Comments on: What if we have only number 9?

By: Eg

Eg — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:54:22 +0000

I believe these comments can be summed up by one comic.

http://xkcd.com/386/

By: RD

RD — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 06:40:56 +0000

Here is a Google Gadget that uses the same clock http://scripts.tropicalpcsolutions.com/html/gadgets/9clock.html

By: jcp

jcp — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 05:49:57 +0000

wow. i thought i was a geek. but yea, .9 repeating is one in my book.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:54:33 +0000

to Chris, who said that the spam protection did not accept 5.99999… as equal to 4+2, i said 13.0 for the sum of 6+7, but the computer did not take that, even though it is equivalent. therefore, Chris’ argument must be disregarded

By: Nyteflame

Nyteflame — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 05:27:25 +0000

I Stumbled here. The comments are priceless. I will be directing the Math teacher on my campus to your site. As an English teacher, I have an imperfect understanding of what is going on.

By: Janne

Janne — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:30:41 +0000

This is an interesting thing because of the fact that people of different ages and experiences have different opinions about it. And yes, for the sake of having some mercy I did say opinion.

Small children can’t understand how something as simple as 1 and complicated as .9 repeating can be the same.

Then there are those that have used a calculator and gotten results like 1/3 = .3 repeating and try to “explain” this matter as if the numbers were truly the same rather than a numerical approximation. The 1-line calculator displays the result like that because it has no better means to do it.

Then there are the “proofs” that merely rely on the fact that they have already assumed that approximated numbers equal to the precise ones. They are written by people that have seen the proofs and can’t themselves see how they fail.

Then there are people that have further studied this problem and clearly have mixed opinions about it.

If you imagine “zooming in” the very “last” (allthough there’s not really a last one) 9 of the .999…999 sequence. Clearly this is not the same as 1.000…0000, something is missing. if you would just add .000…00010 to it, it would make sense. But no, some IDIOT adds .000…00009 pushing the problem further.

People that ask what is 1 – .9 repeating, it’s not 0, it’s .0000…0001. While to any practical application that is zero as well as .9 repeating is 1, to a mathematician they are not equal. You can say .9 repeating “is approaching” or “is approximately” 1 and they are proper mathematical consepts, but you go and draw = sign between the 2 on your exam and you’ll get slapped.

By: LegOfLamb

LegOfLamb — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:37:14 +0000

Nice clock, cool concept, but for 9o’clock why can’t they just use 9? correct me if im wrong but the idea was to make a clock using only 9s.

By: Nosneros

Nosneros — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:18:13 +0000

i find it interesting that all the numbers have three nines except for ‘1′ and that is conveniently blocked by glare…hmmm…

By: Audiostar

Audiostar — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:48:51 +0000

“Adisharr
October 28th, 2007 01:49
85

LOL at the guy who spelled asshole as two words.

.999′ is not 1. It is very close to 1 but is not 1. ”

How much less is it then, exactly?

By: Jock

Jock — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:13:14 +0000

MATH FIGHT!!!!!!!