lemm.ee

2 points

3 months ago

Decimals require you to check the end of the number to see if you can round up, but there never will be an end.

The character sequence “0.999…” is finite and you know you can round up because you’ve got those three dots at the end. I agree that decimals are a shit representation to formalise rational numbers in but it’s not like using them causes infinite loops. Unless you insist on writing them, that is. You can compute with infinities just fine as long as you keep them symbolic.

That only breaks down with the reals where equality is fundamentally incomputable. Equality of the rationals and approximate equality of reals is perfectly computable though, the latter meaning that you can get equality to arbitrary, but not actually infinite, precision. You can specify a number of digits you want, you can say “don’t take longer than ten seconds to compute”, any kind of bound. Once the precision goes down to plank lengths I think any reasonable engineer would build a bridge with it.

…sometimes I do think that all those formalists with all those fancy rules about fancy limits are actually way more confused about infinity than freshman CS students.

report

[ - ]

Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca

-1 points

3 months ago

Eh, if you need special rules for 0.999… because the special rules for all other repeating decimals failed, I think we should just accept that the system doesn’t work here. We can keep using the workaround, but stop telling people they’re wrong for using the system correctly.

The deeper understanding of numbers where 0.999… = 1 is obvious needs a foundation of much more advanced math than just decimals, at which point decimals stop being a system and are just a quirky representation.

Saying decimals are a perfect system is the issue I have here, and I don’t think this will go away any time soon. Mathematicians like to speak in absolutely terms where everything is either perfect or discarded, yet decimals seem to be too simple and basal to get that treatment. No one seems to be willing to admit the limitations of the system.

report

[ - ]

2 points

3 months ago

Noone in the right state of mind uses decimals as a formalisation of numbers, or as a representation when doing arithmetic.

But the way I learned decimal division and multiplication in primary school actually supported periods. Spotting whether the thing will repeat forever can be done in finite time. Constant time, actually.

The deeper understanding of numbers where 0.999… = 1 is obvious needs a foundation of much more advanced math than just decimals

No. If you can accept that 1/3 is 0.333… then you can multiply both sides by three and accept that 1 is 0.99999… Primary school kids understand that. It’s a bit odd but a necessary consequence if you restrict your notation from supporting an arbitrary division to only divisions by ten. And that doesn’t make decimal notation worse than rational notation, or better, it makes it different, rational notation has its own issues like also not having unique forms (2/6 = 1/3) and comparisons (larger/smaller) not being obvious. Various arithmetic on them is also more complicated.

The real take-away is that depending on what you do, one is more convenient than the other. And that’s literally all that notation is judged by in maths: Is it convenient, or not.

report

[ - ]

Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca

0 points

3 months ago

I never commented on the convenience or usefulness of any method, just tried to explain why so many people get stuck on 0.999… = 1 and are so recalcitrant about it.

If you can accept that 1/3 is 0.333… then you can multiply both sides by three and accept that 1 is 0.99999…

This is a workaround of the decimal flaw using algebraic logic. Trying to hold both systems as fully correct leads to a conflic, and reiterating the algebraic logic (or any other proof) is just restating the problem.

The problem goes away easily once we understand the limits of the decimal system, but we need to state that the system is limited! Otherwise we get conflicting answers and nothing makes sense.

report

[ - ]

3 points

3 months ago

The problem goes away easily once we understand the limits of the decimal system, but we need to state that the system is limited!

But the system is not limited: It has a representation for any rational number. Subjectively you may consider it inelegant, you may consider its use in some area inconvenient, but it is formally correct and complete.

I bet there’s systems where rational numbers have unique representations (never looked into it), and I also bet that they’re awkward AF to use in practice.

This is a workaround of the decimal flaw using algebraic logic.

The representation has to reflect algebraic logic, otherwise it would indeed be flawed. It’s the algebraic relationships that are primary to numbers, not the way in which you happen to put numbers onto paper.

And, honestly, if you can accept that 1/3 == 2/6, what’s so surprising about decimal notation having more than one valid representation for one and the same number? If we want our results to look “clean” with rational notation we have to normalise the fraction from 2/6 to 1/3, and if we want them to look “clean” with decimal notation we, well, have to normalise the notation, from 0.999… to 1. Exact same issue in a different system, and noone complains about.

report

[ - ]

Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca

0 points

3 months ago

Decimals work fine to represent numbers, it’s the decimal system of computing numbers that is flawed. The “carry the 1” system if you prefer. It’s how we’re taught to add/subtract/multiply/divide numbers first, before we learn algebra and limits.

This is the flawed system, there is no method by which 0.999… can become 1 in here. All the logic for that is algebraic or better.

My issue isn’t with 0.999… = 1, nor is it with the inelegance of having multiple represetations of some numbers. My issue lies entirely with people who use algebraic or better logic to fight an elementary arithmetic issue.

People are using the systems they were taught, and those systems are giving an incorrect answer. Instead of telling those people they’re wrong, focus on the flaws of the tools they’re using.

report

[ - ]

2 points

3 months ago

This is the flawed system, there is no method by which 0.999… can become 1 in here.

Of course there is a method. You might not have been taught in school but you should blame your teachers for that, and noone else. The rule is simple: If you have a nine as repeating decimal, replace it with a zero and increment the digit before that.

That’s it. That’s literally all there is to it.

My issue lies entirely with people who use algebraic or better logic to fight an elementary arithmetic issue.

It’s not any more of an arithmetic issue than 2/6 == 1/3: As I already said, you need an additional normalisation step. The fundamental issue is that rational numbers do not have unique representations in the systems we’re using.

And, in fact, normalisation in decimal representation is way easier, as the only case to worry about is indeed the repeating nine. All other representations are unique while in the fractional system, all numbers have infinitely many representations.

Instead of telling those people they’re wrong, focus on the flaws of the tools they’re using.

Maths teachers are constantly wrong about everything. Especially in the US which single-handedly gave us the abomination that is PEMDAS.

Instead of blaming mathematicians for talking axiomatically, you should blame teachers for not teaching axiomatic thinking, of teaching procedure instead of laws and why particular sets of laws make sense.

That method I described to get rid of the nines is not mathematical insight. It teaches you nothing. You’re not an ALU, you’re capable of so much more than that, capable of deeper understanding that rote rule application. Don’t sell yourself short.

EDIT: Bijective base-10 might be something you want to look at. Also, I was wrong, there’s way more non-unique representations: 0002 is the same as 2. Damn obvious, that’s why it’s so easy to overlook. Dunno whether it easily extends to fractions can’t be bothered to think right now.

report