Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/999 Perspective

999 Perspective[edit]

A view of 0.999... in rectangular perspective. 5001 digits long apparently!

I'm sure we all noticed this stunning image on the main page today. It was created by Melchoir for the 0.999... article. It's clear, pleasing to the eye, and illustrates the concept perfectly!

Nominate and support. - Gobeirne 07:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If 42 didn't make it, why should one be any better? ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right! If this didn't make it, then nothing else should! ;-) 1ne 01:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Janke - a great picture that accompanies a great article, but if a string of digits can become an FP then how long is it before $\rho =1-{\frac {6\sum D^{2}}{N(N^{2}-1)}}$ does? -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 12:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support First item; the '42' nomination was a poorly executed reference to a humorous (and hilarious) fictional work, and this is a reference to an article in mathematics. Second item; this picture illustrates the concept with a streamlined simplicity (I believe math freaks call it 'elegance') that the more complex formula you show does not, and is therefore accessible to the layman. In short, it is precise, eye-catching, and most important it made me read the article and learn something that I never considered before. It illustrates this article particularly well, and above all, has no blown highlights. --Bridgecross 13:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The perspective doesn't add anything relevant to the normal representation of the number. If you want to associate geometrical size with the value of the digits then each "9" should have 1/10 of the height (or area...) of the previous one. Cute but not extraordinary. - Alvesgaspar 13:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is such a pic on the 0.999... talk page, You see two nines and a dot, no more... --Janke | Talk 17:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I saw this pic eairler and I thought it was very interesting and appears to go on forever.--Seadog ^Talk 17:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Somewhat silly image without much informative value. Not Wikipedia's best work. Redquark 17:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nothing spectacular here. Besides, the first thing that strikes me when I see it is that it uses a really ugly font. Fredrik Johansson 20:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not the best Wikipedia has to offer, doesn't demonstrate the concept correctly (0.999... approaches and equals 1, not 0), and has moiré patterns towards the right. --Tewy 22:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it imply 0.999... equals 0? Redquark 22:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It gets smaller and smaller, so to me that doesn't say anything about it equalling 1, and instead implies that it equals 0. --Tewy 22:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Each nine symbol indeed represents an amount ten times smaller than the symbol preceding it, so it's appropriate that their appearance should get smaller. That individual digits are getting smaller doesn't imply anything about the size of the number as whole -- the first nine symbol alone lifts it far above zero. (Another way of looking at this is by considering the fact that the sequence 0.9, 0.09, 0.009, 0.0009, ... converges to zero, but its sum is equal to 1.) Redquark 00:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, for the record I do understand that 0.999... = 1, so I don't have a problem with that. My problem is how the picture represents this concept. I don't think someone is going to automatically look at it and think to sum the parts in order to get 1. I initially saw this as an object that gets smaller and smaller as more "9"s are added, and saw that as misleading, because it might imply that the number also gets smaller and smaller. In any case, I still oppose because of the oversimplicity (not the best of Wikipedia), and less importantly because of the moiré patterns. --Tewy 01:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Isn't moire going to be inherent in this image at any size due to the nature of the image? --DonES 16:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. 1ne 01:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Picture tells it all, especially when viewed on its side! Julie Martello 17:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
oppose. My first reaction: bah another joke. I think other people have explained why quite well. say1988 18:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, conceptually, it's interesting, but just doesn't have the wow factor of a FP. Plus the technical issues noted above, such as moiré.--Andrew c 21:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. howch e ng {chat} 22:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. FPs are supposed to demonstrate important tech skill or important concepts on wikipedia. This does the latter very well. The digits get smaller as per their decreasing value. It demonstrates that .99... = 1 in an elegant and concise manner. This concept, difficult to grasp, can be made simpler by a picture that evokes (for me) the graph of a hyperbola and its subsequent concept of the limit as x-> infinity... Ed-it 00:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they do not get 10 times smaller each time, so the concept is shown in an artistic fashion. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, it's a pretty illustration, but not at all informative. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Soon, I'll make a more attractive one. --Arad 00:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]