/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15966644
What level of explanation do you want? The simplest is to think about it in terms of what the "..." means.

Look at 1.0-0.9 = 0.1, 1.0-0.99 = 0.01, 1.0-0.999 = 0.001, etc.

We can see that as the 9's continue, this difference between them gets smaller and smaller. As you allow the 9's to continue indefinitely, the difference between 0.999... and 1.0 approaches zero in the limit.

>>15966654
It gets infinitely smaller but that doesn’t mean it completely reaches 1? Idk maybe I’m just being a retard

>>15966644
I'm a low iq anon but if you try to subtract 0.999... from 1, you'll never find a digit to borrow from. So if neither number is bigger or smaller than the other number, they must be equal.

>>15966665
Never thought of it like that O_o

>>15966658
The essential idea here (and behind calculus in general) is that an approximation that gets infinitely close to the real thing is indistinguishable from it

>>15966658
What is the difference between 0.99... and 1?
Clearly, the supposed number: 0.00...1
You see, there is an infinite number of 0 between the zeroes and the 1.
Again, to reformulate it, this number "ends" in 1 after an "endless" amount of 0. This is logically nonsense.

>>15966644
if you fiddle with the numbers you can make 0.999... equal 1 and they are the same. But if you know what infinity means then they are not the same, to say 0.999... has infinite 9s means there is no end, the end being 1. It's an asymptote, which in any other case does not reach it's limit, only approaches it, infinitely

>>15966902
It's not an asymptote because it's not a function. It does not "approach" 1, it is a different notation of 1, like 2/2 or "1" in base 3.
I know you are enthusiastic about spreading the lingo you recently heard in a YouTube pop math video, but please keep it in your pants if you only manage to apply it wrongly.

Think of it this way, the difference 1 - 0.999... represents the money a gypsy owes you. In theory it exists, but in practice you're never getting it back.

>>15966644
1/3=0.333...
3x0.333...=0.999...
1=0.999...

>>15966936
>A simple proof by induction
where induction

>>15966936
>>15966939
There is no induction there.

No one except a very few brave souls are willing to admit that there are fundamental conceptual problems in mathematics. At the most basic level. In fact very few have the brains to understand these problems exist at all. The world of mathematics is full of mediocre smooth brains who just repeat everything like parrots and who have a total spastic meltdown if anyone questions the mainstream narrative.
But dont worry, sooner or later we will see someone who is the mathematical equivalent of an Einstein come along and turn the entire world of mathematics upside down.

>>15967019
Why do you think this can exist?

>>15967019
Do you believe ZFC is consistent? If so, what's wrong with studying stuff inside it? If not, do you have a proof? Do you think it could be formalized and verified in proof assistant program?

>>15966689
What if I zoom x10 for every additional 9 ?

>>15966644
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 3/3 = 1
1/3 = 0.333...
0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... = 0.999... = 1

>>15967036
You should be here >>15966202 but you're not so you're a limp dick

>>15967027
You mean why does this situation exist?
The vast majority of the population lack insight and the ability to think deeply about a subject. There are many competent people but being competent in a field is not the same as being insightful. Very few people can recognize deeper fundamental issues or arrive at new conceptual insights. That is why when we do get a Darwin, a Newton, or an Einstein it usually results in a major readjustment in the world view, which may take many decades to be absorbed.
Mathematics will remain in the state it is in now until a great mind replaces our understanding of it with a new system. Whatever that system is it will be an absolute mind fuck. At first. Then perhaps after a century or two people will look back at our present system with the same degree of incredulous disdain as rational people do today at things like Astrology, Flat Earth, and Creationism.

>>15967037
Doesn't matter if you zoom 10x, 1000x, or 1000000x. You'll still run into infinitely many 9s, no matter how small your "measuring stick"

>>15967062
What if you "zoom" in infinitely with an infinity small "measuring stick"?

>>15967066
If it was truly infinitely small, it would be indistinguishable from 0. You'd still find that you couldn't distinguish between 0.999... and 1, though

>>15967053
But can you explain a problem in math that doesn't work? They all work in my experience

>>15967078
If something is infinitely small then it is still something, it is not zero.

>>15967078
The difference of 1 and 0.999.... can't be calculated

>>15967084
No, just imagine the rent you pay to your mom to live in her apartment wtf.

>>15967083
In practice, like building bridges and firing missiles?
Yes, it all works. Sticking a bandage on a wound works too, it makes it stop bleeding.
In theory?
Does it not strike you odd that that the most simple mathematical constructions, like finding the circumference of a circle or the diagonal of a square results can never be absolutely measured with absolute precision? Giving an approximation, no matter how well the approximation may work for applications in the real world, is not an absolute precision answer.

>>15967084
This is the true nature of the low IQ wordthinker. They can’t collapse ‘two’ identical concepts together, as it would make logically sense, because you use different words to describe them.

>>15967093
>>15967114

>The world of mathematics is full of mediocre smooth brains who just repeat everything like parrots and who have a total spastic meltdown if anyone questions the mainstream narrative.

Here, have a cracker.

>>15967084
We're limiting ourselves to real numbers here. Dual numbers and infinitesimals don't count.
But if you truly believe that, why don't you try to come up with an example of an infinitely small real number that's nonzero? And since it's distinguishable from 0, then there should certainly be a number between it and 0... let's say half of it, for example. But in that case, it wouldn't be infinitely small since we're looking at a strictly smaller number right there

>>15967118
A thought-terminating cliche regarding supposed "rebellion against the system" does not an argument make. How about, instead, you offer one or two logical arguments, like I e.g. made here >>15966798.

>>15966644
Do you agree that if a and b are not equal, (a + b) / 2 (their average) must be between them without equaling either? What would that number look like in this case?

>>15966908
You're right, Sherlock. 0.999... on its own is not an asymptote. But if you write it as a function against how many decimals it has then look at the graph it looks a lot like an asymptote. Apologies if you're mind is totally blown from all my lingo, but I don't know another way to say asymptote

>>15966935
That's actually right though. For 2/3, calculators will round up the answer to 0.6667. Notice the last digit in picrel. For 0.999... it will round it up to 1, because 0.999... doesn't equal 1, it has to be rounded up. It only equals 1 because mathematicians have agreed upon it equalling 1 regardless of how illogical it is

A number equalling something it isn't. Why not just write 1 then. 1 = 1 so true
>BECAUSE IT JUST IS OK

>>15966644
first digits arent the same so its 2 different numbers

>>15966654
You're wrong. It has nothing to do with calculus. 0.9999... is exaclty one. It doesn't approach one in the limit or aomething like that.
1/3+1/3+1/3 = 0.9999... = 1
Stop being a retard online

[math] \displaystyle
0. \bar{0}1
= \lim_{n \to \infty} 0. \underbrace{0 \dots 0}_{n ~ \text{times}}1
= \lim_{n \to \infty}
\left [
\left (
\sum_{k=1}^n \dfrac{0}{10^k}
\right )
+ \dfrac{1}{10^{n+1}}
\right ]
=0
[/math]

>>15967449
please kill yourself please do everyone a favor and kill yourself

>>15966644
Just roll with it

>>15966644
It's called rounding, you'll learn it in the first grade once you get there
>>15966654
It approaches zero but it is never zero, so it never really equals one

>>15966644
It's 1 but not exactly, it's just large end of closed interval ( 0 ; 1> Excluding the one.

[eqn]\begin{align}
x &= 0.999... \\ 10x &= 9.999... \\ 10x - x &= 9.999... - 0.999... \\ 9x &= 9 \\ x &= 1
\end{align}[/eqn]

>>15967870
Now do it the other way around
x=0.999..
10x=9.999...
10x+x=9.999... + 0.999...
11x=10.9999....8
x=0.99998181....2
Not 1

>>15967884
>11x=10.9999....8
fail

>>15967890
If your proof only works in one scenario and fails in all others then it's not applicable and can be thrown in the trash, sorry

>>15966644
1/9 = 0.11111...
3/9 = 1/3 = 0.33333...
9/9 = 1 = 0.99999...

also
0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ... = lim (i->inf) sum(9*10^(-i)) = 9 * sum(10^(-i)) = 9 * 1/(10-1) = 1

>>15967884
you'd think people understand what "..." means

>>15967576
best one

I define
[math]X.000\ldots \cdot 10^{-N} = X \cdot 10^{-N}[/math]
[math]X.999\ldots \cdot 10^{-N} = (X+1) \cdot 10^{-N}[/math]
then define all other infinite decimals by lexicographic comparison.

If you object to this definition then explain yours.

>>15967897
>fails in all others
not if the 'others' are fucking wrong.

>>15967925
there's a 0.999... chance he's trolling.

>>15967931
who ft are you replying to

>>15967925
It means if you take an infinite array of numbers from 0.9 to 0.999... and terminated it at any point none of the numbers would equal 1

>>15967937
The OP question. It is true because I define it that way.

>>15967864
no, its exactly 1.
1 = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 0.333... + 0.333.. + 0.333... = 0.999...

>>15967933
>NOO IT'S NOT MY FLAWED HYPOTHESIS THAT'S WRONG IT'S EVERYONE ELSE
Your shitty "proof" relies on the assumption that 0.999... already equals 1, it doesn't prove anything, you're just asking to assume that it's already true and then make an equation around it, operating on a false premise

>>15967939
>infinite array
>terminate at any point
the point of infinity is that you dont terminate

>>15967948
And the point is also that no matter how far you go you will never reach 1 unless you shave off the extra and assume it is so

>>15967947
im not the guy who wrote that latex proof, shithead. here's your proof:
>>15967864

>>15967947
> Your shitty "proof" relies on the assumption that 0.999... already equals 1
No it doesn't. Quite the opposite in fact.

>>15967947
You failed math at primary school didn't you.

>>15967953
solve for 10x-2x then without assuming that 2x0.999... = 2

>>15967950
you will reach 1 if you go to infinity. that's what '...' means. cant believe people on this board have the math level of Zeno

>>15967961
no, you will just have an infinite amount of 9s

>>15967963
>infinite amount of 9s
in other words, 1

>>15967964
No, having a 4.999... inch doesn't make you 5 inches

>>15967965
salty pajeet detected

>>15967965
yes it does.
here, educate yourself

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Proposed_solutions

if you want to walk 1m you have to first walk 0.9m, then 0.09m, then 0.009m, and so on. according to your logic you can never walk 1m because you will be always stuck at 0.9999...999m which is bs

>>15967970
>if you want to walk 1m you have to first walk 0.9m, then 0.09m, then 0.009m
And you also have to walk the extra 0.1, 0.01 and 0.001m

>>15967960
But you aren't solving 10x-2x and have no reason to, so your argument is both pointless and redundant.

>>15967973
>walk the extra 0.1,
to walk the extra 0.1 you have to first walk 0.09, then 0.009, then 0.0009, ... which after an infinite amount of steps adds up to 0.1

>>15967965
fucker has never heard of a geometric series and tries to argue

>>15967977
So your proof doesn't work, got it
>>15967978
>to walk the extra 0.1 you have to first walk 0.09, then 0.009, then 0.0009
Yes, but the 0.1 does not disappear, so you can't just dismiss it
>which after an infinite amount of steps adds up to 0.1
No? The gap will increase with each addition not decrease, you don't get 2 if you multiply 0.9*2, nor will you get 2 if you multiply 0.999999999999999999*2 or 0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999.....
>>15967980
If you halve your steps each time you will never reach the end, retard, try putting a needle on a rail and moving it -1/2 distance each time, call me when you reach the end (hint:you won't)

>>15967990

>>15967994
>bro 2+2=5 if you don't count the 1

>>15967990
1. stop trying to treat infinity like a normal number, retard. 0.999... is not at all like 0.99999999999999999999...9999.

2. explain this then, shitbag
1/3 * 3 = 1
1/3 = 0.333...
0.333... * 3 = 0.999...
0.999... = 1

>>15967999
>1/3 = 0.333...
This is an assumption not a fact, if you take a rod that's 100 atoms long and divide it into 3 equal parts where does the 1 atom disappear to?

>>15968000
>1/3 = 0.333...
>This is an assumption not a fact
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

1/3 = 0,333... 1/3
2/3 = 0,666... 4/6
3/3 = 0,999... 9/9

>>15968005
>no proof
Case dismissed

>>15968007
>fail to understand division
>google smilingfermat.jpg
>hehe im such a retardpilled terrencehowardchad

>>15968013
>no proof
I'm glad you concede, but you don't have to cry about being wrong

>>15968013
thats decartes doe

>>15966689
What this guy said. The idea behind Newtonian calculus is to equate an "infinitely accurate approximation" with the exact value it approaches. I would recommend checking out some material regarding these definitions; it should help conceptually:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_function
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_of_a_function
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal

Once you're familiar with these topics, you're pretty much equipped to study Newtonian calculus. There are two main concepts, or branches, of this field: differential calculus and integral calculus.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_calculus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral

>>15967990
yo so what is 2*0.999..., genius?

>>15968032
Less than 2

>>15968041
'less than 2' is not a number. what number

>>15968049
0.999... is not a number, where does the 0.0...1 go?

>>15968057
into one of the nines obviously

>>15968032
0.9 x 2 = 1.8
0.99 x 2 = 1.98
..

>>15968081
what about 0.999...

>>15968057
there is no 0.0...1.
you cant have 0.(infinitely many 0s)1. thats not how infinity works

>>15966644
this shit again?

>>15968085
what about what ?
all i was saying that every iteration you add 1.8 to the last digit which always makes the number end in 8
8 + 1.8 = 9.8
9.8 + 0.18 = 9.98
and so on

>>15968102
>end in 8
0.999... doesn't end so how does 2 x 0.999...

>>15968111
You start solving from left and end up in a loop that just keeps occuring
if number like 0.999... would exists and you were to double it, you would double every digit independently
That gets you to 1.8 + 0.18 + 0.018 + 0.0018 ...
So you cannot just brush all that aside and say that 2 x 0.999... = 1.999... because every digit you double will turn last digit into 8 and "1.999..." would mean that the 8 has no value or meaning when it most definitely does
So even if 0.999... exists, 1.999... does not, because there is always the 8 while 999... means that there is not

>>15968122
if the 9 ends i get there can be 8 after
but if the 9 never ends where can the 8 be

>>15968131
idk, how can you double something that never ends other than it being never ending twice
but the whole shit is essentially this
1.8 + 0.18 + 0.018 + 0.0018 ...
and that means that this looplike process always has the 8 with it

I mean if we talk that "..." means exactly repeating and not only somewhat repeating

>>15968137
in "0.999..." that is
doubling that wont make sense to say "1.999..." because the "..." definition changes

>>15968137
check this out though
if you divide by 18 then it's 0.111… all the same and it's 1/9 so then if you remultiply by 18 it's 2 and you don't have to worry about the missing 8

>>15966644
Bro I failed precalculus two times due to a lack of proper teaching...and I can tell you that...0.999 is a decimal and equals 0.999

it's literally not 1. rounding up is a meme

>>15968147
>I failed
yup

>>15967990
t. limtard, dropped out at 9th grade

bump

>>15966644
Should this be merged with the sqt thread?

>>15966644
Two things are the same if there is no difference between them.

There is literally difference between 1 and 0.9999999....
There is no number that you get when subtracting one from the other.

>>15968274
this

>>15966798
that ain't really it my guy, that "1" is at the infinitieth position and so its 1*10(or whatever base you use)^-inf, but as you know negative exponents are just reciprocals, so that "1" in the infinitieth position is really just 1*(1/(10^inf)), but as we all know 10^inf=inf, as so we get that that "1" at the infinitieth place is really just 1*(1/inf), BUT as we know 1/inf=0, so that "1" is just 1*0=0, so it does not really mater, 1-(0.9...)=0 so 1=0.9...

>>15967053
>The vast majority of the population lack insight and the ability to think deeply about a subject
and you sure as hell are one of them

>>15968086
There is also no scenario where you have 0.999... and it equals 1, that's not how numbers work

>>15967961
>cant believe people on this board have the math level of Zeno
yeah, believe it or not there are niggas that pride themselves on exactly that, sad times, really

>>15968376
the scenario is called a “limit”
see here
simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics)

>>15968389
The limit is 1 and 0.999... is still smaller than that limit no matter how many 9's you throw there

>>15968405
the limit of what is 1?

>>15968405
0.999… means the limit

>>15968424
And it isn't 1, what's 1-0.999...?

>>15968436
0.000…

>>15968442
So 0.9+0.0=1?

>>15968447
= 0.9

>>15968468
Then how does 0.999...+0=1

>>15968474
because -0.999…+1=0.000… and you can just subtract the 1 from both side then multiply both side by -1

>>15966798
That is an opinion, that is not a valid argument.
You 7/8 apes love to dress your personal opinions as valid arguments.

>>15968494
>subtract the 1 from both side
There's only a 1 on one side

>>15968515
check this out
-0.999…+1=0.000…
-0.999…+1-1=0.000…-1
-0.999…=-1.000…
0.999…=1.000…

>>15966644
1/9 = 0.111
2/9 = 0.222
3/9 = 0.333
...
8/9 = 0.888
9/9 = 1

Infinitely close to 1 but still less than 1 would probably be notated like this, but I don't know of any math that would make use of that concept.

>>15968550
1-ε

>>15968558
Neat. Where does that come up?

>>15967460
You could say the same about 1+1=2. 1+1 is three characters, obviously it can't be the same as 2!

>>15968567
There are three different types of infintesimal, the ones in the surreal numbers, the ones in non-standard analysis, and the ones in synthetic differential geometry. None of them are connected to 0.999... .

>>15968539
Lol, disingenuous cheating faggot, -0.999...+1 already equals 0.000.., so what you are saying is
>0.000...=0.000...
>0.000...-1=0.000...-1
>-1=-1
You literally can't prove under any circumstance that a number less than n equals n without adding the difference at some point

>>15968550
Is 1.0000...1 = 1?

>>15968678
define exactly what you mean by 1.0000...1

>>15968685
infinite zeros followed by 1

>>15968689
nonsense

>>15968689
How does that make sense? Infinite means it does not end. Ever. How would that be followed by a 1. Please use your brain

>>15968723
Then 0.999... is always smaller than 1, since it goes on forever and never reaches it

>>15968739
wrong but at this point i suspect you are either 75iq or just trolling for kicks

>>15968749
>noo this infinity doesn't count because I said so!!

>>15967953
Ok, I know 0.999....=1, but your proof is still bullshit from a mathematical standpoint. Formally, you need to introduce axioms of Newtonian calculus in order to assert that the equivalence is true. If you want to say calculus is bullshit and don't want to learn it, you're free to steer clear and only deal with discrete mathematics, in which case, 0.999... is not equal to 1 because 0.999... is not a well-defined concept

>>15968775
Samefag here. To elaborate, most anons in this thread seem to be confused by concepts such as "infinite" and "continuous;" such is the topic of the thread. The aforementioned crank-ass proof relies on such concepts already being well defined and understood by the reader; hence, it is pointless to present to such an audience, and is more meant to be a quirky little "party trick" you discover when learning about the definitions of these words

>>15968790
If you walk infinitely how long will it take you to reach the end?
If 0.999... goes on infinitely how long does it take for it to reach 1?

>>15968619
>-0.999...+1 already equals 0.000..
correct, the rest follows from subtracting 1 from both sides and multiplying -1 to both sides. you'll get it as soon as you stop to think for a second, then you slap your forehead like "omg how did i not see it before"

>>15968814
But both sides are already the same number, you aren't proving anything besides 0=0

>>15968723
It's just one plus an infinitesimal. What he is getting at is every digit except for the one's place and the smallest conceivable one is a zero, and the two exceptions are ones. In other words "a number infinitely close to, but still greater than 1."
By your logic 0.999... couldn't exist because how could you have an infinite number of nines followed by another nine?
>>15968678
So no. ...0001.000... = 1
If any digit but the one's place is anything but zero it does not equal one.

>>15968739
I know you're trolling, but this is exactly where the fallacy comes from. People anthropomorphize numbers by acting like they are subject to time. The infinite series already is, so it is equal to its limit, and since nine is the largest digit its limit is 1.

>>15968436
>>15968370

>>15968837
correct

>>15969051
So if 0=0 and 1=1 then 0.999...=0.999...

>>15969094
also correct

>>15969102
Bullshit. If that's true then why doesn't x=x

>>15969106
it is also correct!

>>15969102
Therefore 0.999...=/=1 case closed, thank you for proving me right

>>15969120
false, check this out
1=0.999…
so
0.999…=1
by commute of equality

>>15969106
x = x
x+1 = x+1^-1
x+1^(2+0) = x+1^(2-1)
(x+2*1)^0 = (x+2)1^-1
1^-1 = 1 Therefore:
(x+2)^1 = 2x and
(x+2)^0 = x Therefore
2x = x Which is false

I can't believe it you're right

Choose $N > log_{10}(\frac{1}{\epsilon})$. Then $N > log_{10}(1)- log_{10}(\epsilon)=- log_{10}(\epsilon)$ by log division rule. Now, multiply the inequality by -1 then $-N<log_{10}(\epsilon)$. Exponentiate to the base 10 the inequality yield that $10^{-N}<\epsilon$. Since $n\geq N$, we have $-n\leq -N$, and so $|(1-10^{-n})-(1)|\leq |(1-10^{-N})-1|<\epsilon$. Hence, the limit of a_{n}=1-10^{-n} as n approaches infinity is 1.

>>15969123
> one equals less than one
Meth, not even once, or 0.999... times in your case

>>15969212
0.9...≮1

>>15969263
>still no evidence

>>15969282
[math]
\begin{align*}
0.9 &= 9*10^{-1} \\
0.99 &= 9*10^{-1} + 9*10^{-2} \\
0.99\ldots &= 9*10^{-1} + 9*10^{-2} + \ldots \\
&= 9 * \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 10^{-i} \\
&= 9 * \frac{1}{9} = 1
\end{align*}
[/math]

now fuck off

>>15966689
Physicist tier understanding of MATHS

>>15969339
>DOOD IF WE ASSUME THAT THE SUM OF ALL THESE NUMBERS IS 1 THEN IT'S ACTUALLY 1
fuck off, lol
guess what
0 is less than 1
therefore
any number which begins with 0 is de facto less than 1
get owned scrub

>>15969427
1/9 = 0.111...
+
8/9 = 0.888...
=
9/9 = 0.999...

>>15969449
Yes, 9/9 = 0.999..., not 1

>>15969475
behold, magic:
123456789/999999999=0.(123456789)...

>>15969475
>9/9 is not 1
thanks for the laughs

>>15969339
>[math] \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 10^{-i} = \frac{1}{9} [/math]
Not true.

>>15969509
>define 9/9 as 0.999...
>call it 1
Wow, truly genius, amazing proof, if we just call it something else then it is that thing, you've really sold me

>>15969629
>0.1+0.8 is not 0.9
lol

>>15969489
behold, magic
123456789/1000000000=0.123456789
therefore 1 = 1000000000
>>15969667
Yes, it is, but it is not 1, 9/9ths of 1 is not 0.999.., it is 1

>>15969670
>0.01+0.08 is not 0.09
lol

>>15969674
Still not seeing a 1 there, sorry

>>15969677
>0.001+0.008 is not 0.009
lol

>>15969679
Nope, still not 1, you can keep on going forever but you will never reach it, sorry

>>15966644
It's true because it doesn't [math]1.000...[/math]. Either you get it or you don't and you have already failed. Don't pretend otherwise just because I gave you the answer now, society WILL collapse if you do so!

>>15969722
>keep on going
lol, you think it's a little choo-choo train chugging along?
"0.999..." means infinite 9s, all infinite of them are there from the get go.
You just don't grok the difference between finite and infinite. Like a little child. Bless your heart.

>>15966654
(Lowest real number above ZERO) = 0
Simple as

t. literal retard
>>15966644

>>15966644

The rounding is done more out of convention than actuality.

>>15969735
>he thinks infinite means power without rather than power within - what a foolpop

>>15970183
ITT: retards submit their mind's value to simple math

Co e on

>>15970183
The only way to achieve power without end is through a machine of some sort. That's a system. Infinity is a set of power within forever and ever. Systems are higher than sets so power without is truly greater than infinity.

>>15969735
Yes, infinite 9s, ergo it never reaches 1, sorry sweatie, you lost

>>15970227
>let's pretend finite is infinite
lol idiot

>>15970281
Yes, youre right, finite is not infinite, therefore 0.999...=/=1 because one is infinite and the other is not

No proofs that rely on multiplying or subtracting infinite series are satisfactory for anyone but absolute idiots. Are we just going to assume that it's legal and sane to subtract [math] 9.999 \ldots [/math] from [math] .999
ldots [/math]? Insane. Someone needs to prove that series convergence even exists and exactly when it does. All these proofs eventually rely on convergence in a very hand-wavy way, otherwise you are just positing that an infinite series has a finite value with no justification.

No proofs that rely on multiplying or subtracting infinite series are satisfactory for anyone but absolute idiots. Are we just going to assume that it's legal and sane to subtract [math] .999 \ldots [/math] from [math] 9.999 \ldots [/math]
? Insane. Someone needs to prove that series convergence even exists and exactly when it does. All these proofs eventually rely on convergence in a very hand-wavy way, otherwise you are just positing that an infinite series has a finite value with no justification.

There are like 5 different tests you can use to determine if a series converges. This tells me that it's not trivial to know if a series converges and there are different *ways* that a series can converge.

>>15970337
What's hand-wavy about it? You either can or can't show that a series gets arbitrarily close to a limit.

>>15970342
Have you spent any time actually looking into how series convergence and functions of convergent series are handled analytically? You seem to be very into the idea that these proofs aren't analytically rigorous, but don't seem to really understand what you are even looking for.

Yes, there are different tests for convergence for different kinds of series. All of these tests rely on different assumptions and there are, in fact, different ways for a series to converge (e.g., absolute convergence vs. non-absolute/marginal convergence). This doesn't mean that an operation applied to a convergent series is now suddenly invalid. You have to think a little bit more about when an operation would change the convergence properties of a series. In this case, multiplication of a convergent series by a finite scalar number doesn't change it's convergence, it just scales what it converges to (by linearity of addition as an operator).

>>15970342
.99... converges absolutely by the ratio test, and so does 9.99...

>>15970292
>one is infinite
sure it is, and two is even bigger.
Your Fields medal is in the mail

>>15970469
>still no proof
Pathetic lol

>>15970622
What axioms and definition of the reals would you accept?

>>15970635
[math] \infty \notin \mathbb{R} [/math]

>>15970622
projection, the post

>>15970635
Prove to me that x-y=x for any nonzero value of y

>>15970815
It doesn't. Have you heard of dedekind cuts? .9999999... and 1 both define the same dedekind cut.

>>15970966
>if we just call it 1 then it is 1

>>15971002
Do you have a better way to define real numbers?

>>15971036
0.999... is not a real number

For every Y is an X

For every 0.9 + 0 is a 1.0

The correct answer is 0.99999r equals 1.0 but specifically 1.0, so it would abstract itself from the **pure** unit 1.

>>15971055
For every 0.9 + 0 is a 1.0 - 0.1

Corrected.

>>15971051
What is it then if it's not a real number?

>>15971077
It's a real number approaching numberlessness until it resets itself ahead of time.

>>15971096
Or systemlessness.

Corrected.

>>15971077
Anon I seriously doubt you have a ruler with a length of 9.999... in real li-.. nevermind, I guess God didn't give you a sense of humor when he made you, anyway, you already proved me correct by admitting that it is your math which is flawed and the notion of 0.999...=1 only works in a specific framework when you just handwave away the flaws and assume that 0.999...=1 without any mathematical proof, if you were to say that 0.999...≈1, then it would be agreeable, but saying that 0.999... is equal to 1 is flawed, not applicable and can be thrown into the trash

>>15970644
its already not there, what's your point?

>>15971051
it exist in the rationals, and the reals are an extension of the rationals that contain everything the rationals do and more, so yeah, 0.9... is a real number

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

>>15971101
I think you are confusing me for another person you are responding to.

In any direction, your concept that 0.999... is an approximation doesn't make sense because the size of the approximation error would be zero. If by "it only works in a specific framework" you mean the framework of modern mathematics with real numbers, metric spaces and limit points, then yes. It only works in this framework, which, conveniently, happens to be the framework that has been used nearly universally for the last 200 or so years. If you have an "alternative framework" in which 0.999... doesn't equal 1, I'd like to hear you elaborate it.

>>15971182
>the size of the approximation error would be zero
1-0.9=0.1
1-0.99=0.01
1-0.999=0.001
Repeat until infinity, not 0

>>15971182
Invoking approximation error just furnishes the proof outright that it doesn't equal 1, you're not supposed to do that because if .999... is in any sense composed of the digits then it can never reach 1.

You just assert that there's an actually infinite number of 9s, that's enough

>>15971206
>>15971209
The difference you are both pointing to is the size of the smallest positive real number upper bounded by zero. Unless you are using a nonstandard analysis framework (in which case your entire concept of continuity and differentiability is different), you are talking about an infinitesimal which has a measure of 0. In standard real analytic frameworks, a.k.a what 99.999% of modern mathematics uses, if the absolute difference between two numbers is zero (or bounded above by zero) then those two numbers are equivalent representations of the same number.

>>15971251
>1-0<1
Damn, if this is the best modern mathematicians can come up with then the world really is doomed

>>15971173
what rational number is [math].999 \ldots [/math]? That's not a number.

>>15971251
>smallest positive real number upper bounded by zero
You mean 0? You are basically just assuming that .999...=1 and doing circles.

The best framework for this problem is treating .999... as a geometric series and noticing that it converges to 1. That's it. I think people need to start placing greater emphasis on series convergence.

>>15970815
check this out
with
> [a] 0.000...=0
> [b] 1-0.999...=0.000...
if
> x=1
> y=(1-0.999...)
then is
>1-(1-0.999...)=1
?
by [b]
>1-0.000...=1
by [a]
>1-0=1
!

>>15971654
>>15971654
>>1-(1-0.999...)=1
>?
>by [b]
>>1-0.000...=1
Prove to me that 1-0.999.. is 0

>>15971684
[b] -> [a]

>>15971693
>it just is that number because it is okay

>>15971697
what don't you get about [b] or [a] or transitive prop.?

>>15971701
What don't you get that for every ...9 you add to the end there's another .0...1 waiting for you which you need to add to turn that row of 9's into 1, right? Your fallacy simply handwaves away this difference and calls it a day, yes, you can write 0.000... endlessly, but 0.999...+0.000... is not 1, you will never reach the .0...1 you will always be a sub-1 male. It is quite ironic, really, how by introducing the concept of endlessness you've unintentionally sabotaged yourself and set a hard limit which you will never pass.

>>15971717
i do get it. i just proved it doesn't matter, just use subtraction instead of addition with the nines
> [a] 0.000...=0
if you only add 0, you never get anything but 0
> [b] 1-0.999...=0.000...
if you subtract 0.999... you never find digit to borrow so you can only get 0.000... no matter how long you try
then put [a] with [b]
> 1-0.999...=0.000...=0
transitive property
> 1-0.999...=0
subtract 1 both sides
> -0.999...=-1
multiply -1 both sides
> 0.999...=1
game over

>>15971723
>if you subtract 0.999... you never find digit to borrow so you can only get 0.000... no matter how long you try
If you write 0.999... you never find a digit to borrow, so you will never reach 1, no matter how long you try

>>15971734
correct and you don't need to
proof works without writing 0.999...

>>15971743
>proof works if I just erase a number from the equation for no reason
Damn, you almost got me there

>>15971749
no number erased in the proof
i know you got attached to the adding nines idea but it's not necessary for the proof

it's been 10 years since i took a calculus class but i think the proof required you to find a number epsilon that would fit between 0.999... and 1 and then coming to the conclusion that there is no such number epsilon
but a more intuitive explanation is that 0.999... is 3/3 and 3/3 is obviously 1

>>15971752
You erased the part which is between 0.999... and 1

>>15971754
no i showed the part is 0.000... don't need to erase anything lol

>>15971759
>the part is 0.000...
Prove it

>>15966644
Why is it important?
>>15966936
You're a retarded monkey and should be gassed.

Claim: [math] 0.999_{\dots} \neq 1[/math]

Proof: We use induction. The base case is trivial: [math] 0.9 \neq 1[/math]. Next we introduce the notation that [math]0.9_n = \underbrace{0.9999999}_{n-\text{many nines}}[/math] is the decimal with n-many 9s.

Now the inductive step: we assume [math]0.9_n \neq 1[/math]. Then trivially [math]0.9_{n+1} \neq 1 [/math]. It might help to notice that [math] 1 - 0.9_{n+1} \neq 0[/math].

This implies that [math]0.9_n \neq 1 \qquad \forall n\in \mathbb{N}[/math]

Finally, we define [math] 0.999_{\dots} := \lim_{n\to\infty} 0.9_n[/math].

[math]\therefore 0.999_{\dots} \neq 1 \qquad \square [/math]

>>15971763
i did >>15971723
>if you subtract 0.999... you never find digit to borrow so you can only get 0.000... no matter how long you try
if you add 9 no matter how long you never get 1
but if you subtract 9 no matter how long you always get 0
really a genius move imo

>>15971765
that's not how induction works.
claim: 4 isn't 4
proof: 3 isn't 4, so 4 also isn't 4 durrrrrr

>>15971769
induction uses the base case and the inductive step you mong. your post doesn't have an inductive step

>>15971766
>if you add 9 no matter how long you never get 1
>but if you subtract 9 no matter how long you always get 0
And 1-0=1 and 0.999...+0=0.999.., still not 1

>>15971774
sorry but
0.000...=0 is true
1-0.999...=0.000... is true
so 1-0.999...=0 is true
so -0.999...=-1 is true
so 0.999...=1 is true
i'm really sorry your adding nines thing didn't work out but it was fun challenge

>>15971780
>1-0.999...=0.000... is true
Prove it

>>15971769
>2 minute reply
>seething
kek you could've just said you don't understand the proof bro

if you have ...000... and substract ..999... what do you get as ...xxx...

>>15971782
if you add 9 no matter how long you never get 1
but if you subtract 9 no matter how long you always get 0
>really a genius move imo

>>15971787
>but if you subtract 9 no matter how long you always get 0
And thus 0.999...=/=1 , because the difference between 0.999... and 1 is not zero
0.9<1
0.99<1
0.999<1
0.999...<1
It's as shrimple as that, no matter how far you go you will always have to make an addition to 0.999... and terminate infinity to turn it into 1, but since you've already made your starting value infinity it will never converge to 1

>>15971797
proof never has to add anything to 0.999...
i'm sorry you still haven't got over you thing about adding 9. it was clever but not clever enough to work around

>>15971329
You are pretty bad at reading comprehension.

|1-.999...| <= epsilon for all epsilon > 0.

There's only one real number for which that can be true. The difference between them is 0.

>>15971801
And if there's nothing to add then 0.999...=/=1

>>15971822
doesn't follow, all you need is transitive prop. of =, subtract integer 1, multiply integer -1
absolute genius move

ITT: retards try to answer a hyper intellectuals question

>>15971827
Except you still haven't explained how 1-0.999..=0

>>15971848
The same way

Stupid fag

>>15971848
Get BTFO kyad fggit

>>15971848
[b] if you subtract 9 no matter how long you always get 0
[a] if you add 0 no matter how long you always get 0

>>15971854
What is this? Origami?
DO ACTUAL MATH

>>15971785
does it actually take you more than 2 minutes to understand that proof? if you understand induction it's easy to see what he was doing and why it's bullshit

>>15971861
i'm the one who wrote the proof. the person who responded clearly doesn't understand

>>15971855
kys

>>15971854
0.999...<x<1, if x=undefined then 0.999...=/=1

>>15971875
> 0.999...<x<1
you can't prove inequality
meanwhile i already proved 1-0.999...=0.000.. and 0.000...=0
i'm sorry the adding 9 thing doesn't matter to the proof, i know you liked it

>>15971887
>meanwhile i already proved 1-0.999...=0.000.. and 0.000...=0
Okay
1-0=1=/=0.999...
0.999...+0=0.999...=/=1
therefore
0.999...=/=1
Thank you for playing

>>15971909
really sorry it didn't work out for your 9 trick
1-0.999...=0.000... and 0.000...=0 is all you need
>game over

>>15971921
>if I just erase this number then I am correct
lol

>>15971936
>no number erased
which number lol

>>15971939
The one between 0.999... and 1 of course

>>15971969
no number erased, all the zeros you want are still here
1-0.999...=0.000...

>>15971975
and the 0.0...1 is still there for every 9 you add, what's your point?

>>15971980
>9 you add
not adding any 9
i'm sorry we don't need your 9 adding trick for the proof

>>15971990
>if we just ignore it then it will go away
lol

>>15971998
>nothing ignored
ignore what?

>>15972001
>nothing
the 0.0...1 is right there, anon, I know it's very small but if you open your eyes up you'll see it right before 1

>>15972004
sorry but no matter how many 0 you add, you never get 1
same reason no matter how many 9 you add, you never get 1
can't have latter without former

>>15972008
And no matter how many 0s you subtract from 1 it will never become 0.999..., therefore 1=/=0.999.. and 999...=/=1

>>15972009
no 0 subtracted in the proof, only added
no 9 added in the proof, only subtracted
you are very attached to your 9 adding game tho lol

Choose [math]N > log_{10}(\frac{1}{\epsilon})[/math]. Then [math]N > -log_{10}(\epsilon)[/math] by log division rule. Now, multiply the inequality by -1 then [math]\N < -log_{10}(\epsilon)[/math]. Exponentiate to the base 10 then the inequality yields that [math]10^{-N}<\epsilon[/math]. Since [math]n \leq N[/math], we have [math]-n \geq -N[/math], and so [math]|(1-10^{-n})-(1)| \leq |(1-10^{-N})-1|<\epsilon[/math]. Hence, the limit of [math]a_{n}=1-10^{-n}[/math] as n approaches infinity is 1.

>>15972142
Since [math]n \geq N[/math] then [math]-n \leq -N[/math], I meant.

>>15972008
And since you never get to that .0...1 you will never get to 1, so 0.999...=/=1

>another bait thread hits the bump limit
business as usual

>>15972514
>.0...1
no matter how many 0 you add to 0, you never get 1
your adding 9 game doesn't matter because we only add 0 all the time
we never add 9
there's never any 1 this way. i'm so sorry

>>15972539
When a number reaches 'systemlessness' or correctly 'baseless' by way of a complex sum, and by the fact one, multiple or complexities of itself can be added repeatedly; or baseless repeating numbers, there is an effect if it is taken as a number. If approaching baselessness, by repeating eternally, so much so the end can't be registered, and treated as number in sum, then there is a processing symbol which is a base reset. For that reason 0.99999... becomes baseless by itself, if used in sum such as 'is 0.9999... = 1.' then it is processed through a additional symbol as for it's reasoning why.

Basically you need to have an extra sign like plus minus divide multiply, it's called 'reset'. It would occur between the lawful rounding of 0.99999... to 1.0.

Once again:

0.999999... repeats eternally
It's end can't be registered, it's baseless, it doesn't belong to base 10 number system, it's evading that system.
If treated as a number, also regard that it must then become part of the system again.
Using 0.99999... in a sum requires reset symbol.

0.99999.. ; (';' as reset symbol) = 1.0.

>>15972578
Otherwise who's to say that 0.99999... ever ended repeating?

>>15972584
Do you suggest a divine machine that produces a repeating number has a limit that when approached causes a shift upward in scale? If it's never ending, 0.999... is baseless. If it is used in sum, it is base reset.

>>15972566
x=0.999...
1-(1-x)=0.001...

>>15967931
X isn't a number you fucking retard. How can x + 1 mean anything? I guess it could be Y.

>>15972708
neat but doesn't change the proof
cute tho, really it's neato

>>15972886
Thank you for the W

>>15966644
x=0.999...
=> 10x = 9.999...
=> 10x - x = 9x = 9
=> x = 1

>>15972930
thank you!
i knew you'd soon see why your 9 game didn't work
be well

>>15971861
why's it bullshit, isn't his base case .9?

>>15972975
it's a kneejerk emotional reaction. he can't refute it (hence no refutation has been given), so just resorts to insults

>>15966644
If two numbers aren't the same, you also know their distance (say, r), is nonzero, meaning 1-0.999...=r>0. However, you can see that whatever the distance between 1 and 0.999 would be, at some point, if I add enough 9s, 1-0.999... will be smaller than r, proving by contradiction that 1=0.999...

>>15973037
law of excluded middle is an unfounded axiom

>>15973141
Good thing equality is defined as non-apartness.

If something can't exist in the physical Universe then it has no place existing in mathematics.
Numbers teach us fundamental constraints about the Universe that we should focus on understanding rather than trying to solve. For example 1/3. It cant be solved. Nor can sqrt 2. We should be asking why that is so rather than inventing bullshit like recurring decimals fucking off to infinity. Circles are another good example. Their circumference can never be precisely measured. Well, instead of assing around with pi we should be listening to what the Universe is really telling us: Circles do not exist. Therefore circles should be excluded from mathematics. You know one day people are going to wake up and realize this, then all the fuckwits who have been pushing this bullshit about infinity and irrational numbers will be rounded up, beaten and then burnt at the stake. In front of the children. We could have some people walking around selling refreshments. Maybe even a band playing some nice music to accompany the screams of those being incinerated by the holy flames of rational righteousness. Yes. Yes.

>>15973246
This might just be the most retarded thing I've ever read. Congratulations, genuinely impressive stuff.

>>15973247
I will enjoy seeing you burn. Then I will pray for your soul.

>>15973246
>monkey pebble math
lol

>>15971797
It actually does converge to 1. We know this because for any tiny amount of difference to 1, we know exactly in the series .999... is closer than that. This is because .999... is a well understood series. In other words we know exactly what the limit of that series is, and it's 1.

>>15966644
In practical terms 0.99999 is 1
In real mathematical terms 0.99999 is not 1
It’s more about application, tolerances, and context.

Let’s say I gave you 0.99999 of an apple as a gift, you probably wouldn’t even notice that there was 0.00001 missing, so if asked you would probably say “he gave me an apple” (implying 1 apple)

On the other hand let’s say you are an engineer designing a balcony. Your desired materials are rated for 0.99999 lbs pers square cm, and the balcony is 20 meters by 30 meters, you wouldn’t substitute 0.99999 for 1 because the end result would be too different and the cost of getting it wrong is significantly higher.

This is a number line. We want to give the points on this number line names.

>>15973414
So we'll break up the number line into regions.
The numbers in this red region will get names starting with "0."
The orange numbers will get names starting with "1."
The yellow numbers will get names starting with "2."

>>15973423
To get the next piece of a number's name, we break the regions up into subregions.
In the picture I've labeled the regions where we give numbers names starting with 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9.

>>15972987
If I had to refute it I'd focus on the limit part at the end I'm sure there's an unfounded assumption there but I was already skeptical of mathematical reasoning and this thread has only made me more so honestly, it's like all these people learn math and then dont actually have any clue what they learned

>>15973431
What happens if you live exactly on the boundary?
Then you get two names.
The number 1 is like a dual citizen.
It gets to call itself both 0.999... and 1.000...

>>15973435
We aren't talking about .999... and 1.000... We are talking about .999... and 1.

>>15973452
retard

if 0.999... = 1 then it should follow that
0.xxx... = 0.(x+1) as well

0.444.. = 0.5 and so on which is obviously nonsense therefore 0.999 != 1

>>15973778
>it should follow that
lolno

>>15966644
If there is something, anything: 1

If the zero is not followed by anything and the object measured isn't there: 0

If you have a sandwich and cut it in half, you now have 0.5 of a whole sandwich, but it's still a sandwich.

It is all about infinity. Infinity doesn't exist. Just like a man cant be a woman. Women do not have penises. Just not possible. Therefore any construct that relies upon infinity, such as this heretical 0.999... bullshit deserves to be expunged from our consciousness. The best way to do that is to track down all the GOD CURSED INFINITY LOVING SODOMITES and have their FUCKING TESTICLES removed with a blunt butter knife. Then be forced to eat them, raw. Then once they shit them out mix the shit with some flour, eggs and cream into a souffle and bake it in an oven. But before its properly cooked suddenly open the oven door so all the cold air rushes in and the souffle collapses. Then force them to eat the collapsed, cold and soggy, shit souffle. Yes. Yes.

>>15966644
if you cannot find a number x >a and x<b [assuming a<b] then a =b,you can apply same reasoning here

>>15972942
:)

>>15973844
Your handwriting is beautiful. Are you single?

>>15966644
the difference between 0.9 recurring and 1 is 0.0 recurring

>>15973847
Of course I am, where do you think we are?

>>15972708
Line 2 doesn’t work

>>15973778
0.3(9)=0.4

>>15973886

>>15973844
good afternoon friend

>>15974263
You're splitting your distance (1) into infinitely many parts inf/inf, splitting inf/inf into x/inf +y/inf and then throwing away y/inf for no reason, every time you take a step towards inf is another added step you have to take, you can't say 0.999...=1 because there are an infinite amount of steps between 0.999... and 1, you can't just not count all the infinite steps you haven't taken to reach 1, ergo it's a fallacy of logic

>>15974284
>splitting into infinitely many parts
not at all
there's no infinite parts, just as many as you like
add 0 every time you never get anything that's > 0
subtract 9 every time you never get anything to add that's > 0

>>15974297
Wrong 1-0.999...=0.001^inf, since you need an infinite amount of steps to get to 1 then every for every .9... you add the distance to 1 also increases proportionally and you'll never get there, sad, I know

>>15974314
>infinite amount of steps to get to 1
only if you're adding 9
i'm sorry, i know you like your adding 9 thing but no 9 are added

>>15974347
>only if you're adding 9
No, lets prove that x=0.999..
y=0.1
1-y^inf=0.9...=x
Therefore the distance between 0.9... and 1 is 0.1^inf and inversely proportional to 1-0.9...
Sorry, you're never ever gonna get there no matter how hard you ignore that extra step you have to take every time you get closer to 1

>>15974363
you try to get to 1 by adding 9 forever, it won't work, i agree
now try to leave 1 by subtracting 9 forever, it also won't work
oops
sorry

>>15974379
>now try to leave 1 by subtracting 9 forever
Don't have to try, it's always there no matter how much you try to avoid it, just because you remove all the numbers between 1 and 10 doesn't mean 1=10

>>15974399
>remove numbers
stop adding 9, just subtract 9 or add 0 instead
if you release your attachment to adding 9, everything else is easy

>>15974407
1-0.9.=0.1^inf
There you go

>>15974425
what's inf

To those who think 0.999... = 1.
Find God.
Before its too late.
God will tell you that 0.999,,, does not equal 1.
Save your soul.
Renounce your absurd and heretical ways.
Save your soul from DAMNATION in the fires of HELL.
Amen.

>>15974431
God doesn't care about symbols unless they defame God. Please alter your view or altar yourself

I have been talking to GOD a lot recently.
GOD tells me there is a lot of HERESY afoot on this planet.
Sodomites running around fucking everyone up the ass and saying shit like 0.999... = 1
GOD finds all this highly offensive.
It is our duty as good GOD FEARING folk to expunge all HERESY from society.
>>15974436
You will burn in the flames of HELL.

I am thinking of writing some Math text books. To be used in schools after the RIGHTEOUSNESS revolution, when all the GOD CURSED infinity loving sodomites have been cleansed from the planet.
These books will be considered the WORD OF GOD, since I talk with HIM a lot.
I am compiling a list of math HERESY, which GOD hates, and which will therefore be excluded from the texts. Have a look and see if I have missed anything.
Infinity ( of course )
Circles.
Diagonals of squares
1/3 and other shit like that.
Negative numbers
Imaginary numbers
Zero.

>>15974449
Your MOTHER will, fyi, and so will YOU

>>15974488
GOD will punish you Heretic. GOD will turn your sperm into tiny and very sharp glass shards.
Amen.

>>15974498
God will flay your brain with my glass shards.
AMEN

>>15974430
Any natural number N->infinity, from there you can construct an infinite array of numbers showing that no matter how many 9s you got there's always a gap of 0.0..1 until infinity, since there is an infinite gap between 0.9. and 1 then
0.9.=/=1
And
1=/=0.9.
Since inversely you have to go an infinite distance of 0.0..1 to reach 0.9..9, applying infinite fractions to a finite amount and then trying to apply finitism to the infinite in order to make 0.9.=1 is absurd, there will infinitely be a gap between an infinite number and a finite number, just making one half of (x/1+y/1) infinitely expand towards 1 and the other decrease towards 0 doesn't mean the gap just disappears, as 0.9. takes an infinity to approach 1 so does 0.001... take infinity to approach 0
As such
1=x/1 + y/1
y/1>0 therefore x/1<1 and 0.999...=/=1

>>15974314
>=0.001^inf
>he doesn't know that anything<1 to the infth power=0
i wonder if how you are is how you deserve to live the rest of your life, or if someone should spend their time and efforts into making you see where you went wrong

>>15974449
>I have been talking to GOD a lot recently.
if he really did do so then he would have told you to watch this video and to stop being retarded, because you are needed somewhere else
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5c-d1pNnvs

>>15974836
x=0.9...
n=any nonzero number
y=1-x
n*y=(n×1)-(n×x)
y=0.001...
No matter how large you make n and into infinity you expand (n×x)<(n×1) and (n×y)>(0/n×1)
Almost 0 =/= 0 if you never even reach 0

>>15974641
only when you add 9 instead of subtract
to add you need infinite 9 to get to 1
to subtract you only need the next 9 to stay at 1