• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Very interesting (1 Viewer)

Lolsmith

kill all boomers
Joined
Dec 4, 2009
Messages
4,570
Location
Forever UNSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Yeah, limiting sums in my 2U exam next week will make me giggle. Thanks for that guys. :D
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
4,741
Location
sarajevo
Gender
Female
HSC
2015
Uni Grad
2017
I get like mathematically why it equals one but I just can't get my head around it :(
 

Trebla

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
8,401
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
is this a legit proof?...

0.999.... let equal x
10x = 9.999...
10x - x = 9x = 9.999... - 0.999... = 9
ie. 9x=9
x=1
0.999... = 1
That is correct and legitimate. The reason being is this idea of limiting sums. The notion of 0.999... represents an INFINITE number of decimal places. In theory this means it should equal 1 "at the point of infinity".

The reason why most people find this hard to accept is because they always see 0.999... with a finite number of decimal places. If it has a finite number of decimal places it would obviously not be equal to 1.

It's only equal to 1 when there is an INFINITE number of decimal places.

Infinity is NOT a number. It is meant to be treated as a limit when something increases positively without bound. The argument that since the y-axis and x-axis are perpendicular therefore "∞ x 0 = - 1" is enough to incite pure mathematicians to murder you lol

Here is a contradiction to disprove the argument, if
∞ x 0 = - 1
=> ∞ x 0 x - 1 = 1
But 0 x - 1 = 0
=> ∞ x 0 = 1
.: 1 = - 1
which is clearly false, so the initial assumption that ∞ x 0 = - 1 is clearly incorrect

Perhaps a more appropriate definition of two lines with gradients m1 and m2 being perpendicular would be:

m1 = - 1 / m2 if m2 =/= 0
OR
m2 = - 1 / m1 if m1 =/= 0

This should be a better formula which works when one of them equals zero and the other approaches infinity. This means the easier to remember high school result:

m1m2 = - 1

only holds when both m1 and m2 are non-zero and finite
 
Last edited:

marmsie

New Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
20
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
∞ x 0 = - 1
=> ∞ x 0 x - 1 = 1
But 0 x - 1 = 0
=> ∞ x 0 = 1
.: 1 = - 1
which is clearly false, so the initial assumption that ∞ x 0 = - 1 is clearly incorrect
Who says 1 = -1 is false, afterall:

<img src="http://www.codecogs.com/eq.latex?\begin{align*}i&=i\\\sqrt{-1}&=\sqrt{-1}\\\sqrt{\frac{-1}{1}}&=\sqrt{\frac{1}{-1}}\\\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{\sqrt{1}}&=\frac{\sqrt{1}}{\sqrt{-1}}\\\sqrt{-1}&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{-1}}\\(\sqrt{-1})^{2}&=1\\\therefore -1&=1\end{align}">

:)
For those who take maths a bit too seriously, yes there is a false statement in the arguement but it is pretty hard to find (it took me a few years before I could find someone to point it out)
 

Cazic

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
166
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
The problem is that the square root function is multi-valued. sqrt(-1) = i or -i for instance. If you're always choosing i as "the" square root of negative 1, then 1 = sqrt(1) = sqrt(-1 * -1) != sqrt(-1) * sqrt(-1) = i * i = -1 is an obvious counterexample to the "rule" sqrt(ab) = sqrt(a)sqrt(b), which you've invoked in your third to fourth lines.

Choosing the "correct" value -i on one of the sides, the right side say, in line four fixes your working, though anyone seriously working through a calculation like this would just note the multi-valuedness of sqrt and deduce the "correct" value if enough information is given to do so (as we have done).
 

hscishard

Active Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
2,033
Location
study room...maybe
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
That is correct and legitimate. The reason being is this idea of limiting sums. The notion of 0.999... represents an INFINITE number of decimal places. In theory this means it should equal 1 "at the point of infinity".

The reason why most people find this hard to accept is because they always see 0.999... with a finite number of decimal places. If it has a finite number of decimal places it would obviously not be equal to 1.

It's only equal to 1 when there is an INFINITE number of decimal places.

Infinity is NOT a number. It is meant to be treated as a limit when something increases positively without bound. The argument that since the y-axis and x-axis are perpendicular therefore "∞ x 0 = - 1" is enough to incite pure mathematicians to murder you lol

Here is a contradiction to disprove the argument, if
∞ x 0 = - 1
=> ∞ x 0 x - 1 = 1
But 0 x - 1 = 0
=> ∞ x 0 = 1
.: 1 = - 1
which is clearly false, so the initial assumption that ∞ x 0 = - 1 is clearly incorrect

Perhaps a more appropriate definition of two lines with gradients m1 and m2 being perpendicular would be:

m1 = - 1 / m2 if m2 =/= 0
OR
m2 = - 1 / m1 if m1 =/= 0

This should be a better formula which works when one of them equals zero and the other approaches infinity. This means the easier to remember high school result:

m1m2 = - 1

only holds when both m1 and m2 are non-zero and finite
Nice but how the hell do you think like that?
 

Trebla

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
8,401
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Nice but how the hell do you think like that?
This is how pure mathematicians think with lots of rigour to ensure technical precision. That being said, I'm more of an applied person though lol
 

frenzal_dude

UTS Student
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
173
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
I thought the gradient of y was undefined, not infinity.

y*x = -1

y*0 = -1

y = -1/0

Therefore y is undefined.

Might be completely wrong here though.
undefined can be thought of as being infinity, since infinity is sort of like an undefined number.
 

frenzal_dude

UTS Student
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
173
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
is this a legit proof?...

0.999.... let equal x
10x = 9.999...
10x - x = 9x = 9.999... - 0.999... = 9
ie. 9x=9
x=1
0.999... = 1
We know that 1/9 = 0.111...., 2/9 = 0.22... etc.
But the pattern obviously stops at 9, because we all know that 9 divided by 9 is EXACTLY 1 and not 0.9 repeated even if you repeat it for ever.
 

Trebla

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
8,401
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
We know that 1/9 = 0.111...., 2/9 = 0.22... etc.
But the pattern obviously stops at 9, because we all know that 9 divided by 9 is EXACTLY 1 and not 0.9 repeated even if you repeat it for ever.
If it is repeated forever to infinity it will equal exactly 1. Perhaps the reason that this seems hard to accept is that you keep thinking of it with finite decimal places.

Perhaps a geometric series argument may be more convincing intuitively:
Suppose 0.9999.... had a FINITE number of decimal places (say n decimal places), then
0.9999... = 9 (1/10 + 1/102 + 1/103 + ..... + 1/10n)
The bracket is a geometric series with a = 1/10 and r = 1/10, hence
0.9999... = 9 (1/10) (1 - (1/10)n) / (1 - 1/10)
= 9 (1/10) (1 - (1/10)n) / (9/10)
= 1 - (1/10)n
As n --> ∞, then we reach an INFINITE number of decimal places. But (1/10)n --> 0 when this happens thus 0.9999... becomes 1 when it has an infinite number of decimal places.

Think about it. For example, there is no way 0.2222.... will ever equal 2/9 unless there are an INFINITE number of decimal places.

Consider the proof for 0.22222... = 2/9
Let x = 0.222222....
10x = 2.22222....
10x - x = 2
Why is it equal to 2 under subtraction? Because there is an INFINITE number of decimal places. If there were a finite number of decimal places then the subtraction would clearly not be equal to 2. It will actually be 1.99999...98 if it had a finite number of decimal places.
 
Last edited:

frenzal_dude

UTS Student
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
173
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
If it is repeated forever to infinity it will equal exactly 1. Perhaps the reason that this seems hard to accept is that you keep thinking of it with finite decimal places.

Perhaps a geometric series argument may be more convincing intuitively:
Suppose 0.9999.... had a FINITE number of decimal places (say n decimal places), then
0.9999... = 9 (1/10 + 1/102 + 9/103 + ..... + 9/10n)
The bracket is a geometric series with a = 1/10 and r = 1/10, hence
0.9999... = 9 (1/10) (1 - (1/10)n) / (1 - 1/10)
= 9 (1/10) (1 - (1/10)n) / (9/10)
= 1 - (1/10)n
As n --> ∞, then we reach an INFINITE number of decimal places. But (1/10)n --> 0 when this happens thus 0.9999... becomes 1 when it has an infinite number of decimal places.

Think about it. For example, there is no way 0.2222.... will ever equal 2/9 unless there are an INFINITE number of decimal places.

Consider the proof for 0.22222... = 2/9
Let x = 0.222222....
10x = 2.22222....
10x - x = 2
Why is it equal to 2 under subtraction? Because there is an INFINITE number of decimal places. If there were a finite number of decimal places then the subtraction would clearly not be equal to 2. It will actually be 1.99999...98 if it had a finite number of decimal places.
Yeh you're right.
I guess it's hard to comprehend since we don't experience infinity in our reality. But theoretically what you're saying is true.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
4,741
Location
sarajevo
Gender
Female
HSC
2015
Uni Grad
2017
Who says 1 = -1 is false, afterall:

<img src="http://www.codecogs.com/eq.latex?\begin{align*}i&=i\\\sqrt{-1}&=\sqrt{-1}\\\sqrt{\frac{-1}{1}}&=\sqrt{\frac{1}{-1}}\\\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{\sqrt{1}}&=\frac{\sqrt{1}}{\sqrt{-1}}\\\sqrt{-1}&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{-1}}\\(\sqrt{-1})^{2}&=1\\\therefore -1&=1\end{align}">

:)
For those who take maths a bit too seriously, yes there is a false statement in the arguement but it is pretty hard to find (it took me a few years before I could find someone to point it out)
But...

 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top