/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.51704921]

0.9999999... = 1

[Anonymous No.51704935]

>he doesnt use a decimal type

[Anonymous No.51705030]

Or does it

[Anonymous No.51705031]

>>51704921
1 / 3 = 0.333..
3 x 0.333.. = 0.999..
0.999.. = 3 x (1 / 3) = 1

[Anonymous No.51705044]

>>51705031
based

>>51704921
dumb frogposter

[Anonymous No.51705060]

1/3 is an approximation of .33333..., Not an exact representation. Therefore, not true.

[Anonymous No.51705129]

>>51705060
False.

[Anonymous No.51705152]

>>51704921
>>>>/sci/

[Anonymous No.51705288]

it's not because otherwise you would just say 1
.9999... is missing an infinitely small amount, 1 is not, that's the difference, it's different, it is therefor not ==
suck my cock, fuck jannies and vote libertarian

[Anonymous No.51705676]

>>51705288

[Anonymous No.51705683]

0.99(9) = x
9.99(9) = 10x
10x - x = 9.99(9) - 0.99(9)
9x = 9
x = 1 = 0.99(9), Q.E.D.

[Anonymous No.51705696]

>>51704921
2+2=5

[Anonymous No.51705718]

>>51705031
x=0.9999...
10x=9.9999...
10x - x=9.9999... - 0.9999...
9x=9
x=1

[Anonymous No.51705742]

>0.99
>not 1
>0.999
>not 1
>0.99999999
>still not 1
>0.999999999999999999999999999....
>1
>???

[Anonymous No.51705770]

>>51705742
but .999... is equal to one because I said 9.999.. is equal to 10 so there
debunked

[Anonymous No.51705772]

>>51705031
1/3 does not equal 0.3..., 1/3 can't be written as a decimal number in base ten because 10 is not divisible by 3. And 0.9... doesn't equal 1.

[Anonymous No.51705773]

>>51704921
Infinity isn't real.

[Anonymous No.51705774]

>>51705742
The others can be expressed as fractions, whereas the only fraction that can express the infinitesimal 0.999999... (using real numbers) is 1/1.

[Anonymous No.51705775]

>>51705031
You are wrong because 1 / 3 is not computationally divisible.
All the "proofs" that say 0.999... = 1 use this fallacy

what you should be using instead is a limit and real analysis in a real number line.

[Anonymous No.51705788]

Does .9 = 1? No? Does .99 = 1? No? Does .999 = 1? No? ..... so on and so forth

Checkmate atheists

[Anonymous No.51705789]

>>51705775
You can use a geometric progression to prove it too, you don't need analytic proofs.

[Anonymous No.51705800]

>>51705774
>.9999.... is equal to 1 because I say 1/1 is equal to .9999... so there I win
lol
decades later and these brainlets still exist

[Anonymous No.51705806]

>>51705676
>t. can't into simply Calculus limit math
Kys brainlet.

[Anonymous No.51705812]

>>51705774
still not 1, using fractions to represent is math tricks to cope

[Anonymous No.51705816]

>>51705800
False equivalence. Same mistake you made in your other reply.

[Anonymous No.51705838]

>>51705806
>projecting this hard

[Anonymous No.51705842]

>>51704921
No is not.
so 1-0.999...=0?? If I divide somethings infinitely (in theory) it just stops existing?

[Anonymous No.51705845]

>>51705696
And that's a good thing!

[Anonymous No.51705867]

>>51705789
"geometric progression"
literally a visual computation
My point stands. Stop using this fallacy

[Anonymous No.51705875]

>>51704921
if you round it, sure
and 10 = 5 too if you round to the nearest tens place

[Anonymous No.51705876]

>>51705789
You can calculate the value of an infinite series as the end upper bound approaches infinity. That doesn't make 0.3... equal 1/3. It just means as you add another 3 you will approach 1/3.

[Anonymous No.51705882]

>>51705842
In calculus, it depends on the situation, but yes.

[Anonymous No.51705902]

>>51705288
if this was a function the 1 would be a limit because it would get closer and closer to one without ever reaching it

[Anonymous No.51705909]

>>51705867
It's a hard computation because the ratio in this case is less than 1, 1/10 to be precise.

[Anonymous No.51705930]

>>51705842
0.999... = (9/10) + (9/100) + (9/1000) + ....
So 0.999... = 1
It's just how infinite summation works.

[Anonymous No.51705941]

>>51705876
Well yeah, because it converges to 1/3. You'd be right if the series diverged.

[Anonymous No.51705945]

2-1 = 1

weird how I got 1 and not .99999999999999999999...

fucking strange that
guess I just debunked all of you because I made a simple calculation
let me do another
3-2 = 1
whoa
again
I did not get .999.....
double debunked

[Anonymous No.51705959]

>>51705930
Yep.

[Anonymous No.51705961]

>>51705902
It does reach it upon completion of the sum.

[Anonymous No.51705964]

>>51705842
yes, in limits algebra (i don't know how its called in english) if you do:
lim (1/x) you get 0+
x->+ inf

[Anonymous No.51705981]

>>51705945

[Anonymous No.51705983]

>>51705961
sum? what sum? there is no sum

[Anonymous No.51705993]

>Dude mathematics
Good job goys, keep falling for the science meme

[Anonymous No.51705997]

>>51705983
0.999... = (9/10) + (9/100) + (9/1000) + ....
which is just another way of writing "1".

[Anonymous No.51706002]

>>51705964
Exactly. Notice that it is +inf. Which is why I said it is true sometimes.

[Anonymous No.51706008]

INFINITY DOES NOT EXIST. .999... DOES NOT EXIST. YOU CAN NOT PROVE INFINITY EXISTS THEREFORE YOU CAN'T PROVE 1/3 = .999... THEREFORE YOU CAN'T PROVE .999... = 1

[Anonymous No.51706014]

1 - .5 = .5

.9999..... - .5 = .4999999......

.49999......... ~= .5

1 != .99999....

QED

[Anonymous No.51706016]

>>51705961
nigger if you cannot use infinity. You have to use a limit that approaches infinity. In other words, the series is short of 1 by a number, hence 0.9999...

[Anonymous No.51706026]

>>51705875
>>51705945
"0.999..." and "1" are two representations of the same number.

[Anonymous No.51706054]

>>51706026
but they're not
.999.... has an infinitely small missing amount
1 does not
they are not the same number

[Anonymous No.51706059]

>>51706016
False. The sum of {9/10^i} as i goes to infinity is exactly 1.

[Anonymous No.51706061]

>>51705997
what? that number will never reach one, it will be infinitely close but never 1, its actually an infinity of a lesser order of the one of the natural numbers

[Anonymous No.51706068]

>>51704921
Go back to >>>/sci/

[Anonymous No.51706070]

>>51706014
4.99999... = lim(1/x) + 4
x->+inf

4.99999... = 5

As x approaches positive infinity.

[Anonymous No.51706076]

>>51706054
>>51706061
False. The sum of {9/10^i} as i goes to infinity is exactly 1.

[Anonymous No.51706078]

>>51706026
right if you round, and so are 5 and 10, like I said rounding to the tens place

[Anonymous No.51706099]

>>51705941
googled it and... you're right

[Anonymous No.51706102]

>>51706078
False. "5" and "10" represent distinct integers. ".999..." and "1" represent the same integer.

[Anonymous No.51706103]

>>51706076
what is i in your operation?

[Anonymous No.51706104]

>>51706070
Forgot to write but it's the limit of a sum. I am sure you guys got it though.

[Anonymous No.51706116]

1.00000....1 = 1 if .9999... = 1

which means .999.... is = 1.000...1

which means .99999...8 is = 1.00000...2
which means 1 = 2

which means 0 = 5
which means -500 = 58238

[Anonymous No.51706122]

>>51706076
>>51706103
ah nevermind

[Anonymous No.51706123]

>>51706102
not if you round they dont, in a rounded result set the data becomes 10 and 10, clearly youre a low iq.

[Anonymous No.51706135]

>>51706059
Nigger, calculate it by hand if you think so. You have to use a limit

[Anonymous No.51706142]

>>51706076
so you say that 9/inf = 1?

[Anonymous No.51706171]

>>51706103
An integer greater than zero.

>>51706123
Rounding is a function that transforms one number to another number. So completely irrelevant.

>>51706142
"inf" is not an integer

[Anonymous No.51706173]

>>51706142
No. What he means is that in a geometrical progression where the ratio is between 0 and positive 1, that specific infinite sum is 1.

[Anonymous No.51706182]

>>51706171
Infinity resides in the integer line retard

[Anonymous No.51706186]

is 1 = 1.0

that's what this debate is
literally

[Anonymous No.51706198]

>>51706182
False.

[Anonymous No.51706254]

>>51706076
Maybe learn some formal math instead of going by what youtubers say to impress normies.

[Anonymous No.51706273]

>>51706008
Only sane anon in this thread

[Anonymous No.51706286]

>>51706198
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...
This is the integer set and has a cardinality of infinity. Basic discrete maths.

[Anonymous No.51706290]

>>51705031
You're retarded
1 / 3 == 0.3333.....
by definition means
3 x 0.3333..... == 1

[Anonymous No.51706303]

>>51706173
if its a geometrical succession then yes the sum of all parts is 1 but that its completely another field of mathematics

[Anonymous No.51706328]

>>51706254
False. Those are the same functions.

>>51706286
The set of integers does not contain "infinity" as a member.

[Anonymous No.51706332]

1+2+3+4+5+...=-1/12

[Anonymous No.51706336]

>>51706303
Maths is maths unless you are talking about different types of algebra, which isn't the case.

[Anonymous No.51706385]

>>51706332
This is a whole other story however...

[Anonymous No.51706386]

>>51704921
Based

[Anonymous No.51706400]

>>51706336
But limit algebra is a different camp from classical algebra and i was talking about that

[Anonymous No.51706421]

>>51706386
kek

[Anonymous No.51706440]

>>51706328
>The set of integers does not contain "infinity" as a member.
The cardinality of the integer line is infinity
>False. Those are the same functions.
Wrong because you cannot compute an infinite sum

[Anonymous No.51706454]

>>51706440
>The cardinality of the integer line is infinity
Irrelevant. You used the expression "9/inf" which is not an integer since infinity is not an integer.

>Wrong because you cannot compute an infinite sum
Of course you can.

[Anonymous No.51706469]

>>51706454
>Of course you can.
add 1 + 2 + 3 +...
and show me all additions done by hand or a computer

[Anonymous No.51706497]

>>51705964
>0+
which is typed like that, because its not 0..

[Anonymous No.51706527]

>>51706469
The infinite sum of integers>0 [1+2+3+...] is not an integer.
The infinite sum of 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000... is the integer 1.

This is basic high school mathematics.

[Anonymous No.51706547]

>>51706171
youre rounding too
0.999... = 1 is true when rounded
0.999... < 1 is true when unrounded

[Anonymous No.51706551]

If 0.999... = 1 then that means the number right before 0.999... (0.999...8) = 0.999...

You can keep inching back one by one until 0.999...0 = 0.999...

then one more means 0.999...89 = 0.999...

keep going allll the way until 0 = 1

[Anonymous No.51706554]

>>51706547
False.

[Anonymous No.51706565]

>>51706527
Faggot go add all the number together and prove it. Dont use a limit to get around it. Make infinite additions and prove it or my point stands that you need a limit.

[Anonymous No.51706629]

>>51706554
true, learn the definition of rounding

[Anonymous No.51706631]

JKaC8gVg is right the other anon is a midwit npc faggot

[Anonymous No.51706746]

>>51706551
>0.999...8
No such number.

>>51706565
>>51706629
>>51706631
>t. literal retards

[Anonymous No.51706751]

1/3 is just 0.4 in based duodecimal system
decimal faggots only have 10 IQ

[Anonymous No.51706767]

>>51706746
>LITERALLY USES A LIMIT
Thanks for proving me right retard
0.9999. approaches but it is not 1

[Anonymous No.51706770]

>>51705031
>0.333..
except it's 0.(3) not 0.3333..

[Anonymous No.51706794]

>>51706565
>>51706767
>Dont use a limit to get around it.
Imagine being this retarded and clueless.

[Anonymous No.51706822]

>>51706794
>>51706254
You just posted what I posted half an hour ago.

[Anonymous No.51706835]

>>51706822
Nope. You literally posted the negation of what I posted.

[Anonymous No.51706846]

>>51706746
>No such number.
Then there aren't infinite numbers.

[Anonymous No.51706864]

>>51706835
you proved yourself that you are a midwit

[Anonymous No.51706868]

>>51704921
>0.9999999... = 1
we have the same youtube shorts suggestions apparently. saw this yesterday.

[Anonymous No.51706876]

>>51706846
We're not talking about "infinite numbers".

>>51706864
You proved yourself to be clinically retarded.

[Anonymous No.51706894]

Nope

[Anonymous No.51706895]

>>51706746
again you can say 2 different numbers are the same but youre rounding. I have no issue of rounding the infinites place but surely you cant be so stupid as to think youre not rounding here

[Anonymous No.51706898]

>>51706876
>Im... Im not a midwit, you are

[Anonymous No.51706899]

nothing like a random math hypothesis to make spergs argue with each other

[Anonymous No.51706936]

>>51706895
or to put it another way, anon please explain the distinction between the 2 numbers, and if there is none why do you distinguish them in written form

[Anonymous No.51706938]

>>51706895
>2 different numbers
They are not two different numbers, that's the point. "1", "1.0" and "0.999..." are three representations of exactly the same number. Rounding plays no role in this discussion.

[Anonymous No.51706953]

>>51706938
1 versus 1.0 have nothing to do with this. again see >>51706936

[Anonymous No.51706959]

>>51706898
You are not a midwit, you are clinically retarded. "Midwit" would imply an IQ around 100, which is twice yours.

[Anonymous No.51706995]

>>51706936
>>51706953
All numbers have infinitely many written representations. 2+3=5=3+2, etc

[Anonymous No.51707046]

For anons new to math ignore midwits itt. If you know basic calculus this should be straight forward.

[Anonymous No.51707083]

>>51707046
"0+" is not a number. Making up your own special notation is not helping you, nutball.

[Anonymous No.51707098]

>>51707083
>The number that is after 0 is not a number

[Anonymous No.51707135]

>>51707098
>The number that is after 0
There is no such real number. The limit you highlighted is equal to exactly zero, not "zero plus" - whatever that's supposed to be in your deranged imagination.

[Anonymous No.51707137]

>>51704921
Proof that 2 = -1

A=B
A^2 = B^2
A^2 - B^2 = B^2 - AB
(A+B)(A-B) = -B(A-B)
A+B = -B
2B = -B
2 = -1

[Anonymous No.51707152]

>>51706894
Explain this, odm3/MW1

[Anonymous No.51707180]

>>51706894
>overestimate value
>take a step that doesn't make the overestimated value approximate the value
>repeat step to infinity
>overestimated value did not approximate the value

woah wtf???

[Anonymous No.51707235]

IQ test:
What is the difference between 0.999... and 1?

[Anonymous No.51707236]

>>51704921
>bail out banks
>bail out pension schemes
>bail out SMEs
>bail out utilities
WTF why doesn't capitalism works

[Anonymous No.51707237]

>>51707152
You can't make a circle by flipping corners on a square in the way described. The sum will always be exactly 4, not pi.

[Anonymous No.51707241]

>math
lol fucking nerds

[Anonymous No.51707245]

>>51707135
>>The number that is after 0
>There is no such real number.

[Anonymous No.51707262]

>>51707245
Basic property of the reals, smoothbrain.

[Anonymous No.51707275]

>>51707135
>>51707083
>>51706995
>>51706959
>>51706938
>>51706876
>>51706835
>>51706794
>>51706746
>>51707262
Just give up, man. You are humiliating yourself.

[Anonymous No.51707321]

>>51707275
>You are humiliating yourself.

Ironic coming from the imbecile who posted these gems:
>>51705842
>>51706273
>>51706631
>>51707152

[Anonymous No.51707359]

>>51704921
0.999999 = 1
9999999 = 10000000
9999999+9999999 = 10000000+10000000
n * 9999999 = n * 1000000
n * 9999999 + 0 = n * 9999999 + n
0 = infinity

[Anonymous No.51707369]

>>51707262
>The real number line is not continuos

[Anonymous No.51707414]

>>51706386
>>51707275
On one hand, you're technically right, on the other went to a non-math board and acting like its retard for someone not to know obscure notations.

Its like asking if grey = gray. And someones says well one has an 'e' in stead of an 'a.' And you like NO RETARD LMAO THEY ARE THE SAME COLOR HURURRRR I'M SUPERIOR!!!11

[Anonymous No.51707430]

>>51707369
Continuity means that between any two reals there is another real. Hence there is no "next real number after 0". You aching retard.

[Anonymous No.51707459]

>>51707414
>non-math board
It's not exactly higher mathematics. Anyone who graduated high school should know a basic fact like this.

[Anonymous No.51707475]

>>51707359
n = nigger ?
The it's 0 * 9999999 + 0

[Anonymous No.51707474]

>>51707430
why, yes

[Anonymous No.51707516]

>>51707359
Tbh you are stupid

[Anonymous No.51707517]

>>51707474
So you admit that "the number that is after 0" does not exist? The supposed number that you said the limit was equal to instead of zero (the actual sum)?

[Anonymous No.51707537]

>>51707517
The number between 0 and the number next to 0 is the number next to 0. This is why it approaches 0.

[Anonymous No.51707549]

>>51707516
fine i skipped a step because i forgot /biz/ is full of retards like you

0.999999 = 1
9999999 = 10000000
9999999+9999999 = 10000000+10000000
n * 9999999 = n * 1000000
n * 9999999 = n * (9999999 + 1)
n * 9999999 + 0 = n * 9999999 + n
0 = infinity

this proof is unassailable deal with it it's over

[Anonymous No.51707556]

>>51707537
>the number next to 0
There is no such real number, mong. You said so yourself: >>51707474

[Anonymous No.51707598]

>>51707556
>can rationalize an infinitely big number as infinity
>cannot rationalize an infinitesimal small number like the number next to 0
Peak midwit

[Anonymous No.51707619]

>>51707549
0.999999... = 1...
9999999... = 10000000...
9999999...+9999999... = 10000000...+10000000...
n * 9999999... = n * 1000000...
n * 9999999... = n * (9999999... + ...1)
n * 9999999... + ...0 = n * 9999999... + ...n
...0 = ...n
0 = n

okay now it truly is over math is broken forever go bakc and redesign it

[Anonymous No.51707631]

>the thread that broke /biz/

[Anonymous No.51707632]

>>51707598
It's not a matter of opinion or "rationalization". There is just no such thing as an "infinitely small real number".
Educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_real_numbers

[Anonymous No.51707640]

>>51707459
not the guy you were arguing with but thats not true. I graduated less than 5 years ago and we werent learning that. Although Maybe you weren't blessed to go through the american education system so you have a different reference point.

>you were in the slow classes

I did calculus, advanced physics and chemistry as an upper classman. we didn't learn this

[Anonymous No.51707658]

>>51707640
>I did calculus
Then you covered infinite series and sums.

[Anonymous No.51707727]

BREEDRR BRROALDDF BROOOOATTEGDLLPFFRRRRRRRRRFFR
*BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP*

[Anonymous No.51707941]

>>51707658
But not repeating decimals, which as far as I can tell have no standard definition. No one would ever use this notation to represent a number in real life, maybe in an academic setting or something if someone hasn't learned fractions yet. 0.9999... is meaningless, it could just be OP saying any number some finite amount of 9s but it is supposedly an infinite series, yet there is no standard for this notation.

[Anonymous No.51708085]

>>51707941
>repeating decimals, which as far as I can tell have no standard definition
Everything in math has a standard definition. A repeating decimal is defined as the sum of an infinite number of rational numbers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_representation

>0.9999... is meaningless, it could just be OP saying any number some finite amount of 9s
It's used online for repeating decimals since it's not possible or convenient to draw a horizontal line above the repetend.

[Anonymous No.51708125]

>>51706995
now you seem to get the concept of infinity but fail to realize the concept of the infinite decimal place. so to word it another way, if 0.999... is 1, then what is the infinite place decimal? is it a 9 or a 0? is 9 = 0 too?

[Anonymous No.51708170]

>>51708125
>the infinite decimal place
No such thing. Every decimal place is a positive integer.

[Anonymous No.51708233]

>>51708170
>>51708170
then youre arguing the semantics of the word repeating, so you cant have .999 repeating. if you agree thats what 0.999... means then you agree the term is: 0 decimal 9s repeating, for a disclosed amount of time which is infinite. again with your attempt to represent 1.0 as 0.999... without claiming rounding. youd be better off just claiming 0.999... doesnt exist if the infinite decimal place doesn't exist neither could the number 0.999...

[Anonymous No.51708309]

>>51708233
None of what you wrote makes a lick of sense. Read these resources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_representation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_real_numbers

The first presents dozens of rigorous proofs that .999... is indeed exactly equal to 1.

[Anonymous No.51708326]

>>51705288
you missed the lecture on the difference between accuracy and precision.

[Anonymous No.51708448]

>>51708309
>i dont speak english
k
yes and like I said 5 is exactly equal to 10 if you round to the tens decimal place

[Anonymous No.51708551]

>>51708448
>yes and like I said 5 is exactly equal to 10 if you round to the tens decimal place

[Anonymous No.51708899]

>>51708309
Midwit: The post.

[Anonymous No.51708944]

>>51708899
>understanding mathematics makes you a midwit
yikes

[Anonymous No.51709478]

>>51708944
W bait, ngl I fell for it

[Anonymous No.51709540]

>>51708551
>hurr durr im just writing it a fancy way but really the repeating 9s are 0s and the number starts with a 1 before the decimal not a 0. but hurr durr its the same because 1 is 0 and 0 is 9.

[Anonymous No.51709574]

>>51704921
This implies that 0.00….1 = 0 Which is not true. Kys. Fuck limits.

[Anonymous No.51709607]

>>51709478
You're literally calling Euler and Gauss "midwits", windowlicker.

[Anonymous No.51709618]

>>51706386
>ininite

[Anonymous No.51709621]

>>51709574
>0.00….1
No such number, moron.

[Anonymous No.51709647]

>>51704921
So this is the power of a masters in mathematics

[Anonymous No.51709670]

>>51709621
this
>>51709574
retard

[Anonymous No.51709677]

>>51709621
sure there is just take 1 and subtract 0.999...

[Anonymous No.51709688]

>>51705031
Wrong. 3*.333... = 1

[Anonymous No.51709690]

>>51704921
0.1 + 0.2 = 0.30000000000000004

[Anonymous No.51709717]

>>51709677
1 - 0.999.. = 0

[Anonymous No.51709747]

>>51709717
1 - 0.999... = 0.000...0001

[Anonymous No.51709760]

>>51709747
> 0.000...0001
No such number.

[Anonymous No.51709791]

>>51709747
An infinitely long decimal has no final digit, by definition. If it had a final digit, it would be a finitely long decimal.

[Anonymous No.51709862]

>>51709791
>no final digit
lol schrodingers digit. it just shows youre a midwit. because if 0.999... is 1.000... then the final digit is 0, this is known, whether you write it 1, 1.0, 1.00, 1.000, etc.

[Anonymous No.51709963]

>>51709862
>t. literal retard
Numbers don't have digits, numerals (decimal representations) do. You are confusing a linguistic expression with its numerical referent. A given number can be represented by a numeral with any number of digits - 1, 2, 3, ... or infinitely many, depending on the numeral system and other factors.

[Anonymous No.51709999]

>>51704921
I only use fractions, so this is not my problem, decimalfaggot.

[Anonymous No.51710001]

>>51709963
sure thing bud except for the infineth decimal place which cant be represented by a digit even in the case of 1.00...00, we cant possibly know its a 0

[Anonymous No.51710016]

>>51710001
>infineth decimal place
No such thing.

[Anonymous No.51710025]

>>51710016
then there's no such thing as 0.999...

[Anonymous No.51710031]

How does this truth affect future blockchain projects?

[Anonymous No.51710038]

>>51710001
That infinitely small decimal place separating 0.999... from 1 is infinitely small. A number divided by infinity = 0. So if the difference between 1 and 0.999... is 0, they must be equal.

[Anonymous No.51710054]

>>51710025
Of course there is. There are infinitely many integers but infinity is not an integer.

[Anonymous No.51710088]

Guys quick I need the square root of 2 in decimal format or my mom's going to kick me out of the house!

[Anonymous No.51710135]

>>51710054
for 0.999... to exist, 0.00..001 must exist, where it is defined as the difference between 1 and 0.999... the opposite of what this anon says >>51710038
youre claim is a number thats defined as approaching 1 at an infinitely close rate is 1, then that number isn't approaching anything as the number 1 is a set amount, not an approaching rate. at any given snapshot in time 0.999... has still not reached 1 by definition of approaching, thus youre left with in that given snapshot the final digit is always 9, and it ends at in this example of a snapshot 0.99999. thats why its a concept and not real because the implications of the word approaching means it never approaches. this is really quite simple.

[Anonymous No.51710272]

>>51710135
It exists and it's equal to 0

[Anonymous No.51710283]

>>51710135
The thing it that it's not approaching in time, it's already the full infinite sequence that you're considering

[Anonymous No.51710316]

>>51710135
>for 0.999... to exist, 0.00..001 must exist
Wrong. "0.00..001" is nonsensical since it implies that an infinite sequence has a final member.

>defined as the difference between 1 and 0.999...
That is 0, by definition.

>youre claim is a number thats defined as approaching 1 at an infinitely close rate is 1
No I'm not. You are writing literal gibberish.

>then that number isn't approaching anything as the number 1 is a set amount, not an approaching rate. at any given snapshot in time 0.999... has still not reached 1 by definition of approaching, thus youre left with in that given snapshot the final digit is always 9, and it ends at in this example of a snapshot 0.99999.
All of this is literal gibberish.

>thats why its a concept and not real because the implications of the word approaching means it never approaches. this is really quite simple.
Nothing is literally "approaching", there is no "time" or "snapshots". Mathematics is eternal. It is eternally true that

ar + ar^2 + ar^3 + ... = ar/(1−r) for |r| < 1

Euler proved this in 1770. It follows that:

9*(1/10) + 9*(1/100) + 9*(1/1000) + ... = [9*(1/10)]/[1-(1/10)] = 1

You must have dropped out of school if you don't know such basic facts. But even a high school dropout could figure it out if they had an ounce of logical reasoning ability, which you clearly don't.

[Anonymous No.51710362]

all of this is just mental masturbation that academics in the math field come up with to circle jerk around. imagine trying to explain your limits to me and why 1+1 = 2 while i am kicking your teeth in nerd

[Anonymous No.51710404]

>>51710362
You wouldn't be communicating on the internet with a computing device without mathematics, dumbshit.