A Challenge wrote:Yes, but the claim should be for 10 weed not for 10, as there is a minuscule difference.
No there isn't. 9.9 recurring equals 10.
10-9.9 recurring equals 0.0 recurring. there's no such thing as "0 recurring... 1". The recurring bit shows that the 1 never comes, which in turn shows that there is absolutely 0 difference between the numbers.
It's simply a different way of writing the same thing.
*insert boasting about notable tube accomplishments here*
A Challenge wrote:Yes, but the claim should be for 10 weed not for 10, as there is a minuscule difference.
No there isn't. 9.9 recurring equals 10.
10-9.9 recurring equals 0.0 recurring. there's no such thing as "0 recurring... 1". The recurring bit shows that the 1 never comes, which in turn shows that there is absolutely 0 difference between the numbers.
It's simply a different way of writing the same thing.
Please could you not do the recurring numbers again even though I will, unless there is somebody else who thinks I shouldn't. Replies by scores on Sunday please.
Tumbleweed and former Nimbleweed Scorekeeper
Winner of Gumbleweeds V, VI + XI, Nimbleweeds I, III - IX + XIV and (joint with GuyBarry) winner of Timesnap
And most importantly, Former leader of Tumbleweed, and first person to 250,000
9.9 recurring approximates to 10 but does not equal 10. At best it is - arguably - a multiple of 4.9 recurring but it certainly isn't a multiple of 5. Indeed, there is arguably an infinite number of of numbers between it and 10 making it infinitely distant from being a valid claim. 0, however, is indeed a multiple of 5, although in practice a decision to accept or reject 0 presumably has the same outcome. A big thank you to tractakid for provoking a discussion that is far more interesting than the game itself.
First to 100000 in the 2015+ Tumbleweed contest. Winner of a few rounds of a diverse range of quizzes/games. Some decent times in alternative challenges as a fiftysomething who merely walks briskly. Briefly led All The Actons.
DavidC wrote:9.9 recurring approximates to 10 but does not equal 10. At best it is - arguably - a multiple of 4.9 recurring but it certainly isn't a multiple of 5. Indeed, there is arguably an infinite number of of numbers between it and 10 making it infinitely distant from being a valid claim. 0, however, is indeed a multiple of 5, although in practice a decision to accept or reject 0 presumably has the same outcome. A big thank you to tractakid for provoking a discussion that is far more interesting than the game itself.
Do you want me to just give tractakid 10 points or should it be -10 as with pi it was rounded to 3.14 and 9.999 recurring rounds to 10, as I have said before.
Tumbleweed and former Nimbleweed Scorekeeper
Winner of Gumbleweeds V, VI + XI, Nimbleweeds I, III - IX + XIV and (joint with GuyBarry) winner of Timesnap
And most importantly, Former leader of Tumbleweed, and first person to 250,000
I would be happy with no score, positive or negative. I would disagree with a positive score because in my view it isn't a valid entry. On reflection, I would disagree with a negative penalty because it would be hypocritical to round for the penalty while not allowing it as the answer. But it's not up to me - we delegate control to moderators to avoid making decisions ourselves !
First to 100000 in the 2015+ Tumbleweed contest. Winner of a few rounds of a diverse range of quizzes/games. Some decent times in alternative challenges as a fiftysomething who merely walks briskly. Briefly led All The Actons.
One of my pet peeves is quizzes that ask something like "What is the square root of 169?". The only TV quiz that gets it right is "Fifteen To One", where they would correctly put it as "What is the positive square root of 169?"
