← Home ← Back to /sci/

Thread 16812963

269 posts 46 images /sci/
Anonymous No.16812963 [Report] >>16812971 >>16812979 >>16812980 >>16813015 >>16813140 >>16813167 >>16813179 >>16813225 >>16813320 >>16813589 >>16813596 >>16814175 >>16814216 >>16814433 >>16815706 >>16819040 >>16820127 >>16820199 >>16820989 >>16822547 >>16822583 >>16824212 >>16824314 >>16824856
0.999 ≠ 1, change my mind.
Anonymous No.16812967 [Report] >>16812969 >>16816753
How much do I add to 1 to make it 1?
>0.000...
How much do I add to 0.999... to make it 1?
>0.000...
Anonymous No.16812969 [Report] >>16812998 >>16813225
>>16812967
You add 0 to 1 to make it 1
You add 0.000... ∞ ...0001 to make 0.999 1

congrats you proved your own point wrong
Anonymous No.16812971 [Report] >>16812975 >>16813264 >>16813393 >>16816790 >>16816889 >>16818961 >>16819827
>>16812963 (OP)
1/3 = 0.3333...
1/3 * 3 = 0.3333... * 3
3/3 = 0.9999...
1 = 0.9999...
Anonymous No.16812972 [Report]
[math]\infty[/math]
Anonymous No.16812975 [Report] >>16812977
>>16812971
[math] $\frac{1}{3} \neq 0.\overline{333}$ [/math] tho, that's just the closest we can get.
Anonymous No.16812977 [Report]
>>16812975
[math]\frac{1}{3} \neq 0.\overline{333}[/math]
Anonymous No.16812979 [Report]
>>16812963 (OP)
We don't know if 0.99... ends or not.
Anonymous No.16812980 [Report] >>16812983
>>16812963 (OP)
0.999… > 1, change my mind.
Anonymous No.16812982 [Report]
ignore this im just testing something

[math]
0. \bar{333}
0. \overline{333}
[/math]
Anonymous No.16812983 [Report] >>16813032
>>16812980
dawg what?
Anonymous No.16812998 [Report] >>16813056 >>16820070 >>16820087
>>16812969
>∞
So ...0001 never arrives.
Therefor 0.000... is indistinguishable from 0. The universe will die before you can find the difference.
Anonymous No.16813015 [Report] >>16813057
>>16812963 (OP)
>change my mind
Whatever happened to that guy?
Anonymous No.16813032 [Report] >>16813058 >>16816075 >>16816092 >>16817252
>>16812983
0.999… is the Idea of 1, amplified by infinite activity, making it Super-Unity, which is necessarily greater than mere Unity.
Anonymous No.16813036 [Report] >>16813054 >>16813062
Real numbers are points on the number line. 0.999... and 1.000... look different, but refer to the same point on the number line.
Anonymous No.16813054 [Report] >>16813060 >>16820486
>>16813036
[0,1) = 0.999 . . .
[0,1] = 1.000 . . .
Simple as.
Anonymous No.16813056 [Report]
>>16812998
It never arrives however it's still there after the infinity, if your just going to argue that the infinity part doesn't matter then that means that [math]0.\overline{999} \neq 1[/math] because the infinite 9's don't matter.
Anonymous No.16813057 [Report] >>16813070
>>16813015
Steven Crowder? Recently he actually uploaded another episode of the series, but he stopped earlier due to fear of violence against him.
Anonymous No.16813058 [Report] >>16813230
>>16813032
i think you need to lay off the meth my friend
Anonymous No.16813060 [Report] >>16813066 >>16813071 >>16813072 >>16813088
>>16813054
What would (0.999... + 1.000...) / 2 be then?
Anonymous No.16813062 [Report] >>16813065 >>16813085
>>16813036
You are literally proving against your own point, [math]0.\overline{999}[/math] is below 1 due to the fact that it starts with a 0.
Anonymous No.16813065 [Report]
>>16813062
In the standard definition, staring with a zero means you are between 0 and 1 inclusive. If you want to change that to [0, 1), you can do that, and then you have a scheme for naming points on the number line in which 0.999... is undefined, since there is no point in the number line in all of the intervals {[0, 1), [0.9, 1.0), [0.99, 1.00), ...}. This scheme has the advantage of giving each number a unique name.
Anonymous No.16813066 [Report] >>16813069 >>16813071 >>16820376
>>16813060
[math]
\frac{0.\overline{999} + 1}{2} = 0.\overline{999}5
[/math]
Anonymous No.16813069 [Report]
>>16813066
That's just a name. What does it mean on the number line?
Anonymous No.16813070 [Report] >>16813395
>>16813057
Ah.
Talk shit. Get hit.
Go cry, "Why? Why?".
Sad. Many such cases.
Anonymous No.16813071 [Report] >>16813082 >>16813145 >>16813190
>>16813060
>>16813066
How about this :

0.999... (base 10) = 0.888... (base 9) = 0.777... (base 8) ...etc. ... 0.111... (base 2) = 1 (any base >1 in R)
Anonymous No.16813072 [Report]
>>16813060
See: Clopen and Partially Semi-Clopen.
Anonymous No.16813082 [Report] >>16813092
>>16813071
> 1 = 0.πππ . . ., base π.
Perfection
Anonymous No.16813085 [Report]
>>16813062
>[unidirectional thinking]
Limits are two-way streets, Anon. Always.
Anonymous No.16813088 [Report]
>>16813060
[0,1}
Anonymous No.16813092 [Report] >>16813097 >>16813099 >>16813139
>>16813082
More like
[math]1 = 0. \pi \pi \pi ... [/math]
in base [math]\pi +1[/math]
Anonymous No.16813097 [Report] >>16813099
>>16813092
You are correct. Thank you.
Anonymous No.16813099 [Report] >>16813105 >>16813139
>>16813092
>>16813097
On second thought,
1 = 0.(π-1)(π-1)(π-1) . . ., base π.
The prosecution rests.
Anonymous No.16813105 [Report] >>16813109 >>16813121
>>16813099
mmmh, weird...

[math]1=0.(\pi -1)(\pi -1)(\pi -1)(\pi -1)... [/math]
[math]1=0.(\pi)(\pi)(\pi)... - (0.111...) [/math]
in base [math]\pi +1[/math]
Anonymous No.16813109 [Report]
>>16813105
My bad, it's obvious with 0.999... to 0.888...
It's not weird.

1 = 0.(A-1)(A-1)(A-1)...(base A) = 0.(A-2)(A-2)(A-2)...(base A-1) ...
Anonymous No.16813121 [Report] >>16813140
>>16813105
Honesty, it's quality like this that makes all the hard work worth it. Thank you again, Anon, for doing all the hard work. It was well worth your time to me.
Anonymous No.16813139 [Report]
>>16813092
>>16813099
I move that we henceforth refer to these two statements as "Anon's Theorem" and spend the rest of time arguing over the canonical form and statement of such.
It solve so many problems.
[Mods, please archive for future AI training. Kthxbuy]
Anonymous No.16813140 [Report] >>16813145 >>16813165 >>16813190
>>16812963 (OP)
Nah.

(0.999...) < 1 < (1 + 0.000...1)

0.999... is a lower asymptote to 1.
1 + 0.000...1 is a upper asymptote to 1.


Picrel, 0.999... , 1 and 1 + 0.000...1 are different numbers in f(x) = 1/(x-1)


>>16813121
I've been here long enough to perceive irony.
You know it's wrong, be more subtle next time, a base in maths has to be in [math]\mathbb{N*+}[/math]
So no [math]\pi[/math] for you.
Anonymous No.16813145 [Report]
>>16813140
>>16813071
>(any base >1 in R)
I accept your apology. You might have missed the key requirement of Anon's Theorem. Many do.
Anonymous No.16813165 [Report]
>>16813140
>your arithmetical error
Bricks will be shat, seeing it when you do.
Anonymous No.16813167 [Report] >>16813247 >>16815776
>>16812963 (OP)
1/9 = 0.111...
+
8/9 = 0.888...
=
9/9 = 0.999...
Anonymous No.16813179 [Report] >>16813181 >>16814953
>>16812963 (OP)
>0.999 ≠ 1, change my mind.

If they are NOT the same then they must differ by an amount... what is it?
Anonymous No.16813181 [Report] >>16813293
>>16813179
epsilon > 0
Anonymous No.16813190 [Report] >>16813196 >>16813239
>>16813071
How about this?
0.999... (base 9) = 1.111...

>>16813140
1 + 0.000...1 isn't an asymptote to 1, it ends in a 1 so obviously it can't be an asymptote to any integer.
Anonymous No.16813196 [Report] >>16813202
>>16813190
0 = 0.1111...... (base 9
can we finally say that infinite decimal systems are broken? or are mathfags really going to defend this
Anonymous No.16813202 [Report] >>16813207
>>16813196
How'd you get this
>0 = 0.1111...... (base 9
from this?
>0.999... (base 9) = 1.111...
Anonymous No.16813207 [Report] >>16813214
>>16813202
1 base 9 = 0
0.9999.... base 9 = 0
0.11111... base 9 = 0.000000 = 0
Anonymous No.16813214 [Report] >>16813218
>>16813207
>0.9999.... base 9 = 0
Contradicts
>0.999... (base 9) = 1.111...
Anonymous No.16813218 [Report] >>16813222
>>16813214
0 = 1.1111.... = 0.111.... in base 9
no contradictions here. if you accept infinite decimals, anyway. we're on the same side friend
Anonymous No.16813222 [Report]
>>16813218
I don't see how you get any of that lol
Anonymous No.16813225 [Report]
>>16812963 (OP)
>>16812969

Proof ?

0.999...k = 0.999... + k*(0.000...1)
0.999...k = 9*(0.111...) + k*(0.000...1)
0.999...k = 9*(0.111...) + k*(1 - 0.999...)
0.999...k = 9*(0.111...) + 9*k*(1/9 - 0.111...)
0.999...k = 9*[(0.111...) + k*(1/9 - 0.111...)]
0.999...k = 9*[(0.111...) + k/9 - k*(0.111...)]
0.999...k = 9*[(0.111...) + k/9 - k*(0.111...)]
0.999...k = 9*[(0.111...)*(1-k) + k/9]
0.999...k = 9*(0.111...)*(1-k) + k
0.999...k = (0.999...)*(1-k) + k
0.999...k = 0.999... - (k*0.999...) + k

If you say that :
- (k*0.999...) + k = 0

Then :
0.999...k = 0.999...

It works with whatever the 0.999...k ends :

0.999...8 = 0.8 + 0.1999...8
0.999...8 = 0.8 + 0.18 + 0.018 + 0.0018 + 0.00018 + ...
0.999...8 = 0.8 + 2*(0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 + 0.00009 + ...)
0.999...8 = 0.8 + 2*(0.0999...)
0.999...8 = 0.8 + 2*(0.1)
0.999...8 = 1

0.999...3 = 0.3 + 0.6999...3
0.999...3 = 0.3 + (0.63 + 0.063 + 0.0063 + 0.00063 + ...)
0.999...3 = 0.3 + 7*(0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 + 0.00009 + ...)
0.999...3 = 0.3 + 7*(0.0999...)
0.999...3 = 0.3 + 7*(0.1)
0.999...3 = 1
Anonymous No.16813230 [Report] >>16813240
>>16813058
No, let's work with this...
The dynamic, infinite process represented by 0.999... is conceptually richer, and in that sense "greater", than the static, finite 1. How'd I do?
Anonymous No.16813239 [Report] >>16813253
>>16813190
>0.999... (base 9) = 1.111...
You cant have a symbol in your number same as the base :

Base 10 :
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] the symbol "10" doesn't exist.

Base 9 :
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] the symbol "9" doesn't exist.

...
...
Base 2 :
[0, 1] all the symbols above 1 dont exist.

>0.999... (base 9)
Nope, syntax error in math.


1 (base 2) = 1 (base 10) = 1 (any base)

10 (base 2) = 1*2^2 + 0*2^0 (base 10) = 2 (base 10)

0.1 (base 2) = 0*2^0 + 1*2^(-1) (base 10) = 1/2 (base 10)

0.01 (base 2) = 0*2^0 + 0*2^(-1) + 1*2^(-2) (base 10) = 1/4 (base 10)
...
You double in a direction, halve in the other.

For others bases, you base in a direction and debase in the other.

Also 10*0.1 or 100*0.01 or whatever, in any base is always 1 :
10(base 2) * 0.1 (base 2) = 2 (base 10) * 1/2 (base 10) = 1
10 (base 10) * 0.1 (base 10) = 1


A video from great mathematicians here :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPBsUo4A8fg
Anonymous No.16813240 [Report]
>>16813230
No its literally greater than 1
Anonymous No.16813247 [Report]
>>16813167
1/9 (base 10) = 0.1 (base 9)
+
8/9 (base 10) = 0.8 (base 9)
=
0.1 (base 9) + 0.8 (base 9) = 1.0 (base 9) = 1

No filthy decimals here.
Anonymous No.16813253 [Report]
>>16813239
The lead author of that paper went on to generalize the theory to digits that could be ahead of the base by being better constructed.
https://youtu.be/Q3T9ayhdgf8
Anonymous No.16813258 [Report] >>16813265
>0.000... ∞ ...0001
>the end of infinity
nice bait retard
Anonymous No.16813264 [Report]
>>16812971
...
Anonymous No.16813265 [Report] >>16813285
>>16813258
>What's epsilon
Bad bait is bad.
Anonymous No.16813285 [Report] >>16813289
>>16813265
>filtering yourself this hard
1 - 0.999... = \lim_{n \to \infty} 10^{-n} = 0
Anonymous No.16813289 [Report] >>16813473
>>16813285
You meant? :
[math]1 - 0.999... = \lim_{n \to \infty} 10^{-n} = 0+[/math]
Anonymous No.16813293 [Report]
>>16813181
Gentlemen, pick your deltas.
Anonymous No.16813308 [Report]
There's no such thing as whole numbers. 1, 2, 3, etc. are all just shorthanded ways of expressing quantities which are fundamentally indeterminate. All numbers are created by the empty set, it's the fundamental part of language that it's all just building off of the concept of nothingness.
Anonymous No.16813320 [Report] >>16813324 >>16813401
>>16812963 (OP)
First, you have to show that .999... even exists
>Protip: it doesn't
Anonymous No.16813324 [Report] >>16813394 >>16813595
>>16813320
Can you prove that 1 exist ?
Anonymous No.16813393 [Report]
>>16812971
This works on goyim
Anonymous No.16813394 [Report] >>16813401
>>16813324
I count, starting with 1, sometimes starting with 0. Grug no need proof. Grug see fingers with eyes.
Anonymous No.16813395 [Report] >>16813459
>>16813070
What's the shit talk?
Anonymous No.16813401 [Report] >>16813414
>>16813320
It does to the same extent any number does.
>>16813394
You can't even measure where your finger begins and ends lol.
Anonymous No.16813414 [Report] >>16813417
>>16813401
Grug no measure with fingers. That's what dingus for
Anonymous No.16813417 [Report] >>16813423
>>16813414
Ah yes, makes sense for you, finer resolution and all.
Anonymous No.16813423 [Report]
>>16813417
Grug don't know what that means, but grug thinks you need head bashing for it.
Anonymous No.16813425 [Report] >>16813438 >>16813485
0.999... is not 1.000...
0.999... is 0.999...
why does someone NEED 0.999... to also be 1?
like, what is their opinion, and what is the context? what kind of person are they?
are they a banker?
who needs this?
Anonymous No.16813438 [Report] >>16813448
>>16813425
Anonymous No.16813448 [Report]
>>16813438
lol
Anonymous No.16813459 [Report] >>16813952
>>16813395
0.999 . . . = 1.000 . . .
First day on planet, Spaceman?
Anonymous No.16813473 [Report] >>16813502
>>16813289
>0+
>confusing approach for value
Just admit you failed calc and have no idea how the real number system works. Or keep embarassing yourself on the internet, your choice
Anonymous No.16813477 [Report] >>16813518
>OP got filtered this hard by limits
Anonymous No.16813485 [Report] >>16813497
>>16813425
>0.333... isn't 1/3
>0.333... is 0.333...
This is how retarded you sound
Anonymous No.16813497 [Report] >>16813697 >>16823389
>>16813485
>0.3 x 3 = 0.9 < 1
>0.33 x 3 = 0.99 < 1
>0.333 x 3 = 0.999 < 1
>0.3333 x 3 = 0.9999 < 1
>0.33333 x 3 = 0.99999 < 1
>0.333... x 3 = 0.999...
1/3 does not equal 0.333...
as buttons on a calculator, [1] plus [÷] plus [3] plus [=] = 0.33333333[3
>round down hidden last digit, print 0.33333333
>hold value 0.33333333[3
0.33333333[3 plus [x] plus [3] plus [=] = 0.99999999[9
>round up hidden last digit, print 1

1/3 > 0.3
1/3 > 0.33
1/3 > 0.333
1/3 > 0.3333
1/3 > 0.33333
1/3 > 0.333333
1/3 > 0.333...

>2/3 > 0.666...
>3/3 > 0.999...
Anonymous No.16813502 [Report] >>16813520 >>16813697
>>16813473
Ok...

0- < 0 < 0+
0.999.. - 1 < 0 < 1 - 0.999...

Limits motherfucker, do you speak it ?!
Anonymous No.16813518 [Report] >>16813934
>>16813477
OP here, i posted like 2 comments and ive just been watching it since
Anonymous No.16813520 [Report] >>16813531
>>16813502
ITYM 1-0.999… < 0 < 0.999…-1
Anonymous No.16813531 [Report]
>>16813520
>ITYM
Nah,

0.999... - 1 = - 0.000...1
1 - 0.999... = + 0.000...1

0.999.. - 1 < 0 < 1 - 0.999...
- 0.000...1 < 0 < + 0.000...1
0- < 0 < 0+


Zooming for you :
(-1)---<...<------[.]-----< ... <---(+1)
(-1)---<...<--------------[.]----------------<...<(+1)
(-1)---<...<--------------[(0.999...-1)<(0)<(1-0.999...)]----------------<...<(+1)
Anonymous No.16813589 [Report]
>>16812963 (OP)
I made exoteric soul calculation based on 0.999999 = 1 , so now I have to agree with it. sorry anon.
Anonymous No.16813595 [Report]
>>16813324
Anonymous No.16813596 [Report] >>16813698
>>16812963 (OP)
1 can not have infinite amounts of 000000....1 , because its like a whole number.

0.99999999 can have an infinite amounts of 0000000.1 because they are fractional .

both can have an infinite amounts of 0s.

the numbers that can have the most amount of things are better than the other number

so 0.99999999 better than 1.

WE need to replace one , its outdated and outmatched.
Anonymous No.16813697 [Report] >>16816662
>>16813502
>0- and 0+
Are approaches, not values. You're attempting to pass off hyperreal infintismals as numbers. There is no number in between 0.999... and 1; they are the same number. You are outing yourself, more and more with every post, as a retard who got filtered on day 1 of calculus 1
>>16813497
>round down
>on an infinitely repeating fraction
anon, I...
Anonymous No.16813698 [Report]
>>16813596
>replace all integers (n) with (n-0.999...)+ 0.999...
finally a based retard itt
Anonymous No.16813934 [Report]
>>16813518
>ive just been watching it since
Bless you, OP. It's been beautiful.
Anonymous No.16813952 [Report]
>>16813459
Thought so. Sit, marxist
Anonymous No.16814175 [Report] >>16814180 >>16814401 >>16814526 >>16816403 >>16816654 >>16820384
>>16812963 (OP)
OP is correct. Lets us start by asserting a pretty sensible construction with an infinitesimal.
[math]1 - ε = 0.999...[/math]
Now for all r where r is a real number, we know this holds true for infinitesimals:
[math]0 < ε < r[/math]

Now given the equation:
[math]X - Y = X[/math]
We are left with an ambiguity when solving for Y. It may be 0, or it may be an infinitesimal, IFF
[math]0.999... = 1[/math]

However we can preserve algebra if we instead allot for:
[math]1 = 0.999... + ε[/math]

Feel free to refute me.
Anonymous No.16814180 [Report] >>16814506
>>16814175
Anonymous No.16814194 [Report] >>16814295 >>16814299 >>16814303
Isn't this cleared in 5th grade?
Let x = 0.999...
Multiply it by 10:
10x = 9.999...
Subtract x:
10x - x = 9
x = 1

Any other value for x breaks arithmetics.
Anonymous No.16814216 [Report]
>>16812963 (OP)
cool it with the anti semitism
Αnonymous No.16814230 [Report]
lim_{n->oo} (1 - Σ_{i=1}^n (9/(10^n))) = 0
Anonymous No.16814295 [Report] >>16814296
>>16814194
Yeah except your not taking into account that when multiplying [math]0.\overline{999}[/math] by [math]10[/math] it makes it [math]0.\overline{999}0[/math] it's just that you don't see the [math]0[/math] since it's not shown like how each number is the same to the power of [math]1[/math].
Anonymous No.16814296 [Report]
>>16814295
wait nevermind that was an absurdly stupid point i made
Anonymous No.16814299 [Report] >>16814384 >>16814430 >>16815477
>>16814194
>Any other value for x breaks arithmetics.
Saying that 0.999... isn't a number doesn't break anything.
Anonymous No.16814303 [Report] >>16814422
>>16814194
>10x = 9.999...
>Subtract x:
>10x - x = 9
Wut
Anonymous No.16814307 [Report] >>16814314
what the fuck? i'm OP and im genuinely thinking hard about this, how the hell is a random anon making me think about math
Anonymous No.16814314 [Report] >>16814319
>>16814307
damn it, i keep blurting out stupid shit i don't mean
Anonymous No.16814319 [Report]
>>16814314
my brain is hurting i should've payed attention back in math class
Anonymous No.16814384 [Report]
>>16814299
It's capricious and gay to let numbers have unlimited zeros after a digit but not unlimited nines. It breaks all sense of logic and decorum.
Anonymous No.16814401 [Report] >>16814476 >>16814492
>>16814175
>no counterarguments
I accept acadaemia's concession. /g/ sends its regards.... ;-)
Anonymous No.16814422 [Report]
>>16814303
10x = 9.999...
which is just
9 + 0.999...
that is
9 + x
so
10x - x = 9
Anonymous No.16814428 [Report]
Really it's the same trick you use when converting a periodic decimal to a fraction. It's EXACTLY the same thing.
Like, which fraction is 0.(23)?
You write:
x=0.(23)
100x=23.(23)
100x - x = 23
99x = 23
x = 23/99

Apply the same exact procedure to 0.(9) and you get 1.
Anonymous No.16814430 [Report]
>>16814299
... is an operator
Anonymous No.16814433 [Report] >>16814443
>>16812963 (OP)
1/3 > 0.333..
2/3 > 0.666..
3/3 > 0.999..
3/3 = 1
Anonymous No.16814443 [Report] >>16814452 >>16814610
>>16814433
Shouldn't it be >=?
Anonymous No.16814452 [Report]
>>16814443
They should all be =, he’s retarded
Anonymous No.16814476 [Report] >>16814502
>>16814401
>I accept [ ] concession.
Indian debate syntax. (/g/ is implied)
Anonymous No.16814492 [Report] >>16814502
>>16814401
>/g/ sends its regards.... ;-)
>regards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjEAqrFmAXM
Anonymous No.16814502 [Report] >>16814506 >>16814526
>>16814476
>>16814492
And yet, no refutation was produced to earn the right to call me a retard. Eating pudding before porridge, tsk tsk.
Anonymous No.16814506 [Report] >>16814519
>>16814502
See >>16814180
Anonymous No.16814519 [Report] >>16814572
>>16814506
Can you actually not refute it though, I legitimately want to know
Anonymous No.16814526 [Report] >>16814544
>>16814502
>>16814175
>Lets us start by asserting
Anonymous No.16814544 [Report] >>16814633
>>16814526
And is it an unreasonable assertion? What makes it so?
Anonymous No.16814572 [Report]
>>16814519
It's explicit in the edit. Look closer. If you're still stuck after 12 hours, come back for another hint.
Anonymous No.16814610 [Report]
>>16814443
No
Anonymous No.16814633 [Report] >>16814684
>>16814544
Let us start by reasonably asserting 0.999...=1.
Anonymous No.16814684 [Report] >>16814706 >>16814719
>>16814633
Fair enough, but how do you account for an infinitesimal difference in this case?
Anonymous No.16814706 [Report] >>16814739
>>16814684
Just add the limit of 1/X as X approaches infinity
Anonymous No.16814719 [Report] >>16815606
>>16814684
Let us start by asserting that an "infinitesimal difference" is 0.
Anonymous No.16814739 [Report] >>16814871
>>16814706
So in effect, we can't? This equality relies on restricting our domain to the reals? I was always curious about this. It's why I always thought the equality was sus, I knew of the surreals before I knew of the equality.
Anonymous No.16814871 [Report] >>16815011
>>16814739
That's a common misunderstanding. No, 0.999... = 1 in either system.
Anonymous No.16814953 [Report]
>>16813179
1 - 0.(9)
Anonymous No.16815011 [Report] >>16815119
>>16814871
What representation would you use for the following:
[math]
\{ 0, \frac{9}{10}, \frac{99}{100}, \frac{999}{1000},...|1\}
[/math]
Which is decidedly not equal to one.
Anonymous No.16815119 [Report] >>16815301
>>16815011
Says who?
Anonymous No.16815301 [Report] >>16815460 >>16815473
>>16815119
Me, abiding a representation of the surreals where surreal X is commonly written as:
[math]
X = \{ A | B \}
[/math]
and
[math]X > {\forall}n {\in} A [/math]
[math]X < {\forall}n {\in} B [/math]
Anonymous No.16815460 [Report] >>16815473 >>16815612
>>16815301
So "max A"?
Anonymous No.16815473 [Report] >>16815612
>>16815301
>>16815460
Actually with max A < X < min B, you can't even write that. Your expression is just ill-defined gibberish lol.
Anonymous No.16815477 [Report]
>>16814299
Saying it doesn't.
But saying it, and truly meaning it in your heart, that's what really hurts.
Anonymous No.16815606 [Report] >>16815613 >>16815618
>>16814719
>infinitesimal = 0
Kekerino
Anonymous No.16815612 [Report] >>16815615
>>16815460
>>16815473
No, A and B are sets. Time to go study the surreals anon!
Anonymous No.16815613 [Report]
>>16815606
I would love to hear what he thinks infinity is.
Anonymous No.16815615 [Report] >>16815631
>>16815612
Your B is well-defined. Your A is gibberish.
Anonymous No.16815618 [Report] >>16815876
>>16815606
NTA but in every text on nonstandard analysis, 0 is indeed formalized as the only infinitesimal in the standard reals.
Anonymous No.16815626 [Report]
I hate this problem.
Here's my cold take.

Opinion A
>1 - 0.999...9 = 0.000...1
>0.000...1 infinitely approaches 0... so it IS 0.

Opinion B
>0.999...9 is 1 - 0.000...1
>Since 0.000...1 always ends in 1 no matter what, for eternity, it can never equal 0 exactly, so 0.999...9 cannot be 1 exactly.

Lol.
Anonymous No.16815631 [Report] >>16815646
>>16815615
I can forgive not having studied the surreals, but have you seriously never seen a dedekind cut in standard analysis?
Anonymous No.16815646 [Report] >>16815653
>>16815631
One of us is certainly talking out of his ass lol.
Anonymous No.16815653 [Report] >>16815657
>>16815646
It's neither. I'm holding your hand and spoonfeeding you and you're being an indignant baby about it.
Anonymous No.16815657 [Report] >>16815662
>>16815653
That’s what you think you’re doing?
Anonymous No.16815662 [Report] >>16815668
>>16815657
>eu wee... goo goo... bleh!
The cute sounds of anon spitting his carrots out for the 10th time!
Here comes the train! Choo choo!
Anonymous No.16815668 [Report] >>16815677
>>16815662
You know you could always just read a text on nonstandard analysis and learn something about it instead of embarrassing yourself with this stuff.
Anonymous No.16815677 [Report] >>16815693
>>16815668
You're literally bitching about a standard notation for defining surreals and now are going to pretend like you know shit about non-standard analysis? Holy shit get a grip dude.
Anonymous No.16815693 [Report]
>>16815677
Or don’t learn and keep embarrassing yourself, I guess, lol.
Anonymous No.16815706 [Report]
>>16812963 (OP)
nah, you deserve to be retarded, now if you pay me i'll try
Anonymous No.16815776 [Report]
>>16813167
/thread
Anonymous No.16815876 [Report] >>16815907
>>16815618
>Nonstandard
Into the trash it goes.
Anonymous No.16815907 [Report] >>16815959
>>16815876
This, but its me throwing everything out that doesn't deal in the surreals which are the only valid number system
Anonymous No.16815959 [Report] >>16816361
>>16815907
You're the guy who can't speak a word of some language but says ZOMG that language is so beautiful, it's my favorite. Except it's worse in your case because then you go on the internet and pretend you do.
Anonymous No.16816075 [Report] >>16816092 >>16816693
>>16813032
>invents his own term of super-unity before your eyes
Anonymous No.16816092 [Report] >>16816127
>>16816075
>>16813032
>activity infinite
0.999... = 1 + AI
India strikes again
Anonymous No.16816116 [Report] >>16816122
You retards need to read Hegel's Science of Logic. You're treating a qualitative quantity as a pure quantity.
Anonymous No.16816122 [Report]
>>16816116
"qualitative quantity"
Top google results
>viXra.org
>marxists.org
Thanks but no
Anonymous No.16816127 [Report]
>>16816092
Close, but I think AI might be the magic, not the residual.
Ahem,
0.999... + AI = 1.
No apply Euler's Identity and we'll have it.
Anonymous No.16816361 [Report] >>16816388
>>16815959
nigga how are you blown out this fucking hard kek
Anonymous No.16816388 [Report]
>>16816361
>nigga how are you blown out this fucking hard kek
Anonymous No.16816403 [Report]
>>16814175
ah, but 1 - 2ε = 0.999... as well
Anonymous No.16816654 [Report]
>>16814175
>Feel free to refute me.

How about this :
[math]-\varepsilon \lt +\varepsilon[/math]
[math](1-\varepsilon) \lt 1\lt (1+\varepsilon)[/math]
[math](0.999...) \lt 1\lt (1.000...1)[/math]
Anonymous No.16816662 [Report] >>16816667
>>16813697
>There is no number in between 0.999... and 1

Oh yea buddy, there IS an infinity of numbers between 0- and 0+.

Let's zoom in :
1/0- = -inf.
1/0 = undefined
1/0+ = +inf.
Anonymous No.16816667 [Report] >>16816677
>>16816662
Let's take them in order of appearance.
>1
number, not between 0.999... and 1
>0-
not a number
>-inf
not a number
>0
number, not between 0.999... and 1
>undefined
not a number
>0+
not a number
>+inf
not a number
Anonymous No.16816677 [Report] >>16816688
>>16816667
Okayyyy
How do you define
[math]1-\varepsilon[/math]
and
[math]1+\varepsilon[/math]
Anonymous No.16816688 [Report] >>16816692
>>16816677

not a number
>1−ε
not a number
>1+ε
not a number
Anonymous No.16816692 [Report] >>16816701
>>16816688
Okay,
is [math]\pi[/math] a number ?
Anonymous No.16816693 [Report]
>>16816075
he’s just a teeny, little, super guy
Anonymous No.16816701 [Report] >>16816748
>>16816692
maybe in hexadecimal, not generally
Anonymous No.16816748 [Report] >>16816757
>>16816701
>maybe in hexadecimal,

Mmmh, I see.

Hexadecimal is defined as :
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F]

10(base hexa) = 16(base 10)
1(base hexa) = 1(base 10)
0.1(base hexa) = 1/16(base 10) = 0.0625(base 10)

[math]\pi \simeq 3.243F6A8885A2F7A4371B...(hexa) \simeq 3.141592653589793...(base 10)[/math]

[math]\pi[/math] cant be defined in any finite manner in any base, except in (base [math]\pi[/math] but some math nazis wouldn't permit that.
Anonymous No.16816753 [Report]
>>16812967
>How much do I add to 0.999... to make it 1?
>0.000...0001
where the number of 0's is written down by an undecidable program
Anonymous No.16816757 [Report] >>16816769
>>16816748
https://www.ams.org/journals/mcom/1997-66-218/S0025-5718-97-00856-9/S0025-5718-97-00856-9.pdf
You can pull any hex digit you want, so it's almost like working with a repeating decimal where you can also pull any digit you want. That makes it a maybe for me.
Anonymous No.16816769 [Report] >>16816776
>>16816757
>That makes it a maybe for me.
But [math]\pi[/math] can be defined as this (Gregory/Leibniz/Madhava series) :
[math]\pi = 4*\left[ 1-\frac{1}{3} + \frac{1}{5}-\frac{1}{7}+\frac{1}{9}-...\right][/math]
>Sum and sub of decreased fractions at infinity.

This cant be a "maybe it's finite".
Anonymous No.16816776 [Report]
>>16816769
who cares if the digits are finite? I never made that a prereq
Anonymous No.16816790 [Report]
>>16812971
3/3 is 1 though
Anonymous No.16816889 [Report] >>16816898
>>16812971
Who is this proof meant for? What kind of imaginary person does not accept 1=0.999... yet simultaneously readily accepts 1/3=0.333...?
Anonymous No.16816898 [Report]
>>16816889
anyone who can divide by hand
Anonymous No.16817252 [Report]
>>16813032
Hegel reader
Anonymous No.16817927 [Report] >>16817946 >>16819188
x=0.99
10x=9.9
9x=9.9-0.99=8.91
x=0.99

Retard

x=0.999
10x=9.99
9x=8.991
x=0.999

Retard

x=0.9999
10x=9.999
9x=8.9991
x=0.9999

Retard

x=0.99999
10x=9.9999
9x=8.99991
x=0.99999

At no point does it EVER equal one.
Anonymous No.16817946 [Report]
>>16817927
huh, didn't know the issue finitists had with infinity was skill-wise, good to know, thanks
Anonymous No.16818957 [Report] >>16819550
[math]0.\overline{999}=2[/math] change my mind
Anonymous No.16818961 [Report] >>16818962
>>16812971
>1/4 = .444444..
>1/4 * 4 = .161616...
>4/4 = .161616...
>1 = .161616...
Anonymous No.16818962 [Report]
>>16818961
>√1 = √.161616...
>1 = .444444...
>1 = 1/4
>1/2 = 1/2
true
Anonymous No.16819040 [Report] >>16819041
>>16812963 (OP)
>change my mind
first, prove that you have one.
then explain why should I care enough to try.
Anonymous No.16819041 [Report] >>16819048 >>16820984
>>16819040
actually all autists ITT should explain themselves. why do you care enough to explain it to obvious trolls like OP?
Anonymous No.16819048 [Report] >>16819078
>>16819041
that ship sailed when you decided to read 4chan
Anonymous No.16819078 [Report]
>>16819048
I'm losing faith in humanity here and you do not care?
Anonymous No.16819188 [Report]
>>16817927
>here's a series for which no element equals its limit
>notify the press
Anonymous No.16819387 [Report]
There is nothing mathematical about this debate and never was, it's a purely semantical argument about our numeral system. It's the GNU/Linux naming bullshit of mathematics and will never actually fucking matter.
Anonymous No.16819550 [Report] >>16819706
>>16818957
This is consistent with 0.999… > 1, this guy gets it
Anonymous No.16819706 [Report] >>16819709
>>16819550
[math]0.\overline{999}=\infty[/math]
Anonymous No.16819707 [Report] >>16819709
[math]0.\overline{999}=\infty[/math]
Anonymous No.16819709 [Report] >>16819758
>>16819706
>>16819707
Kek. fag.
Anonymous No.16819758 [Report] >>16819769 >>16820250
>>16819709
why the fuck is it not working?

[math]1+1[/math]
Anonymous No.16819760 [Report]
[math]0.\overline{999}=\infty[/math]
Anonymous No.16819761 [Report]
[math]0.\overline{999}[/math]
Anonymous No.16819765 [Report]
[math]\infty[/math]
Anonymous No.16819766 [Report]
[math]0.\overline{999} = \infty[/math]
Anonymous No.16819769 [Report]
>>16819758
/sci/Tex is retarded. Just put a space in between everything
Anonymous No.16819827 [Report]
>>16812971
You will never be a 1, tranny
Anonymous No.16820070 [Report] >>16820093
>>16812998
Is this the point of argument in all these threads I've been ignoring? Indistinguishable doesn't mean same. 0.99(9) is indistinguishable from 1 in practical applications. It's not the same by its definition though.
Anonymous No.16820087 [Report]
>>16812998
this might just be the dumbest logic i've ever heard
Anonymous No.16820093 [Report] >>16820107
>>16820070
No, they're exactly equal. The same.
Anonymous No.16820107 [Report] >>16820112
>>16820093
No.
Anonymous No.16820112 [Report]
>>16820107
Yes. Otherwise the additive identity fails.
Anonymous No.16820127 [Report] >>16820164
>>16812963 (OP)
If [math]0.\overline{999}\neq1[/math], surely you should be able to point out a third number between them, as you can for any two distinct real numbers?
Unless of course you're not talking about real numbers (or do not understand them) and we're talking past each other.
Anonymous No.16820164 [Report] >>16820177
>>16820127
by that logic is [math]4.\overline{999} = 5[/math]
Anonymous No.16820177 [Report]
>>16820164
Correct
Anonymous No.16820189 [Report] >>16820203
Y'all cowards won't even prove basic theorems with your identity in its 0.999... form.
Anonymous No.16820199 [Report] >>16820208
>>16812963 (OP)
this is what limits do btw, equally fake and gay approximations
Anonymous No.16820203 [Report]
>>16820189
It's algorithmic, there's no "probably." Your nth column starting from 8000.... is always 9 - n + n
Anonymous No.16820208 [Report] >>16820212
>>16820199
>approximations
The limit of an infinite sequence is a static value.
Anonymous No.16820212 [Report] >>16820214
>>16820208
yeah it was defined that way and is told is true just to deal with this problem. all fake and gay invented by cantor
Anonymous No.16820214 [Report]
>>16820212
>all fake and gay
This label applies to the entire field of mathematics.
Anonymous No.16820250 [Report] >>16820256
>>16819758
Newfags can't triforce
Anonymous No.16820256 [Report]
>>16820250

[math] \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \blacktriangle [/math]
[math] \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \blacktriangle \; \; \blacktriangle [/math]
[math] \blacktriangledown \; \; \blacktriangledown \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \blacktriangledown \; \; \blacktriangledown [/math]
[math] \; \; \blacktriangledown \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \blacktriangledown [/math]
[math] \; \; \blacktriangle \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \blacktriangle [/math]
[math] \blacktriangle \; \; \blacktriangle \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \blacktriangle \; \; \blacktriangle [/math]
[math] \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \blacktriangledown \; \; \blacktriangledown [/math]
[math] \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \blacktriangledown [/math]

[math] \text{ *space lasered* } [/math]
Anonymous No.16820376 [Report]
>>16813066
>just put a 5 at the end of a sequence with no end
Mental illness.
Anonymous No.16820384 [Report]
>>16814175
Are you retarded? You didn't do anything. You asserted that 0.9... is not a representation of 1 and if it's not then it's not. Your statement distilled is essentially just
>if true
It follows because how can it not?
Anonymous No.16820411 [Report] >>16820901
There are no nonzero infinitesimals in arithmetic. By asserting a zero followed by infinitely many nines you are constructing a specific hyperreal number however the notation 0.999... does NOT refer to that number. You are constructing a number that isn't allowed by the rules of arithmetic, simple as that.
You are invoking a very different type of infinity here, by saying the "last" 9 is after an unending sequence of 9s you are implicitly creating a number that you defined to be larger than any finite number and then ordering your 9 at that spot and that number is in fact the smallest ordinal number. By bringing transfinite numbers into arithmetic you are playing fast and loose with the rules and your expression is invalid because you're trying to evaluate two objects of different classes. What is the char 'c' + 17 equal to? Nothing, you can only parse it by casting the char using some arbitrary pattern.
When working with infinities you must take care to define exactly what you mean by "infinite" and if it applies to your problem or is it strictly excluded by definition. When you evaluate the "infinite" amount of 9s in 0.999... as a limit you do end up with a 1.
Anonymous No.16820486 [Report] >>16821351
>>16813054
Wrong.
All information can be encoded as a number in the range [0,1)
0.999... is just 1 and that's it.
/thread.
Anonymous No.16820658 [Report] >>16820700
>Effortlessly removes the need for obsessively arguing over this
Anonymous No.16820700 [Report] >>16820762 >>16821575 >>16822488 >>16823389
>>16820658
[math]\frac{1}{3} \neq 0.\overline{333}[/math]
Anonymous No.16820762 [Report] >>16820861 >>16822488
>>16820700
sure it isn't.
tell us what it is then
Anonymous No.16820777 [Report]
>16813056
>16813062
>16813066
>16814295
>16818957
>16819706
>16819707
>16819760
>16819761
>16819766
>16820127
>16820164
>16820700
You retards don't need to put three full repetends under your overline.
Anonymous No.16820861 [Report] >>16820868
>>16820762
[math]\fraction{1}{3} > 0.\overline{333}[/math] because [math]0.\overline{333} \times 3 = 0.\overline{999}[/math]
Anonymous No.16820868 [Report]
>>16820861
tell us what it is then
Anonymous No.16820901 [Report]
>>16820411
int main(){putchar('c'+17);}

>a.out
t
Anonymous No.16820984 [Report] >>16820990 >>16822200
>>16819041
I have the picture already made so I might as well post it. And if there was someone who genuinely believed that 0.999... wasn't 1, it would be interesting to talk to them about how real numbers work. I think schools do a bad job of covering this topic. But I didn't post for very long, and I agree the people posting this on /sci/ are almost entirely trolls.

Sometimes you get threads where the trolls are smarter and more knowledgeable than the midwits chiming in to correct them, and that can make for a fun thread. There was a good one a while ago where someone posted a definition of infinite decimals that made 0.999... undefined instead of equal to 1.

I don't see very many people in real life who insist that 0.999... = 1. Sometimes I see people who think 0.999... isn't 1, but they usually seem to accept that it is fairly quickly. I've seen more people stubbornly convinced of a fallacy in the opposite direction; they think that if you start with a positive number and repeatedly divide it by two, it will eventually reach zero.
Anonymous No.16820989 [Report] >>16820996 >>16821463
>>16812963 (OP)
0.999... is never completed as the dots prove. 1 is complete. Therefore, 1 =/= 0.999...
Anonymous No.16820990 [Report]
>>16820984
>they think that if you start with a positive number and repeatedly divide it by two, it will eventually reach zero.
but write "lim" and suddenly it does. LOL!
Anonymous No.16820996 [Report] >>16821184 >>16821349 >>16821463 >>16823520
>>16820989
Here's an example. Suppose you went to a restaurant where you're not allowed to eat until you've paid. If your bill is 1 and you decide to pay the bill by first paying 0.9 and then 0.09 and then 0.009, and so on, you would die before you could eat. Therefore, 1 is clearly not equal to 0.999...
Anonymous No.16821184 [Report]
>>16820996
what do you once you've paid 99 cents? check mate
Anonymous No.16821349 [Report]
>>16820996
[math]THIS-POST = true[/math]
Anonymous No.16821351 [Report] >>16821489 >>16823389
>>16820486
Because you said so, I guess.
You got a proof of that opinion?
Anonymous No.16821463 [Report]
>>16820989
>>16820996
0.9... is static.
It isn't a diesel engine chugging along.
Stop pretending finite is infinite.
Anonymous No.16821489 [Report] >>16821788 >>16821968
>>16821351
Anon, that is how arithmetic coding works:
> arithmetic coding encodes the entire message into a single number, an arbitrary-precision fraction q, where 0.0 ≤ q < 1.0.
Anonymous No.16821575 [Report]
>>16820700
the point is to avoid using decimels. instead of going:
[eqn]1\div3\approx0.\overline{33}[/eqn]
[eqn]0.\overline{33}*3=0.\overline{99}\approx1[/eqn]
Just use fractions and go
[eqn]1\div3=1/3[/eqn]
[eqn]1/3*3=3/3=1[/eqn]
Anonymous No.16821788 [Report] >>16823389
>>16821489
>look at this definition
Oh wow. You think you've established something. That's funny.
Anonymous No.16821968 [Report]
>>16821489
>Therefore, "0.10x" represents the interval [0.5,0.75) which is inside [0.5,0.83). Now we can leave out the "0." part since all intervals begin with"0." and we can ignore the "x" part because no matter what bit-sequence it represents, we will stay inside [0.5,0.75).
Wtafbs is this?!? You sure showed them, Arithmetical Coder!
Anonymous No.16822200 [Report]
>>16820984
>who insist that 0.999... = 1
*who insist that 0.999... <> 1
Anonymous No.16822488 [Report] >>16822494 >>16824823
>>16820700
>>16820762
What if it's none of those ?
Like :
1/3 = 0.333...4

0.99 - 0.65 = 0.34
0.999 - 0.665 = 0.334
0.999999 - 0.666665 = 0.333334

...and so one, you can say then :
0.999... - 0.666...5 = 0.333...4
0.999... - [0.5 + (0.1666...5)] = 0.333...4
0.999... - (0.5 + 1.5/9) = 0.333...4
0.999... - 0.5 - 1.5/9 = 0.333...4
0.4999... - 1.5/9 = 0.333...4
4.5/9 - 1.5/9 = 0.333...4
3/9 = 0.333...4
1/3 = 0.333...4

(it works with anything at the end...)
Anonymous No.16822494 [Report]
>>16822488
>works with anything at the "end"

0.1=10^-1
0.01=10^-2
0.001=10^-3
:
0.000...1=10^-inf=0
Anonymous No.16822547 [Report] >>16822583
>>16812963 (OP)
1 * 0.99& = 1 * 0.99&
divide both sides by 0.99&
ez
Anonymous No.16822583 [Report]
>>16822547
>>16812963 (OP)
?
0.99& * 1 = 0.99&
x * 1 = x
what times x = 1?
1
x = 1, 0.99& = x
Anonymous No.16823389 [Report]
>>16813497
>>16821351
>>16821788
>>16820700
Anonymous No.16823435 [Report]
[math]\left(\frac{9}{9}\right)^{0.999...}=0.999...[/math]
Anonymous No.16823520 [Report] >>16824128 >>16824130
>>16820996
Suppose Achilles is trying to catch a tortoise
Anonymous No.16824128 [Report]
>>16823520
LOL
Anonymous No.16824130 [Report] >>16824133
>>16823520
What's a tortoise?
Anonymous No.16824133 [Report] >>16824144
>>16824130
https://www.catster.com/lifestyle/tortitude-unique-personality-tortoiseshell-cats-fact-fiction/
Anonymous No.16824144 [Report] >>16824156
>>16824133
>behavior is 100% genetic and you can see it in their faces and coloring
My mother? I'll tell you about my mother.
Anonymous No.16824156 [Report]
>>16824144
https://www.smiling-kitty.com/what-is-a-tortoiseshell-cat/
It's much chicer to imagine Achilles chasing a tortoise cat around and also never catching it but with more interesting math.
Anonymous No.16824212 [Report]
>>16812963 (OP)
Exactly, try that at the cash register and find out reality real quick
Anonymous No.16824314 [Report] >>16824495
>>16812963 (OP)
so the issue is that the 0.333... was only arrived at to begin with because the ACTUAL number 1/3 cant be expressed cleanly in decimal notation. in other words, "one divided by three is a third, and three thirds add back up to one." its purely a notation thing.
Anonymous No.16824495 [Report]
>>16824314
that's what they don't get lol.

they kept hearing people say 99.9% about shit. Like yeah 99.9% leaves a .1. 99.999... is completely different. I may be wrong but I think this might contribute to their inability to understand. That's where they get this idea that there is some sort of "smallest sliver". Or perhaps they are just thinking about the smallest thing ever. Like, dude... what if the smallest thing ever?
Anonymous No.16824550 [Report] >>16824552
Mathematicians be like 0.999... = 1, and then in the same breath say that 100% might not happen lmfao
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely
Anonymous No.16824552 [Report] >>16824567
>>16824550
In mathematical formalism, 0.9999.... is almost surely equal to 1
Anonymous No.16824567 [Report] >>16824574
>>16824552
There's no probability involved
Anonymous No.16824574 [Report] >>16824578
>>16824567
What the probability the next digit is 9. Almost surely 1
Anonymous No.16824578 [Report] >>16824782
>>16824574
In the same way that 1 is a complex number.
Anonymous No.16824782 [Report]
>>16824578
It's such a complex number that we debate how to represent it. 1, 1.000000, 0.9999999 and so on
Anonymous No.16824823 [Report]
>>16822488
>0.333...4
stop with this shit already.
Anonymous No.16824856 [Report]
>>16812963 (OP)
I read the first 50ish comments and nobody posted the most basic simple proof. Don't feel like reading the rest of the thread so here:
x = 0.99999
10x = 9.99999
10x - x = 9.99999 - x
9x = 9.99999 - (0.999999)
9x = 9
x = 1
Anonymous No.16824888 [Report] >>16824891
The best explanation I heard of this was: «can you think of a number between 0.9 and 1.0?».
Any number would have an infinite number of zeroes before any significant digit, thus it would be equal to 0.
Basically it boils down to the identity principle:
[ eqn ] A - B = 0 \Longrightarrow A = B [ /eqn ]
There are also other fancier proofs but I think this one is the simplest.
Anonymous No.16824891 [Report] >>16824897 >>16824988 >>16825535
>>16824888
>Significant digit
Please explain how a digit greater than the countable number of stones in the universe could ever, in any way, be significant. You do know what a significant figure is, don't you?
Anonymous No.16824897 [Report]
>>16824891
well, you fee fee's are clearly utterly insignificant, so clearly that digit has greater import than your whack ass, more useful as well
Anonymous No.16824988 [Report]
>>16824891
It would NOT be significant because it doesn't exist. If there is an infinite number of zeroes it means you will never add that final digit.
If you could add that digit, then it would become significant since we are dealing with an hypotethical situation where we can afford infinitesimal precision.
Anonymous No.16825535 [Report] >>16825537
>>16824891
How many ways can you put 10000 stones in order?
Anonymous No.16825537 [Report]
>>16825535
10000! = 2.846E35659
Anonymous No.16827377 [Report]
Here's an intuitive proof.

> Any 2 numbers have infinite numbers between them.
> 0.9999... and 1 have exactly 0 numbers between them.
> Because they are the same number