Texy Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 SARA bought a dvd player for 22% off the original price. If she paid $115.44, what was the original price? Assuming X is the original price.... Solve for X post the answers....let's see who fails :giggle: ....... I will update this thread with more math problems!
punjabi_khota Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Here's for you tex1des. 0.999999999... with 9s repeating indefinitely exactly =1 (NO ROUNDING OFF) True or false ?
Texy Posted July 30, 2009 Author Posted July 30, 2009 Here's for you tex1des. 0.999999999... with 9s repeating indefinitely exactly =1 (NO ROUNDING OFF) True or false ? false
yoda Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Here's for you tex1des. 0.999999999... with 9s repeating indefinitely exactly =1 (NO ROUNDING OFF) True or false ? true x = .999999.... 10x = 9.999999.... Subtract: 9x = 9 x = 1
punjabi_khota Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 false Wrong! :hahaha: Aap panchvi paas se tez nahi hai :hehe: Pwnzored. :eyedance::eyedance:
punjabi_khota Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 true x = .999999.... 10x = 9.999999.... Subtract: 9x = 9 x = 1 respect. :hatsoff:
rahuliverpool Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 true x = .999999.... 10x = 9.999999.... Subtract: 9x = 9 x = 1 Brilliantly done. :--D
Texy Posted July 30, 2009 Author Posted July 30, 2009 ummm if you say x=.9999... and multiply both sides by 1/2 you end up with .9999... as your ending x value. In this case .9999... did not equal to 1 any real # can only equal to one numerical value
punjabi_khota Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 ummm if you say x=.9999... and multiply both sides by 1/2 you end up with .9999... as your ending x value. In this case .9999... did not equal to 1 any real # can only equal to one numerical value Wtf are you talking abt ? Look above for explanation :two_thumbs_up: If not satisfied...go here: -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999... Or bajillion other sources on the interwebs.
Texy Posted July 30, 2009 Author Posted July 30, 2009 Wrong! :hahaha: Aap panchvi paas se tez nahi hai :hehe: Pwnzored. :eyedance::eyedance: ummm 1st .99999 is not an integer and never will be there is NOT 1 fraction that directly correlates to .9999 and i'm not talking adding up infinite fractions.....concept of infinity can't be defined on paper by repeating decimals hence 1/1 will NEVER = .9999 ....it's infinite, unlimited space n time
Texy Posted July 30, 2009 Author Posted July 30, 2009 Wtf are you talking abt ? Look above for explanation :two_thumbs_up: If not satisfied...go here: -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999... Or bajillion other sources on the interwebs. stop f king posting links if you don't understand the basic concept.... the explanation has 2 sides and is completely debatable
punjabi_khota Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 stop f king posting links if you don't understand the basic concept.... the explanation has 2 sides and is completely debatable :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Read son, read that link. You have no ****ing clue what you are talking about.
punjabi_khota Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 ummm 1st .99999 is not an integer and never will be there is NOT 1 fraction that directly correlates to .9999 and i'm not talking adding up infinite fractions.....concept of infinity can't be defined on paper by repeating decimals hence 1/1 will NEVER = .9999 ....it's infinite, unlimited space n time talking out of your ass ? Concept of infinitesimal is defined by this thing called calculus..and specifically limits. Heard about them ? Invented 300 years ago. :lmao:
yoda Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 this thing has it's own wiki. wow. btw, we did cover these recurring numbers in school, as in middle/high school and this .9 recurring stuff was quite common.
Texy Posted July 30, 2009 Author Posted July 30, 2009 As part of Ed Dubinsky's "APOS theory" of mathematical learning, Dubinsky and his collaborators (2005) propose that students who conceive of 0.999… as a finite, indeterminate string with an infinitely small distance from 1 have "not yet constructed a complete process conception of the infinite decimal". Other students who have a complete process conception of 0.999… may not yet be able to "encapsulate" that process into an "object conception", like the object conception they have of 1, and so they view the process 0.999… and the object 1 as incompatible.
punjabi_khota Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 As part of Ed Dubinsky's "APOS theory" of mathematical learning' date=' Dubinsky and his collaborators (2005) propose that students who conceive of 0.999… as a finite, indeterminate string with an infinitely small distance from 1 have "not yet constructed a complete process conception of the infinite decimal". Other students who have a complete process conception of 0.999… may not yet be able to "encapsulate" that process into an "object conception", like the object conception they have of 1, and so they view the process 0.999… and the object 1 as incompatible.[/quote'] Ya..all it is saying is that the students are not getting the concept. Doesn't make it wrong. If you understand limits, you will understand this.
Recommended Posts