So if 1 / 3 = 0.33333333...

And .3333333... * 3 = .9999999....

And 1 / 3 * 3 = 1

Therefore 0.999999..... = 1

Hmmm

It's very logical and simple, but you opened a can of worms here

Another...

Imagine a fly, flying along a train track heading exactly east.
Imagine a train, on the same track heading exactly west.

Train hits fly, fly squishes onto train.

Fly goes from moving in one direction, to completely the opposite.
Fly must have been stationary at one point when direction changed. (Like throwing a ball up in the air)
Fly was in contact with train at the time.

Train was also stationary ?
Fly stopped train ?

That's a stupid one...

The train was not stationary at any point... since it kept moving... :P

Quote from AndroidXP :

It's very logical and simple, but you opened a can of worms here

Exactly. There is always someone who does not get it

the trains speed probably decreased by about 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 m/s lol

Is this like that 1+1 = 1 thing that caused a massive argument and mass confusion?

the banana is a lie.

well, mathematics is funny

let's for exapmple choose two numbers, n and m where n>m and so n-m=q... so for exapmle 3>2 and 3-2=1 right?

n-m=q
n=q+m |*(n-m)
n(n-m) = (q+m)(n-m)
n^2-nm = nq-qm+nm-m^2 |+ (-nq)
n^2-nm-nq = nq-qm+nm-m^2-nq
n^2-nm-nq = nm-m^2-qm |the same term (n-m-q)
n(n-m-q) = m(n-m-q) | : (n-m-q)
n=m

Quote from jibber :

That's a stupid one...

The train was not stationary at any point... since it kept moving... :P

wrong - there is a simple answer. The tiny area of the train where the fly hit stopped moving, for just a fraction of a second.

Quote from hyntty :

n-m=q
n=q+m |*(n-m)
n(n-m) = (q+m)(n-m)
n^2-nm = nq-qm+nm-m^2 |+ (-nq)
n^2-nm-nq = nq-qm+nm-m^2-nq
n^2-nm-nq = nm-m^2-qm |the same term (n-m-q)
n(n-m-q) = m(n-m-q) | : (n-m-q)
n=m

Non sequitur-error in the last line.

(n-m-q) equals zero (in the example 3 - 2 - (3-2) = 3 - 2 - 1 = 0) and thus n * 0 of course equals m * 0. That however doesn't mean n equals m.

Vain

Quote from Vain :

Non sequitur-error in the last line.

I think your sarcasm detection just failed.

Quote from Vain :

Non sequitur-error in the last line.

(n-m-q) equals zero (in the example 3 - 2 - (3-2) = 3 - 2 - 1 = 0) and thus n * 0 of course equals m * 0. That however doesn't mean n equals m.

Vain

Even worse, he's dividing by zero.

Plus that example is old as mathematics

Thats my answer !

PS : Look the attachment !

Quote from Bean0 :

Train was also stationary ?

Errrr, what? The train would have slowed down a fraction (and i mean a fraction), but wouldn't of stopped.

If you model it as a particle, then as the Fly is stationary so must the train be for a split second - meaning the fly stopped the train.

In real life, however, the fly would have been stationary, but the train would of carried on going and simply compacted and crushed the fly into a giant splat.

Particles don't deform...

Mathematics is so over-rated anyways. I just use fingers. I have a drawer full of them :hide:

The fly doesnt stop moving, it is deflected. Specifically different bits of it are deflected at different times - which with a slow motion camera is quite a sight.

I'm so bored I just worked it out - assuming the fly weighs 10mg, and flies at 4 KPH, and the train weighs 100 tons and travels at 50 MPH then the change in speed of the train is so miniscule it won't even register on my calculator.

EDIT - The train slows down by 0.000024656-ish MPH. AKA over 120,000 times slower than walking speed. In terms of a 50 MPH train, negligible.

Quote from Woz :

Therefore 0.999999..... = 1

Sure. Just calculate 1.0 - 0.99999999... Start writing down the decimals, and in a day or so you will see the answer.

Quote from Bean0 :

Fly must have been stationary at one point when direction changed.

Yes, each part of the fly was stationary at some instant during impact. But when its tail was stationary, its head was already going in the opposite direction. And perhaps the first few layers of atoms on the train were also stationary for a very short moment.

Quote from The General Lee :

Is this like that 1+1 = 1 thing that caused a massive argument and mass confusion?

In all of those cases, you will be dividing by zero somewhere along the way.

Quote from Jakg :

but wouldn't of stopped
[...]
but the train would of carried

:gnasher:

Quote from AndroidXP :

:gnasher:

Thanks, I guess I'm not the only one then

Would HAVE
Could HAVE

We murder those who say of instead of have.

Quote from wsinda :

Sure. Just calculate 1.0 - 0.99999999... Start writing down the decimals, and in a day or so you will see the answer.

Yes I know that 0.9999999.... "tends" towards 1 but the fact of the matter is that it is NOT actually 1 or you would just write 1 instead of .9999......

Does not matter how many 9s you write does it will NEVER reach 1 therefore it is not 1.

It is more to the fact that it is not possible to fully represent 1/3 in base 10 hence the rounding error in the maths that allow 1 / 3 = 0.333333... when infact 1 / 3 != 0.3333333...

There are no rounding errors in 0.3333...... (recurring). Therefore, there are no rounding errors in 0.9999....... (recurring) = 1.