It is clear I'm making a mistake with a single part of your video, but for the life of me I cannot fathom how you got 1076/25=43.04?
I know you're not wrong and that the reason I cannot get the same answer using the fraction method you display in the later part of video, is because I'm slipping up somewhere. Is there anyway you could illustrate how you got 0.04 using Egyptian maths in another video?
Good vid - I was thinking about remainders after the first Egyptian Maths and tried them with my friend. We believed we got it right, and this video confirmed our theory. And yes, your mistake is no big deal, you still show the working which helps to understand the principles. ^^
@MartinRonky don't get too wrapped up in the .999r debate, the problem here is reducing everything to base 10, decimals. take for eg the fraction 17/57, as a decimal we get 0.29824561403508771929824561403509... somewhere you have to round it, up or down. yes?
thinking on another example... often you hear people talk of 99.99%, of the population for eg. but even if you're talking about 99.99999% you are still not talking about 100% are you?
If we round 0.2982456140350877192... at any place up or down, it is no longer the number 17/57. If we do round, we are giving up precision. The problem in your argument is the rounding, therefore false.
I agree 99.99999% does not equal 100% (you just multiplied the equation 0.999r = 1 by 100 and added '%'). We do not need to use %, so I agree 99.99999 does not equal 100. It is the same as before - when we round (or cut) we loose precision and it is no longer the same number.
@MartinRonky to give an example: say for arguments sake there are 6,500,000,000 people on the planet and one has two heads. the percentage of people therefore with only one head is 99.999999984615384615384615384615... or, expressed as a decimal: 0.99999999984615384615384615384615... whereas expressed as a fraction: 6,499,999,999/6,500,000,000
The problem with 6,499,999,999/6,500,000,000 and 99.9999999 846153 846153 84615... is in the same category as your previous two examples and the same applies. The number 99.9999999846153846153... with the repeating recurrence 846153 equals the 6,499,999,999/6,500,000,000 - it is only a different way how to write the number, but it is the same. If we cut or round the number it is no longer equal to the original fraction. Does this help you?
@MartinRonky the problem here is reducing everything to base 10. the moment something doesn't divide exactly we end up with an approximation, this is what any repeating number sequence represents. i used what seems to be a large number, yet it is limited to the (human) population of relatively small planet. imagine then considering numbers on a galactic or universal scale, we could potentially have many, many .9999s before either finding a conclusion or a repeating sequence: an approximation.
I understand the problem that when dealing with very big numbers the recurring sequence can be further away and it can be not convenient to deal with the big numbers, so we can use for example fractions to not loose the precision. But the theory still applies also for the big numbers.
With these examples you are not addressing the core issue and that is that 0.99r equals 1. Where we know that there is only the number 9 recurring.
@MartinRonky recurring to infinity, yes ok i agree .33r + .33r +.33r = .99r, effectively meaning 1, but when you are dealing with really big numbers, effectively confining yourself within base 10, potentially means the 9s (or any other number) disappears off the end of the calculator long before true accuracy is attained. so, in effect, rounding, undermines accuracy. working with base 10 this cannot be avoided.
it is still the same number. It is just a different form how to write it. I know that it seems contradictory, but it is true. Whether to find out which claim is right or wrong we use scientific method and in this case mathematical proof. Please check the wiki article.
@fatsquirrel75 let's not get too wrapped up in the .999r debate, the problem here is reducing everything to base 10, decimals. take for eg the fraction 17/57, as a decimal we get 0.29824561403508771929824561403509... somewhere you have to round it, up or down. yes?
thinking on another example... often you hear people talk of 99.99%, of the population for eg. but even if you're talking about 99.99999% you are still not talking about 100% are you?
.9999... != 1 to a simple computer. a simple computer does not know how to round to 1, so .9999... may lead to truncation errors, which could be end up being very significant. for example, .9999... could be cut off to .9999, leaving out .00009999..., which could lead to a very large error in certain algorithms. thus, mothnrust is technically correct, .9999... != 1 as he is calculating using binary algorithms
A failure by a computer to recognise that 0.9r = 1 simply highlights a failing with that computer.
Not sure if you remember the Y2K fun. But it highlights why you can't put your faith in computers. Many computers thought that the year 1999 was followed by 1900. That does not give any technical validity to someone claiming that 1999 is not followed by 2000.
Anyone claiming that 0.9r != 1 is wrong (technically or otherwise).
@fatsquirrel75 you guys just don't get it do you? it's called ROUNDING rounding up or rounding down, it makes no difference it's still an approximation. and this is where rounding errors occur, when two or more of these approximations are added, subtracted, whatever. jeez
No. .999... = 1. They are the same. There are multiple proofs of this. You should look this up. It has to do with the nature of infinity, explicitly, there is no difference (literally and mathematically) between 1 and .999...: That is 1 - .999... = 0.
OK not just to let you know on the question 7281 / 129 im pretty sure that 1032 + 2064 + 4128 does not come to the answer of 7424 as stated in this vid. it actually comes out as 7224 r 57.
so somebody's maths is wrong here and it ent mine cos i used a calculator! XD
@andrew7980 Umm, I guess you didn't watch the whole video since he explains how to calculate the number with remainder. Also, its funny that you checked it with your calculator since the calculator uses binary so if the binary math didn't work your calculator wouldn't either.
@bakaman2029 its not that i didn't watch it, his number is bigger than the original which is incorrect and wrong, add the numbers he takes away your self you will find what they add up to and what he says are different, he even admits it, god i guess you didn't read all the comments
He messed up at the 5:40 mark, adding the 1032 + 2064 + 4128. He got 7424, but the sum is 7224. Add them up - you'll see that is what the error comes from.
When someone is going to put something like this out there, it is a good thing, but not if they screw up a basic step and look careless. Mathematics is not for sloppy thinking. It is a precision thing.
@TravelerDiogenes yeah man i did, fraid it's a bit typical of me, go over and over things and can't see what's before my eyes :D it goes with the dyslexia and my obsessional nature. and well spotted, pleased you were paying attention :D
@Saywat1st for when the revolution comes im trusting the machine's, if you know whats good for you you would turn your self into a slave for computers now XD
@andrew7980 sorry to say this but you re wrong. take the answer that he says is the final answer, 56 r 57/129, and multiply that by the divisor and you will get back your dividend so he is right. you obviously do not know how to properly use your calculator.
yes, but i only found it a couple of years back, as i began to realise most of the history i'd been fed was dubious and western science doesn't know a fraction of what it thinks it does :D
do you know Nassim Haramein? he has some rather alternative perspectives
The easiest way to make people realise 0.9r = 1 is this:
there's absolutely nothing you can add to 0.9r to make it 1. Therefore 0.9r = 1. All mathematicians acknowledge this.
theiloveyouvirus 10 months ago
let x= 0.9r (where r stands for recurring)
then 10x =9.9r
taking the top from the bottom 9x = 9
so x=1
but don't forget that x = 0.9r
So 1 = 0.9r
I hope that settles things
theresaknott 10 months ago
It is clear I'm making a mistake with a single part of your video, but for the life of me I cannot fathom how you got 1076/25=43.04?
I know you're not wrong and that the reason I cannot get the same answer using the fraction method you display in the later part of video, is because I'm slipping up somewhere. Is there anyway you could illustrate how you got 0.04 using Egyptian maths in another video?
Many thanks! =)
PieEater8899 10 months ago
No debate: 1 < 0.9r
caviper1 1 year ago
Good vid - I was thinking about remainders after the first Egyptian Maths and tried them with my friend. We believed we got it right, and this video confirmed our theory. And yes, your mistake is no big deal, you still show the working which helps to understand the principles. ^^
hermionelovesme 1 year ago
Awesome!
catserendipity 1 year ago
TALK FASTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!
haobaba 1 year ago
I love this!!! <3
CoffeehouseGirl25 1 year ago
So how exactly would you divide fractions using this method?
Proggish 1 year ago
0.999... equals 1.
Mathematically proven and widely accepted:
at wikipedia look for: 0.999...
I know that just because wiki said so does not make a claim right, but it may be a start place.
Don't waste more time :).
MartinRonky 1 year ago
@MartinRonky don't get too wrapped up in the .999r debate, the problem here is reducing everything to base 10, decimals. take for eg the fraction 17/57, as a decimal we get 0.29824561403508771929824561403509... somewhere you have to round it, up or down. yes?
thinking on another example... often you hear people talk of 99.99%, of the population for eg. but even if you're talking about 99.99999% you are still not talking about 100% are you?
mothnrust 1 year ago
@mothnrust
If we round 0.2982456140350877192... at any place up or down, it is no longer the number 17/57. If we do round, we are giving up precision. The problem in your argument is the rounding, therefore false.
I agree 99.99999% does not equal 100% (you just multiplied the equation 0.999r = 1 by 100 and added '%'). We do not need to use %, so I agree 99.99999 does not equal 100. It is the same as before - when we round (or cut) we loose precision and it is no longer the same number.
MartinRonky 1 year ago
@MartinRonky to give an example: say for arguments sake there are 6,500,000,000 people on the planet and one has two heads. the percentage of people therefore with only one head is 99.999999984615384615384615384615... or, expressed as a decimal: 0.99999999984615384615384615384615... whereas expressed as a fraction: 6,499,999,999/6,500,000,000
mothnrust 1 year ago
@mothnrust
The problem with 6,499,999,999/6,500,000,000 and 99.9999999 846153 846153 84615... is in the same category as your previous two examples and the same applies. The number 99.9999999846153846153... with the repeating recurrence 846153 equals the 6,499,999,999/6,500,000,000 - it is only a different way how to write the number, but it is the same. If we cut or round the number it is no longer equal to the original fraction. Does this help you?
MartinRonky 1 year ago
@MartinRonky the problem here is reducing everything to base 10. the moment something doesn't divide exactly we end up with an approximation, this is what any repeating number sequence represents. i used what seems to be a large number, yet it is limited to the (human) population of relatively small planet. imagine then considering numbers on a galactic or universal scale, we could potentially have many, many .9999s before either finding a conclusion or a repeating sequence: an approximation.
mothnrust 1 year ago
@mothnrust
I understand the problem that when dealing with very big numbers the recurring sequence can be further away and it can be not convenient to deal with the big numbers, so we can use for example fractions to not loose the precision. But the theory still applies also for the big numbers.
With these examples you are not addressing the core issue and that is that 0.99r equals 1. Where we know that there is only the number 9 recurring.
MartinRonky 1 year ago
@MartinRonky recurring to infinity, yes ok i agree .33r + .33r +.33r = .99r, effectively meaning 1, but when you are dealing with really big numbers, effectively confining yourself within base 10, potentially means the 9s (or any other number) disappears off the end of the calculator long before true accuracy is attained. so, in effect, rounding, undermines accuracy. working with base 10 this cannot be avoided.
mothnrust 1 year ago
@mothnrust
Whether we write:
0.99r
1
1/1
5/5
100/100
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3
0.3333r + 0.3333r + 0.3333r
it is still the same number. It is just a different form how to write it. I know that it seems contradictory, but it is true. Whether to find out which claim is right or wrong we use scientific method and in this case mathematical proof. Please check the wiki article.
MartinRonky 1 year ago
Comment removed
MartinRonky 1 year ago
Marvin the paranoid android teaching me fractions! Awesome!
RegicidalManiac 1 year ago 6
@RegicidalManiac life, don't talk to me about life :)
mothnrust 1 year ago 3
The voiceover sounds like Alan Moore crossed with Michael Cain going through a phaser.
Kitsua 1 year ago 2
@Kitsua sorry about my voice, it's the only one i have :)
mothnrust 1 year ago
@mothnrust On the contrary, I think it's great! :-) Kept me hooked anyway.
Kitsua 1 year ago
@Kitsua :) thanks for your response. think i was just feeling a trifle harranged.
peace,
j
mothnrust 1 year ago
The other way to see that 0.9999 is 1 is to multiply it by 10 .. so you have 9.99999
then subtract 0.999999 which leaves you with exactly 9. So 0.999999 times 9 = 9, so 0.9999 must be equal to one.
fatsquirrel75 1 year ago
@fatsquirrel75 let's not get too wrapped up in the .999r debate, the problem here is reducing everything to base 10, decimals. take for eg the fraction 17/57, as a decimal we get 0.29824561403508771929824561403509... somewhere you have to round it, up or down. yes?
thinking on another example... often you hear people talk of 99.99%, of the population for eg. but even if you're talking about 99.99999% you are still not talking about 100% are you?
mothnrust 1 year ago
@mothnrust
There is no debate. 0.9r = 1
fatsquirrel75 1 year ago
@fatsquirrel75 - No way, 1 < 0.9r, I am positive.
caviper1 1 year ago
@caviper1
Sure troll, so what you are saying is that one is less than 0.9 recurring.
You can't even get your less than/greater than sign correct.
Let me state for the 100th time in this comment thread. There is no debate. 1 = 0.9r
fatsquirrel75 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
fatsquirrel75 1 year ago
0.99999.... is 1.
You don't need to use fucking fractions because that's bullshit. There are loads of proofs for it.
The fractions proof is silly. Like, in my mind I know why it doesn't really explain anything but I can't put it into words.
What did it for me is the story of Achilles and the Tortoise. Look it up.
BleedingLlama 1 year ago
can you talk any slower!!! jeez
leshark 1 year ago
.9999... != 1 to a simple computer. a simple computer does not know how to round to 1, so .9999... may lead to truncation errors, which could be end up being very significant. for example, .9999... could be cut off to .9999, leaving out .00009999..., which could lead to a very large error in certain algorithms. thus, mothnrust is technically correct, .9999... != 1 as he is calculating using binary algorithms
of course, theoretically .9999...=1, as proven
pyrodaemon5 1 year ago
@pyrodaemon5
A failure by a computer to recognise that 0.9r = 1 simply highlights a failing with that computer.
Not sure if you remember the Y2K fun. But it highlights why you can't put your faith in computers. Many computers thought that the year 1999 was followed by 1900. That does not give any technical validity to someone claiming that 1999 is not followed by 2000.
Anyone claiming that 0.9r != 1 is wrong (technically or otherwise).
fatsquirrel75 1 year ago
Comment removed
pyrodaemon5 1 year ago
Comment removed
pyrodaemon5 1 year ago
Comment removed
pyrodaemon5 1 year ago
how's gromit doing?
cspteja 1 year ago
That voice aaaaaahhh
Cityj0hn 1 year ago
1032 + 2064 + 4128 = 7224 not 7424
and thx
amooorbasha 1 year ago
"returns 0.9999 (recurring) but never 1"
0.9999 (recurring) = 1
Weirdosport 2 years ago
only through rounding
mothnrust 2 years ago
x=0.9999
10x=9.9999
10x-x=9.999-0.999
9x=9
x=1
0.9999=1
mentalkyle75 2 years ago
@mothnrust
No...
0.9999 (recurring) is exactly equal to one. Want a proof? google it
kostangmekham 1 year ago
@mothnrust
No, .9999(recurring) really is 1, proof below.
facts:
3*(1/3)=3/3=1 & 1/3 = .333333(recurring)
Thus
3*(1/3)=3*.33333(recurring)=.99999(recurring)=1 because 3*(1/3)=1
The whole .9999(recurring) =/= 1 is a common misconception...
JermoeM 1 year ago 3
@JermoeM if 0.9999 recurring is 1 it still doesn't make logical sense.
LOLDISNEYLAND 1 year ago
@Weirdosport
Yeah he's retarded.
1/3 = 0.3 recurring.
1/3 *3 = 0.3 recurring *3
1 = 0.9 recurring.
He shouldn't be teaching math if he doesn't know that.
fatsquirrel75 1 year ago
@fatsquirrel75 you guys just don't get it do you? it's called ROUNDING rounding up or rounding down, it makes no difference it's still an approximation. and this is where rounding errors occur, when two or more of these approximations are added, subtracted, whatever. jeez
mothnrust 1 year ago
@mothnrust Actually, 0.999 does equal 1, and WITHOUT rounding. See this wikipedia page that explains it : wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / 0.999
MrRoy3 1 year ago
@mothnrust
No. .999... = 1. They are the same. There are multiple proofs of this. You should look this up. It has to do with the nature of infinity, explicitly, there is no difference (literally and mathematically) between 1 and .999...: That is 1 - .999... = 0.
NPrinceling 1 year ago
huh?
davidrodgersNJ 2 years ago
OK not just to let you know on the question 7281 / 129 im pretty sure that 1032 + 2064 + 4128 does not come to the answer of 7424 as stated in this vid. it actually comes out as 7224 r 57.
so somebody's maths is wrong here and it ent mine cos i used a calculator! XD
andrew7980 2 years ago 31
oops, yes, thanks for pointing that out - my bad :D
mothnrust 2 years ago
np we all make mistakes XD
just look at pie that's the biggest mistake XD
andrew7980 2 years ago
@andrew7980 ig-frickin zackly !!!!!!!!!!
Get a calculator and a life....LOL!
matthewwp56 2 years ago
@andrew7980
The answer is actually 56 with the r. 57/129
Proggish 1 year ago
@andrew7980 Umm, I guess you didn't watch the whole video since he explains how to calculate the number with remainder. Also, its funny that you checked it with your calculator since the calculator uses binary so if the binary math didn't work your calculator wouldn't either.
bakaman2029 1 year ago
@bakaman2029 its not that i didn't watch it, his number is bigger than the original which is incorrect and wrong, add the numbers he takes away your self you will find what they add up to and what he says are different, he even admits it, god i guess you didn't read all the comments
andrew7980 1 year ago 7
@andrew7980
He messed up at the 5:40 mark, adding the 1032 + 2064 + 4128. He got 7424, but the sum is 7224. Add them up - you'll see that is what the error comes from.
When someone is going to put something like this out there, it is a good thing, but not if they screw up a basic step and look careless. Mathematics is not for sloppy thinking. It is a precision thing.
TravelerDiogenes 1 year ago
@TravelerDiogenes yeah man i did, fraid it's a bit typical of me, go over and over things and can't see what's before my eyes :D it goes with the dyslexia and my obsessional nature. and well spotted, pleased you were paying attention :D
mothnrust 1 year ago
@andrew7980 even calculators are not always rite...and who should u trust man or machine?
Saywat1st 1 month ago
@Saywat1st for when the revolution comes im trusting the machine's, if you know whats good for you you would turn your self into a slave for computers now XD
andrew7980 1 month ago
@andrew7980 sorry to say this but you re wrong. take the answer that he says is the final answer, 56 r 57/129, and multiply that by the divisor and you will get back your dividend so he is right. you obviously do not know how to properly use your calculator.
stephenagoff 1 month ago
hey monturst, do you have the same incling, interest, and respect for egyptians and mayans as i have too? xD :D xD
lrlslrls 2 years ago
yes, but i only found it a couple of years back, as i began to realise most of the history i'd been fed was dubious and western science doesn't know a fraction of what it thinks it does :D
do you know Nassim Haramein? he has some rather alternative perspectives
mothnrust 2 years ago