![Thanks](https://www.renovateforums.com.au/dbtech/thanks/images/thanks.png)
![Likes](https://www.renovateforums.com.au/dbtech/thanks/images/likes.png)
![Needs Pictures](https://www.woodworkforums.com/images/smilies/happy/photo4.gif)
![Picture(s) thanks](https://www.ubeaut.biz/wave.gif)
Results 61 to 75 of 93
Thread: Maths problem 9999
-
11th March 2008, 06:08 PM #61
-
11th March 2008, 06:42 PM #62
You've got to risk it to get the biscuit
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Canberra
- Age
- 32
- Posts
- 0
i'll take your word for it
S T I R L O
-
11th March 2008, 07:00 PM #63
GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- Adelaide
- Posts
- 0
Brilliant!
Still illegal IMHO, though, for the same reason as before: the operation is not performed on the nines, in this case the nines only identify a subset of an unlimited, and therefore infinite, set of functions. If that were allowed, any and all numbers can be produced.
If, however, you have a solution that accepts the way I suggested of producing 1, I would still be keen to see it. We would then let the professors fight over it. (If you can still find any who champions your cause...) I have to admit that I do not have a great opinion of Adelaide academics, though, you might end up being right...
-
11th March 2008, 11:05 PM #64
Well it is as illegal as the factorial. Both are mathematics notations not operators. We accepted factorial so we should accept summation too.
I think it is ok. Trust me.
I will let you know the other 2 ways when I remember them.Visit my website at www.myFineWoodWork.com
-
11th March 2008, 11:08 PM #65
-
12th March 2008, 12:59 PM #66
GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- Adelaide
- Posts
- 0
Hmmm.... As I always say to my daughter, never trust anybody who says "trust me"...
I still think that not being anally retentive about notations v. operators is OK (it reinforces my acceptance of lim x) , but does not change my point that you are working on infinite functions, not on the four nines, which denies the intention.
-
12th March 2008, 01:12 PM #67
No worries mate. Take away both the ! notation and E notation. (sorry Greg, your solutions for 1 to 20 were wrong
)
Re the acceptance of lim x, mate let me say it one more time 0.99999... is not 1.It's not even close.
Visit my website at www.myFineWoodWork.com
-
12th March 2008, 01:23 PM #68
GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- Adelaide
- Posts
- 0
-
12th March 2008, 02:13 PM #69
It doesn’t matter if it is for a professor in calculus. 0.999999… is not equal to 1. It is a fact. You can round it up to 1 but it is not 1.
Visit my website at www.myFineWoodWork.com
-
12th March 2008, 03:21 PM #70
You've got to risk it to get the biscuit
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Canberra
- Age
- 32
- Posts
- 0
-
12th March 2008, 08:52 PM #71
GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- Adelaide
- Posts
- 0
-
13th March 2008, 09:01 AM #72
-
13th March 2008, 12:13 PM #73
GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- Adelaide
- Posts
- 0
f
-
28th December 2008, 12:21 AM #74
You've got to risk it to get the biscuit
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Canberra
- Age
- 32
- Posts
- 0
yeah sure.
i'll let you know in a couple of months
__________________
S T I R L O
gday wongo, i just came across this thread again.
dunno if i'm right but does that (^^^) mean that the sum of the 3rd through to 6th terms of that series is 68, and minus the 1 it equals 67?
btw wongo, i got a headband that looks just like your avatarS T I R L O
-
28th December 2008, 12:07 PM #75
Similar Threads
-
maths question
By SPIRIT in forum NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH RENOVATIONReplies: 31Last Post: 6th March 2008, 08:29 AM -
Maths problem
By Iain in forum JOKESReplies: 22Last Post: 10th February 2004, 02:44 PM -
Project for Maths buffs
By Grue in forum NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH RENOVATIONReplies: 0Last Post: 20th January 2004, 10:07 PM -
simple maths
By Eastie in forum JOKESReplies: 0Last Post: 24th January 2003, 11:29 AM -
Beer Maths
By hook in forum JOKESReplies: 2Last Post: 12th November 2000, 12:32 PM