billion or more, with this RAA, and no "snake thru" all even numbers procedure as someguy1 first suggested (or Trippy first implemented in an infinite look-up table), can easily do that, I think.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That part is good, you accepted the proof I did via using the limit of the sum.




This part is wrong, since the proof using the fact that $$10*0.(9)=9.(9)$$ is equally correct. Think about it this way, multiplication by 2 in base 2 , in a computer, is done via a shift left by one bit. Multiplication by 10 of a periodic number, like $$0.(n)$$ in base 10 is done ALSO via a shift left, by one DECIMAL. In other words, $$10*0.(n)=n.(n)$$. Your "intuition" that the "correct" result is $$10*0.(n)=n.(n)0$$ is downright incorrect, the digit that is being "shifted in" from the right is NOT $$0$$ but $$n$$.
you site equations that mixes the context of what the values represent:

attachment.php

see post #883

mixing value context does not prove anything except a poor understanding of what you are doing.
0.999...= 1 is unable to be calculated. IT MUST be ultimately defined by a process of limitation. IMO
the end result of 1=0.999... of the proof in contention is
not the value of 1 = the value of 0.999....
it is merely the quantity of 1 of 0.999....

Ask simply when doing the work outs...
x = what?

x what? = x what?
 
you site equations that mixes the context of what the values represent:

"site" ?


mixing value context does not prove anything except a poor understanding of what you are doing.

I take it that you are talking about your posts on the subject. I agree.

0.999...= 1 is unable to be calculated.

Only for people who cannot or would not learn the math.



IT MUST be ultimately defined by a process of limitation. IMO
the end result of 1=0.999... of the proof in contention is
not the value of 1 = the value of 0.999....
it is merely the quantity of 1 of 0.999....

Rubbish: $$0.(9)$$ is a shorthand for the limit, this was explained toy you countless times.


Ask simply when doing the work outs...
x = what?

x what? = x what?

So, after hundreds of explanations, you still don't get the math behind the explanations.
 
Monimonika: Your Post #904 is a clever form of subterfuge (perhaps equivalent to lying). You essentially accuse me of claiming that 9/9 not equal to one.

At least you admit to snipping out part of my Post #901.

The part snipped provides a cogent reason for refuting a proof using the principles of elementary arithmetic.

As posted by me several times, I accept the various proofs using the limit of a geometric series, which is beyond the notions of elementary arithmetic.

It is proofs using elementary arithmetic to which I object.

I apologize for misunderstanding your post. I still don't understand what it is that you have a problem with (most likely because I didn't look back in the thread to search for your other posts before the one I replied to) but here is what I interpreted your post to be about:

You show the arithmetic typically used in demonstrating that 0.999... = 1:

Code:
x = 0.99999[b] . . . . [/b]
10x = 9.99999[b] . . . . [/b]
10x -x = 9
ergo 9x = 9 ---->> x = 1

Then you compared it to another that has the x value changed:
Note the following when using the concepts of elementary arithmetic.
Code:
x= 0.99999
10x =  9.99990
10x - x = 8.99991
 9x = 8.99991
   x = .99999

I interpreted the difference between the two to be that in the first one, the end result for x is not written using the same notation as in the beginning, while in the second one the x goes right back to the same number notation as in the beginning. That is why I said that I guess you could solve this discrepancy between the two calculations by making the first one's x also go right back to the same exact number notation like in the second. The math still works since, as you already know, 0.999... = 1.

And then I got confused because to me "dividing both sides of an equation by 9" and "9/9 = 1" and "9x/9 = x" and "8.99991/9 = 0.99999" all seem to be part of the "concepts of elementary arithmetic".

Now that you know why I replied to your post the way that I did, you can now clarify your post to explain exactly what you meant by "concepts of elementary arithmetic" and highlight the difference that I missed between the two calculations in your post.
 
So, after hundreds of explanations, you still don't get the math behind the explanations.
so after all your years of learning Math you still don't know what it all means do you...?
Whats the difference between a Quantity and a Value? No idea hey?
Do you honestly think that calculus would have been developed if 0.999....=1 could have been calculated using elementary methods?

Do you think that the giants of Math would have bothered to create a system that was unnecessary?
 
BS! All you've shown is that you can divide 1 minute into 4 parts, 3 of which are 33.333...% and 1 of which is the remainder that you are conveniently forgetting about. Did you forget that you never finished the division of 20/60? Did you forget that you quit dividing and just threw away the remainder (the missing 4th piece)?

Quote me on where I ever had 1 minute in 4 parts in any of my calculations. It has to be MY WORDS, not yours.
The answer is still that 1 minute can be divided into three equal parts (each equaling 20 seconds) without any remainders. :cool:

You are a sad little doggy reduced to just yipping out falsehoods, just like when you falsely claimed that you had asked me to divide a pie.
 
I sure have no idea.
of course you do..
example:

1kg

1 [quantity] of value Kilogram
1= 1 kilogram
2= 2 kg
3 = 3 kg
or 1X= 1 kg
2X = 2 kg
Means we have subscribe the quantity with the value

or dialectic:
x = (a pig that flies from (a) to (b) at the rate of 100 km's per minute)
2x = 2(a pig that flies from (a) to (b) at the rate of 100 km's per minute)

then loose the context and start talking about time
x+60 minutes equals how many pigs?
crazy! hey?
 
or
x=0.999...
[ the letter x is granted a value of 0.999... ]
9x = 9.999...
[the value of x is multiplied 9 times]

9.999... - 0.999... = 9
[the value of x is subtracted from the value of 9x and equals the value of 9]

then and this is where the problem lies:
9x = 9
[using the value x as a quantity and not the value it was derived to be]
9/9
[quantity /value]
x=1
value = quantity
0.999... = 1

when it should read

x*1 = 1*x
[Value = Value]
0.999... *1 = 1* 0.999...
x = x
 
Good morning Monimonika, Motor Daddy, everyone. :)

Nowhere does it have the word "pie" in it.

It's still undeniable fact that 20 seconds + 20 seconds + 20 seconds = 1 minute, and that 20 seconds are a third of 1 minute. So I still have shown that 1 of something can be divided by 3 without a remainder. Motor Daddy loses again, with an additional loss of credibility.

My bolding above. That is why one should acquaint oneself with the background discussion (in this instance preferably both in this thread and QQ's contextually related Philosophy on Maths thread in the Philosophy section) before jumping into it with all guns blazing. If you read back you will see where the reality of dividing a real pie (and not just more trivial maths abstractions) is what it's all about now. It's about how does the maths operations go about relating to reality process/phenomena. :)

One (specifically, the one called Undefined) should learn how to read sentences properly in order to understand what other people are referring to and to avoid looking foolish. In this case, Undefined has missed the clear meaning of my following sentence:

You didn't ask me to divide a pie.

The "You" above refers to Motor Daddy. The "me" above refers to me, Monimonika. At no point in this or any other threads has Motor Daddy ever requested that Monimonika divide a pie, so I declared that what Motor Daddy claimed was false.

For some reason Undefined misinterpreted what pronouns referred to whom, and decided to chastise me for my supposed "mistake" with a very long ramble of which the majority I didn't bother to finish reading.
 
Quote me on where I ever had 1 minute in 4 parts in any of my calculations. It has to be MY WORDS, not yours.
The answer is still that 1 minute can be divided into three equal parts (each equaling 20 seconds) without any remainders. :cool:

You are a sad little doggy reduced to just yipping out falsehoods, just like when you falsely claimed that you had asked me to divide a pie.

You're not the sharpest tool in the shed.

If I asked you to divide 60 minutes into 3 equal parts you would answer with 3 parts of 20 minutes. If I asked you to divide 30 minutes into 3 equal parts you would answer with 3 parts of 10 minutes. If I asked you to divide 3 minutes into 3 equal parts you would answer with 3 parts of 1 minute. Now I am asking you to divide 1 minute into 3 equal parts. You make 3 parts of how many minutes?
 
You're not the sharpest tool in the shed.

If I asked you to divide 60 minutes into 3 equal parts you would answer with 3 parts of 20 minutes. If I asked you to divide 30 minutes into 3 equal parts you would answer with 3 parts of 10 minutes. If I asked you to divide 3 minutes into 3 equal parts you would answer with 3 parts of 1 minute. Now I am asking you to divide 1 minute into 3 equal parts. You make 3 parts of how many minutes?

If I asked you to divide 2 dozen cupcakes equally among 3 people, would you declare that it can't be done because 2/3 would calculate to 0.6666...? With your logic, I guess the answer to that question would be a boneheaded yes.

And the 3 people would pity your poor math skills as they take the initiative and solve the problem themselves by having each person get 8 cupcakes each. All the while, the 3 people will ignore your annoying ravings about there definitely being some fraction of a dozen cupcakes still leftover somewhere.
 
If I asked you to divide 2 dozen cupcakes equally among 3 people, would you declare that it can't be done because 2/3 would calculate to 0.6666...?

No, but I would declare it can't be done because we cannot measure physical objects accurately enough to divide them into three absolutely equal parts. Are you going to count the electrons?
 
or
x=0.999...
[ the letter x is granted a value of 0.999... ]
9x = 9.999...

Basic arithmetic says that you are wrong, 9x=9. You need to do 10x in order to get 9.(9). This was also explained to you countless times.
<rest of erroneous "derivation" snipped>
 
Last edited:
No, but I would declare it can't be done because we cannot measure physical objects accurately enough to divide them into three absolutely equal parts. Are you going to count the electrons?

Funny that you mention that since in 8-th grade, in the geometry class, they teach how to divide a circle into three equal parts using just a ruler and a compass.
 
If I asked you to divide 2 dozen cupcakes equally among 3 people, would you declare that it can't be done because 2/3 would calculate to 0.6666...? With your logic, I guess the answer to that question would be a boneheaded yes.

And the 3 people would pity your poor math skills as they take the initiative and solve the problem themselves by having each person get 8 cupcakes each. All the while, the 3 people will ignore your annoying ravings about there definitely being some fraction of a dozen cupcakes still leftover somewhere.


Way to go ! :)
 
Funny that you mention that since in 8-th grade, in the geometry class, they teach how to divide a circle into three equal parts using just a ruler and a compass.

A circle, yes, A circle is just the border part ... the set of points on the circumference. It's not hard to divide that into 3 equal parts.

But a circular disk is much trickier, if not impossible. The disk includes the circumference and the area enclosed by the circumference. It's the whole pie. And you can't divide a mathematical disc into three equal parts because you can't figure out what to do with the center point.
 
A circle, yes, A circle is just the border part ... the set of points on the circumference. It's not hard to divide that into 3 equal parts.

1. Good, you have corrected yourself.

But a circular disk is much trickier, if not impossible.

2. You just agreed that the circumference can be divided (into 3 equal parts) by using just a ruler and a compass. In order to divide the disk, all you need to do is to connect the 3 (equally spaced) points with the center. The ruler suffices for this task.


The disk includes the circumference and the area enclosed by the circumference. It's the whole pie. And you can't divide a mathematical disc into three equal parts because you can't figure out what to do with the center point.

3. You are repeating the same nonsense as Undefined. The center point can be shared by all slices. It has zero measure , so it can be divided amongst any number of slices.
Besides, if you are intent into falling into the philosophical nonsense, you should have made the same argument about the endpoints of the arcs defined at point 1.
 
Back
Top