"0.99999999... = 1 ?"의 두 판 사이의 차이

수학노트
둘러보기로 가기 검색하러 가기
잔글 (찾아 바꾸기 – “오늘의과학” 문자열을 “” 문자열로)
 
(같은 사용자의 중간 판 7개는 보이지 않습니다)
3번째 줄: 3번째 줄:
 
0.9999… = 1 이다.
 
0.9999… = 1 이다.
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
==메모==
 
  
* http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pc/9999.html<br>
 
  
 
+
==메모==
 
 
 
 
 
 
==역사==
 
 
 
* [[수학사연표 (역사)|수학사연표]]
 
  
 
+
* http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pc/9999.html
  
 
 
  
 
+
==노트==
 +
===말뭉치===
 +
# One might argue that when multiplying by ten, the right hand side shifts to the left a decimal place, leaving a terminating zero at the end of the infinite string of 9's ( ).<ref name="ref_81c60dff">[https://math.wikia.org/wiki/Proof:The_Decimal_0.999..._is_Equivalent_to_1 Proof:The Decimal 0.999... is Equivalent to 1]</ref>
 +
# And, therefore, when subtracting (with a one after the last of infinite nines).<ref name="ref_81c60dff" />
 +
# It is impossible to find a "next higher" number that is both larger to a given value but couldnt have been smaller (see argument from averages).<ref name="ref_81c60dff" />
 +
# One might argue that after the infinitely many zeros, there is going to be a 1 ( ).<ref name="ref_81c60dff" />
 +
# The sequence S = (0.9, 0.99, 0.999, … ) is bounded above by 1.0, so the least upper bound is not greater than 1.0.<ref name="ref_daa472c2">[https://thatsmaths.com/2019/01/10/really-0-999999-is-equal-to-1-surreally-this-is-not-so/ Really, 0.999999… is equal to 1. Surreally, this is not so!]</ref>
 +
# If we consider the surreal number 0.999… (see earlier post), we may assume that there are ω 9s after the decimal.<ref name="ref_daa472c2" />
 +
# Return to the Lessons Index | Do the Lessons in Order | Print-friendly page How Can 0.999... = 1?<ref name="ref_d594d900">[https://www.purplemath.com/modules/howcan1.htm How Can 0.999... = 1?]</ref>
 +
# Whatever the reason, many students (me included) have, at one time or another, felt uncomfortable with this equality.<ref name="ref_d594d900" />
 +
# The ellipsis (the "dot, dot, dot" after the last 9 ) means "goes on forever in like manner".<ref name="ref_d594d900" />
 +
# Yes, at any given stop, at any given stage of the expansion, for any given finite number of 9 s, there will be a difference between 0.999...9 and 1 .<ref name="ref_d594d900" />
 +
# In mathematics, 0.999... (also written as 0.9, in repeating decimal notation) denotes the repeating decimal consisting of infinitely many 9s after the decimal point.<ref name="ref_acb2a2a7">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999... Wikipedia]</ref>
 +
# In other words, "0.999..." and "1" represent the same number.<ref name="ref_acb2a2a7" />
 +
# The technique used depends on the target audience, background assumptions, historical context, and preferred development of the real numbers, the system within which 0.999... is commonly defined.<ref name="ref_acb2a2a7" />
 +
# More generally, every nonzero terminating decimal has two equal representations (for example, 8.32 and 8.31999...), which is a property of all base representations.<ref name="ref_acb2a2a7" />
 +
# So when we learn math in elementary school we are told: Every real number can be written as a decimal expansion (maybe infinite) and every possible decimal expansion is a real number.<ref name="ref_48c663f0">[https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/11/is-it-true-that-0-999999999-dots-1 Is it true that $0.999999999\dots=1$?]</ref>
 +
# we take it on faith that: Every real number can be written as a decimal expansion (maybe infinite) and every possible decimal expansion is a real number.<ref name="ref_48c663f0" />
 +
# (So it can be all the elements less than 1/2 but it can't be all the elements less than or equal to 1/2).<ref name="ref_48c663f0" />
 +
# Notice sometimes the cut will occur at a rational number (all the rationals less than 1/2), but sometimes it will occur at points "between" the rational numbers.<ref name="ref_48c663f0" />
 +
# 다행히도, 임의의 무한소수에 대해 수열의 극한값은 존재하고, 그 극한값은 이 수열의 상한(supremum), 풀어 쓰면 '모든 자연수에 대해보다 크거나 같은 숫자의 집합에서 가장 작은 수' 와 같다.이를 증명하기는 어렵지 않다.<ref name="ref_36083143">[https://namu.wiki/w/0.999%E2%80%A6%3D1 0.999…=1]</ref>
 +
# IF the two numbers 0.99999... and 1 were NOT equal, you would have a number to represent the difference (the GAP or Distance between them) - and it should not be 0.<ref name="ref_36a36aab">[http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.01/catherine1.html 0.999999=1?]</ref>
 +
# Of course it is a bit obscure since we are dealing with 'infinite processes' (sometimes called limits) whenever we work with decimal numbers which do no terminate.<ref name="ref_36a36aab" />
 +
# If you stop the expansion of 9s at any finite point, the fraction you have (like .99999 = 99999/100000) is never equal to 1.<ref name="ref_cfd5cdc1">[https://www.relativelyinteresting.com/does-0-99999-really-equal-1/ Does 0.99999… really equal 1?]</ref>
 +
# But each time you add a 9, the margin error is smaller (with each 9, the error is actually ten times smaller).<ref name="ref_cfd5cdc1" />
 +
# You can show (using calculus or other summations) that with a large enough number of 9s in the expansion, you can get arbitrarily close to 1.<ref name="ref_cfd5cdc1" />
 +
# To prove it to yourself that 0.9999… = 1, consider that if they weren’t equal, there would be a number E that is greater than zero such that E = (1 — 0.9999…).<ref name="ref_b8db7dcd">[https://www.tcg.com/blog/why-099999-1-proof-and-limits/ Why 0.99999… = 1, proof, and limits]</ref>
 +
# Since we’re playing this game, you counter and make E smaller, say 10^(-10), and I turn around and say “make D = 11” (because 1 — 0.99999999999 < 10^(-10) ).<ref name="ref_b8db7dcd" />
 +
# Specifically, if E > 10^(-X) for some positive integer X, then setting D = X will do it.<ref name="ref_b8db7dcd" />
 +
# There is no E that is greater than zero such that E = (1 — 0.9999…).<ref name="ref_b8db7dcd" />
 +
# Well, it’s “true” in the same way numbers must be there (positive) or not there (zero) — it’s true because we’ve implicitly excluded other possibilities.<ref name="ref_e1d14936">[https://betterexplained.com/articles/a-friendly-chat-about-whether-0-999-1/ A Friendly Chat About Whether 0.999… = 1 – BetterExplained]</ref>
 +
# The idea behind limits is to find some point at which “a – b” becomes zero (less than any number); that is, we can’t tell the “number to test” and our “result” as different.<ref name="ref_e1d14936" />
 +
# It’s still tough to compare items when they take such different forms (like an infinite series).<ref name="ref_e1d14936" />
 +
# Then if you ask for 1, and I give you 0.99, the difference is 0.01 (one hundredth) and you don’t know you’ve been tricked!<ref name="ref_e1d14936" />
 +
# Student: Are you (looks at Vadim) saying that you (looks at Teacher) made up the definition of a limit just in order to make 0.999…=1?<ref name="ref_8fbbe88f">[https://blogs.helsinki.fi/kulikov/2011/07/04/0-999/ 0.999999….. = 1?]</ref>
 +
# But by the least upper bound axiom of real numbers, if a set of real numbers has a upper bound, then it has a least upper bound (that is a real number).<ref name="ref_7912a8ac">[https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/0.999... Art of Problem Solving]</ref>
 +
# That must mean that one-third of it ("point 3 repeating") is also irrational.<ref name="ref_c122e3b9">[https://www.hltv.org/forums/threads/2070372/09999-1 Forum thread: 0.9999... = 1]</ref>
 +
# And whenever you have an infinite number of parts of something (an infinite number of places in a number, in this case) you might well expect something amazing to happen.<ref name="ref_e8240b85">[https://www.uhigh.ilstu.edu/math/thompson/.999999%20repeating1.htm Ask Dr. Math]</ref>
 +
# Said another way, if your number x = 0.999999999... is such that the difference "x-1" is smaller than any positive number (however small), then we consider x - 1 = 0, so that x = 1.<ref name="ref_e8240b85" />
 +
# If we do this, we'll get a 9.999990 (slide the decimal in the 0.999999 right 1 places, you'll get 9.999990).<ref name="ref_718b3275">[http://www.webmath.com/cgi-bin/fraction.cgi?decimal=.999999&op=to_fraction&back=dec2fract.html Webmath.com: Doing math with fractions]</ref>
 +
# If you can warranted that you always do the best on your job level, your boss will automatically think that you must get (absolutely get) new level on your job.<ref name="ref_6495662e">[https://brilliant.org/discussions/thread/explain-why-0999-1/ Explain why 0.999... = 1 ?]</ref>
 +
# The standard algebra proof (which, if you modify it a little, works to convert any repeating decimal into a fraction) runs something like this.<ref name="ref_a97b282a">[https://polymathematics.typepad.com/polymath/2006/06/no_im_sorry_it_.html Polymathematics: No, I'm Sorry, It Does.]</ref>
 +
# Those are my first two demonstrations that our fact is true (the last one is at the end).<ref name="ref_a97b282a" />
 +
# The word "geometric" means that each term of the series is the identical multiple (in this case 1/10) of the previous term.<ref name="ref_a97b282a" />
 +
# You’ll see the same kind of thing in all languages that support your hardware’s floating-point arithmetic (although some languages may not display the difference by default, or in all output modes).<ref name="ref_a8b68441">[https://python.readthedocs.io/en/v2.7.2/tutorial/floatingpoint.html 14. Floating Point Arithmetic: Issues and Limitations — Python 2.7.2 documentation]</ref>
 +
# The documentation for the built-in round() function says that it rounds to the nearest value, rounding ties away from zero.<ref name="ref_a8b68441" />
 +
# Since the decimal fraction 2.675 is exactly halfway between 2.67 and 2.68, you might expect the result here to be (a binary approximation to) 2.68.<ref name="ref_a8b68441" />
 +
# For fine control over how a float is displayed see the str.format() method’s format specifiers in Format String Syntax.<ref name="ref_a8b68441" />
 +
# If you had a hat with an infinite amount of slips of paper consisting of an infinite amount of numbers, the probability of pulling any random number is zero (1/infinity = 0).<ref name="ref_1579dacc">[https://www.neogaf.com/threads/0-9999-1-true-or-false-and-why.385028/ 0.9999 = 1, true or false and why?]</ref>
 +
# In fact, the probability of pulling any real subset of numbers is zero (i.e. 10000/infinity = 0).<ref name="ref_1579dacc" />
  
 
+
===소스===
 +
<references />
  
 
==많이 나오는 질문과 답변==
 
==많이 나오는 질문과 답변==
31번째 줄: 70번째 줄:
 
많이 나오는 질문과 답변이 아래 링크에 정리되어 있다.
 
많이 나오는 질문과 답변이 아래 링크에 정리되어 있다.
  
* http://gall.dcinside.com/list.php?id=mathematics&no=28665&page=1&bbs=<br>
+
* http://gall.dcinside.com/list.php?id=mathematics&no=28665&page=1&bbs=
 
** 디씨인사이드 수학 갤러리, [http://gallog.dcinside.com/tmxkskgkwk ε-δ]작성
 
** 디씨인사이드 수학 갤러리, [http://gallog.dcinside.com/tmxkskgkwk ε-δ]작성
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
* 네이버 지식인<br>
 
** http://kin.search.naver.com/search.naver?where=kin_qna&query=
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
==관련된 다른 주제들==
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
==참고할만한 자료==
 
 
* http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/
 
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
 
* http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=
 
* [http://mathnet.kaist.ac.kr/mathnet/math_list.php?mode=list&ftype=&fstr= 대한수학회 수학 학술 용어집]<br>
 
** http://mathnet.kaist.ac.kr/mathnet/math_list.php?mode=list&ftype=eng_term&fstr=
 
** [http://kms.or.kr/home/kor/board/bulletin_list_subject.asp?bulletinid=%7BD6048897-56F9-43D7-8BB6-50B362D1243A%7D&boardname=%BC%F6%C7%D0%BF%EB%BE%EE%C5%E4%B7%D0%B9%E6&globalmenu=7&localmenu=4 대한수학회 수학용어한글화 게시판]
 
* [http://navercast.naver.com/science/list 네이버 ]
 
 
 
 
 
 
** http://news.search.naver.com/search.naver?where=news&x=0&y=0&sm=tab_hty&query=
 
** http://news.search.naver.com/search.naver?where=news&x=0&y=0&sm=tab_hty&query=
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
==블로그==
 
 
* 구글 블로그 검색 http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?q=
 
* 네이버 블로그 검색 http://cafeblog.search.naver.com/search.naver?where=post&sm=tab_jum&query=
 
* 트렌비 블로그 검색 http://www.trenb.com/search.qst?q=
 
* 스프링노트 http://www.springnote.com/search?stype=all&q=
 
 
 
 
 
==이미지 검색==
 
 
* http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=
 
* http://images.google.com/images?q=
 
* [http://www.artchive.com/ http://www.artchive.com]
 
 
 
 
 
==동영상==
 
 
* http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=
 

2021년 2월 12일 (금) 08:55 기준 최신판

개요

0.9999… = 1 이다.



메모


노트

말뭉치

  1. One might argue that when multiplying by ten, the right hand side shifts to the left a decimal place, leaving a terminating zero at the end of the infinite string of 9's ( ).[1]
  2. And, therefore, when subtracting (with a one after the last of infinite nines).[1]
  3. It is impossible to find a "next higher" number that is both larger to a given value but couldnt have been smaller (see argument from averages).[1]
  4. One might argue that after the infinitely many zeros, there is going to be a 1 ( ).[1]
  5. The sequence S = (0.9, 0.99, 0.999, … ) is bounded above by 1.0, so the least upper bound is not greater than 1.0.[2]
  6. If we consider the surreal number 0.999… (see earlier post), we may assume that there are ω 9s after the decimal.[2]
  7. Return to the Lessons Index | Do the Lessons in Order | Print-friendly page How Can 0.999... = 1?[3]
  8. Whatever the reason, many students (me included) have, at one time or another, felt uncomfortable with this equality.[3]
  9. The ellipsis (the "dot, dot, dot" after the last 9 ) means "goes on forever in like manner".[3]
  10. Yes, at any given stop, at any given stage of the expansion, for any given finite number of 9 s, there will be a difference between 0.999...9 and 1 .[3]
  11. In mathematics, 0.999... (also written as 0.9, in repeating decimal notation) denotes the repeating decimal consisting of infinitely many 9s after the decimal point.[4]
  12. In other words, "0.999..." and "1" represent the same number.[4]
  13. The technique used depends on the target audience, background assumptions, historical context, and preferred development of the real numbers, the system within which 0.999... is commonly defined.[4]
  14. More generally, every nonzero terminating decimal has two equal representations (for example, 8.32 and 8.31999...), which is a property of all base representations.[4]
  15. So when we learn math in elementary school we are told: Every real number can be written as a decimal expansion (maybe infinite) and every possible decimal expansion is a real number.[5]
  16. we take it on faith that: Every real number can be written as a decimal expansion (maybe infinite) and every possible decimal expansion is a real number.[5]
  17. (So it can be all the elements less than 1/2 but it can't be all the elements less than or equal to 1/2).[5]
  18. Notice sometimes the cut will occur at a rational number (all the rationals less than 1/2), but sometimes it will occur at points "between" the rational numbers.[5]
  19. 다행히도, 임의의 무한소수에 대해 수열의 극한값은 존재하고, 그 극한값은 이 수열의 상한(supremum), 풀어 쓰면 '모든 자연수에 대해보다 크거나 같은 숫자의 집합에서 가장 작은 수' 와 같다.이를 증명하기는 어렵지 않다.[6]
  20. IF the two numbers 0.99999... and 1 were NOT equal, you would have a number to represent the difference (the GAP or Distance between them) - and it should not be 0.[7]
  21. Of course it is a bit obscure since we are dealing with 'infinite processes' (sometimes called limits) whenever we work with decimal numbers which do no terminate.[7]
  22. If you stop the expansion of 9s at any finite point, the fraction you have (like .99999 = 99999/100000) is never equal to 1.[8]
  23. But each time you add a 9, the margin error is smaller (with each 9, the error is actually ten times smaller).[8]
  24. You can show (using calculus or other summations) that with a large enough number of 9s in the expansion, you can get arbitrarily close to 1.[8]
  25. To prove it to yourself that 0.9999… = 1, consider that if they weren’t equal, there would be a number E that is greater than zero such that E = (1 — 0.9999…).[9]
  26. Since we’re playing this game, you counter and make E smaller, say 10^(-10), and I turn around and say “make D = 11” (because 1 — 0.99999999999 < 10^(-10) ).[9]
  27. Specifically, if E > 10^(-X) for some positive integer X, then setting D = X will do it.[9]
  28. There is no E that is greater than zero such that E = (1 — 0.9999…).[9]
  29. Well, it’s “true” in the same way numbers must be there (positive) or not there (zero) — it’s true because we’ve implicitly excluded other possibilities.[10]
  30. The idea behind limits is to find some point at which “a – b” becomes zero (less than any number); that is, we can’t tell the “number to test” and our “result” as different.[10]
  31. It’s still tough to compare items when they take such different forms (like an infinite series).[10]
  32. Then if you ask for 1, and I give you 0.99, the difference is 0.01 (one hundredth) and you don’t know you’ve been tricked![10]
  33. Student: Are you (looks at Vadim) saying that you (looks at Teacher) made up the definition of a limit just in order to make 0.999…=1?[11]
  34. But by the least upper bound axiom of real numbers, if a set of real numbers has a upper bound, then it has a least upper bound (that is a real number).[12]
  35. That must mean that one-third of it ("point 3 repeating") is also irrational.[13]
  36. And whenever you have an infinite number of parts of something (an infinite number of places in a number, in this case) you might well expect something amazing to happen.[14]
  37. Said another way, if your number x = 0.999999999... is such that the difference "x-1" is smaller than any positive number (however small), then we consider x - 1 = 0, so that x = 1.[14]
  38. If we do this, we'll get a 9.999990 (slide the decimal in the 0.999999 right 1 places, you'll get 9.999990).[15]
  39. If you can warranted that you always do the best on your job level, your boss will automatically think that you must get (absolutely get) new level on your job.[16]
  40. The standard algebra proof (which, if you modify it a little, works to convert any repeating decimal into a fraction) runs something like this.[17]
  41. Those are my first two demonstrations that our fact is true (the last one is at the end).[17]
  42. The word "geometric" means that each term of the series is the identical multiple (in this case 1/10) of the previous term.[17]
  43. You’ll see the same kind of thing in all languages that support your hardware’s floating-point arithmetic (although some languages may not display the difference by default, or in all output modes).[18]
  44. The documentation for the built-in round() function says that it rounds to the nearest value, rounding ties away from zero.[18]
  45. Since the decimal fraction 2.675 is exactly halfway between 2.67 and 2.68, you might expect the result here to be (a binary approximation to) 2.68.[18]
  46. For fine control over how a float is displayed see the str.format() method’s format specifiers in Format String Syntax.[18]
  47. If you had a hat with an infinite amount of slips of paper consisting of an infinite amount of numbers, the probability of pulling any random number is zero (1/infinity = 0).[19]
  48. In fact, the probability of pulling any real subset of numbers is zero (i.e. 10000/infinity = 0).[19]

소스

많이 나오는 질문과 답변

많이 나오는 질문과 답변이 아래 링크에 정리되어 있다.