/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9531805
But I'm just doing my part to stop global warming...

Let us define the decimal of 1/3 as small s

(A) [s×1] 0.333r3 × 3 = 0.999r9
(B) [s×2] 0.666r6 × 3 = 1.999r8
(C) [s×3] 0.999r9 × 3 = 2.999r7
(D) [s×4] 1.333r2 × 3 = 3.999r6
(E) [s×5] 1.666r5 × 3 = 4.999r5
(F) [s×6] 1.999r8 × 3 = 5.999r4
(G) [s×7] 2.333r1 × 3 = 6.999r3
(H) [s×8] 2.666r4 × 3 = 7.999r2
( I ) [s×9] 2.999r7 × 3 = 8.999r1

Upon truncating the repeating pattern in attempts to define the infinite sequence in finite time, we develop rounding errors within the decimal beyond (A) .
It can be agreed that (A) is closer to 1 than (B) is closer to 2, and how both are closer to their assumed ceiling than (C) is to 3. As we continue all the way to s×9, the rounding error now gives 8.999r1, which is 8 orders of infinity further from 9 than (A) is from 1.

The truncation process assumes an upper limit of infinity. The action is made even more futile when each increment of s requires an even greater order of accuracy, thus truncating the infinite sequence of 1/3 as s to satisfy s×3=1 will immediately cause rounding errors at s×4 that further increase in inaccuracy at every s×n beyond 4. Instead, s would need to be redefined at every step of the way to remove the rounding errors, yet s is always defined as the decimal of 1/3 as 0.333r3

the awful assumtion that 0.999r9 = 1 is not the worst issue here, rather instead that 0.333r3 must equal 0.333rN to eradicate rounding errors by truncation, which is the essential equivalent of saying 0.3333 = 0.333N, or 0.3 = 0.N, or 3 = N.
If 0.999r9 = 1, then 3 is equal to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9; and if 3 can be equal to any number, then any number can be equal to any other number.
If 1 = 3
and 5 = 3
then 1 = 5

To get 0.999r9 = 1, means to literally make any number equal to any other number, which is a false statement, therefore 0.999r9 cannot equal 1 as claiming otherwisr is also a false statement.