this one weird image makes mathlets seethe!

[Anonymous No.10363407]

answer = 1

prove me wrong. protip: you can't

[Anonymous No.10363417]

>>10363407
(2-1)/1 = 1.

Wha's the issue here?

[Anonymous No.10363421]

>>10363417
the issue only occurs for mathlets. you pass undergrad math 101, congrats.

[Anonymous No.10363425]

>>10363417
He's new here

[Anonymous No.10363427]

Cringe, even retards understand this

[Anonymous No.10363435]

>>10363407
You can’t add a non-terminating ratio to a whole number. You’re treating it as if it’s a finite number with a fixed value.

[Anonymous No.10363438]

? = 1.000...00200...00200...

[Anonymous No.10363445]

>>10363435
>You’re treating it as if it’s a finite number with a fixed value.
what about 0.999... isn't a fixed value?

>>10363438
>? = 1.000...00200...00200...
show proof?

[Anonymous No.10363458]

>>10363445
(2 - 0.9) / 0.9

(2 - 0.99) / 0.99

(2 - 0.999) / 0.999

and so on...

[Anonymous No.10363467]

Are there actually, seriously people on /sci/ who don't understand this notation? Or are people just trolling?

[Anonymous No.10363473]

>>10363445
0.999... denotes an infinite sum, that is, a sum that never ends. It has no fixed value. Take two sticks, one is 1 meter shorter than the other. Stretch them out for as long as you like, and the shorter stick will never equal the longer stick. Move one wall 9/10 the distance to the next wall, and so on, and that 1/10 gap will never disappear. There are infinite walls because each wall never completely covers the 10 units, but only 9, with each movement. The wall on the end will never be touched

[Anonymous No.10363497]

>>10363473
ah hah. so let me get this straight
[eqn]\sin\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\right) \equiv \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{\left(-1\right)^n\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\right)^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}[/eqn] that means sin(pi/2) has no fixed value?

[Anonymous No.10363502]

>>10363407
doesnt have an answer sorry mathlet

[Anonymous No.10363505]

>>10363473
ah hah. so let me get this straight
[eqn]\sin\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\right) := \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{\left(-1\right)^n\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\right)^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}[/eqn]
that means sin(pi/2) has no fixed value?

[Anonymous No.10363512]

>>10363473

ah hah. so let me get this straight
[eqn]\sin \left( \frac{\pi}{2}\right) := \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^{n} \left(\frac{\pi}{2}\right)^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}[/eqn]
that means sin(pi/2) has no fixed value?

[Anonymous No.10363549]

>>10363512
Pi isn’t real because circles aren’t real. You’re working with approximations. The sin of 90 degrees is easily proven, however, when using basic trig.

[Anonymous No.10363559]

>>10363549
isn’t OP’s pic easily shown to be 1 using basic trig/geometry?

[Anonymous No.10363568]

>>10363559
OP’s pic has no applications because 0.999... doesn’t exist. The idea that 2 can be added to 0.999... has yet to be supported by human experience. It’s a fun concept, but it’s worthless and more detrimental than beneficial to mathematics.

[Anonymous No.10363589]

>>10363568
>t. Zeno

[Anonymous No.10363624]

Sig figs

[Anonymous No.10363650]

>>10363407
Take 3 sticks

________
_________
__________

The ratio between the first and second is the denominator in OP. The ratio between the second and third is the numerator. Preserve the difference in length while stretching each stick as long as you want. While the ratios get nearer to 1, the ratio never equals 1, because that would mean the sticks are the same length, which would contradict our restriction of preserving difference in their lengths as they’re being stretched. The sticks never magically become the same length.

[Anonymous No.10363661]

>>10363650
They do if you make it a supertask

[Anonymous No.10363693]

>>10363661
Unsupported by reality. A mathematician’s fantasy

[Anonymous No.10363852]

>>10363407
>this one weird image makes /pol/itard zoomers seethe

[Anonymous No.10364150]

>>10363650
absolutely SEETHING!!!

learn math you female

[Anonymous No.10364159]

>>10364150
So this is the power of r/sci

[Anonymous No.10364510]

>>10363407
It's infinidly close to 1 yet there are infinity more reals between the two. You guys forgot your cantor.

[Anonymous No.10364537]

[Anonymous No.10364543]

>>10363549
>Pi isn’t real because circles aren’t real
get the fuck out I'm so sick of this fucking shit

[Anonymous No.10364552]

>>10363650
>>10363693
Mathematics is a superclass over physical reality.

[Anonymous No.10364554]

>>10363407
1/3 = 0.333...
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1
therefore
0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... = 1

[Anonymous No.10364616]

>>10363473
.999... has a fixed value, exactly between 0 and 2

[Anonymous No.10364624]

>>10364510
no, there is no value between .999... and 1

[Anonymous No.10364810]

>>10363568
>0.999... doesn’t exist.
c'mon, 0.9...=1
it exists

[Anonymous No.10364905]

>>10364624
>>10364616
.999... is not a value at all. It's a series. Do you guys not know what a series is?

>>10364810
the SUM of the SERIES denoted by .999.... is =1

.999.... IS NOT =1 ITSELF

what is so god damn hard to understand about this?

[Anonymous No.10364914]

>>10363407
1?
1 minus the reciprocal of infinity is still 1.

[Anonymous No.10364920]

>>10364905
0.999.. / 3 = 0.333..
1/3 = 0.333..
3 * 1/3 = 3 * 0.333..
1 = 0.999..

checkmate atheist

[Anonymous No.10364927]

Don't feed the troll. Everyone knows 0.999... and 1 are in the same equivalence class, and therefore the same number. For more, look up Dedekind construction of the reals.

[Anonymous No.10364935]

>>10364905
ok bruh
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1-0.9......

[Anonymous No.10365151]

0.9999... etc IS NOT EQUAL TO 1 YOU BRAINLETS. Fuck off with this meme.

It's literally there:
0.9999.. WILL ALWAYS BE LESS THAN 1, because it's asymptotic. It DOES NOT CONVERGE TO 1.

[Anonymous No.10365159]

All this banter and the wildest thing is /sci/ retards don't even know basic rules of notation.
It's "0.(9)", not "0.999…"

[Anonymous No.10365259]

>>10365151
>>10364935

[Anonymous No.10365397]

>>10364920
Thats fucking garbage u can't put in ur prove 0. 99999 / 3 = 1/3 that's the thing u need to prove here is a better one

0. 999... = X
9. 999... = 10X
9 = 9x
1 = X
1 = 0. 99999.....

[Anonymous No.10365400]

>>10365151
It has been proven to be 1

[Anonymous No.10365408]

>>10365400
That doesn't make it true. You can literally prove anything in math. I could prove 1=2 but that doesn't make it true.

[Anonymous No.10365420]

>>10365408
>being this much of an engineer

[Anonymous No.10365423]

[math]
\displaystyle \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{9}{10^n} = \frac{9}{10} + \frac{9}{100} +\frac{9}{1000} + ...
= b = \frac{1}{10}(9 + \frac{9}{10} + \frac{9}{100} +...)
= \frac{1}{10}(9+b) = b \\
\frac{1}{10}(9+b) = b \\
\frac{9}{10} = \frac{9}{10}b \\
1 = b
[/math]

[Anonymous No.10365458]

>>10365151
EPIC SEETHE

[Anonymous No.10365467]

>>10365408
Do it

[Anonymous No.10365584]

>>10364920
>1/3 = 0.333...
proof? Nice circular reasoning.

>>10364935
not an argument. Someone said engineer?

>>10365423
garbage

b-(1/10)b=(.9+.09+.009...)-(1/10)(.9+.09+.009...)
b-(1/10)b=(.9+.09+.009...)-(0.09+.009+.0009...)
b-(1/10)b=(.9-9*.1*.1*.1...)
(9/10)b=(.9-9*.1*.1*.1...)
9/10=(9/10)b=(.9-9*.1*.1*.1...)
b=1-.1*.1*.1...
b!=1

[Anonymous No.10365594]

>>10365584
seethe more nooblet, especially since you are BTFO by dedekind poster
>>10364927

[Anonymous No.10365612]

>>10365594
>spend 30 minutes formatting your terrible proof
>get absolutely rekt
>s-seethe more n-noob
>the proof that they're equal is that they're in the same equivalence class, not a tautology I swear!

[Anonymous No.10365619]

>>10365612
hahahaha can’t even into [math]\mathrm{\LaTeX}[/math] roflmao, the seethe is palpable! ps not that guy

[Anonymous No.10365635]

>>10365584
>>10365612
>get intellectually raped
>write some gibberish and declare yourself the "winner"
pathetic, get out of here

[Anonymous No.10365642]

>>10365619
>can't win argument
>"seethe"
rofl

[Anonymous No.10365645]

>>10365635
>make argument
>opposition unable to formulate a counterargument, resorts to samefagging and stale memes
>declare myself the winner
sounds about right

[Anonymous No.10365662]

>>10365584
oh wow, the legendary shitlatexman is back

[Anonymous No.10365679]

>>10365584
>b=1-.1*.1*.1...
b=1-0.1^inf=1-0=1

[Anonymous No.10365697]

>>10365679
>>10365679
prove it. Oh wait, it's just another circular argument.

[Anonymous No.10365703]

>>10365697
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.1%5Einf

[Anonymous No.10365707]

>>10363407
A malformed expression followed by a question mark does not have any "answer".

[Anonymous No.10365709]

>>10365408
No you can't you troll

[Anonymous No.10365716]

>>10365703
pi=3 right?

[Anonymous No.10365721]

>>10365467
>>10365709
checkmate atheists

[Anonymous No.10365723]

>>10365716
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=pi-3

[Anonymous No.10365726]

>>10365721
>cancelling with zero

[Anonymous No.10365727]

>>10365721
>divides by zero
caught the mathlet

[Anonymous No.10365728]

>>10365721
If you aren't a troll you are absolutely fucking retarded and have no business posting math

[Anonymous No.10365741]

>>10365726
>>10365727
>>10365728
>seething

[Anonymous No.10365749]

>>10365741
You posted an objectively false "proof" and are claiming that you can "prove anything" and are using this to argue that .999... =/= 1
You are a troll or you are low IQ. Let's hope it's just the former though.

[Anonymous No.10365758]

>>10365749
Well what's you're IQ?

[Anonymous No.10365760]

>>10365741
i see thing, i laugh

[Anonymous No.10365764]

>>10365758
>can't spell

[Anonymous No.10365771]

>>10365408
>>10365721
>>10365741
>>10365758

[Anonymous No.10365777]

>>10365721
Step 8 divides by a^2-ab which is zero

[Anonymous No.10365780]

>>10365723
Wait so you think that number is actually pi-3? is your brain really that small?

[Anonymous No.10365783]

>>10365780
>small as W|A
thanks, quite a compliment

[Anonymous No.10365785]

What’s the closest number that precedes 0.999... ?

[Anonymous No.10365801]

>>10365785
0.999...8

[Anonymous No.10365809]

>>10365801
0.999...9 is even closer, but it’s too finite to be the actual number. What is mathematics if it can’t even name what number precedes another? It’s almost as if 0.999... is the closes number to 1.

[Anonymous No.10365810]

>>10365801
This is wrong and you know it. Fuck off already troll. >>>/b/

[Anonymous No.10365826]

What's the problem?
0,9999... Intuitively and mathematically 1. Easiest way to proof this:
0,(9)=x
9,(9)=10x
9x=9
x=1
Tnen, (2-1)/1=1.

[Anonymous No.10365837]

>>10365826
Except infinity isn’t intuitive. You haven’t proved that a number like 0.999... can be properly added to and multiplied with other numbers. You also set it equal to a variable, which implicitly assumes 0.999... has a fixed value, when it intuitively has no fixed value, but goes on for infinity, always becoming closer to 1, but never equaling one.

[Anonymous No.10365844]

>>10365397
>thinking that proof is any better
How /sci/ has fallen

[Anonymous No.10365845]

>>10365837
0.999... is exactly equal to 1 so unless you're saying 1 can't be added to and multiplied by other numbers your post makes no sense at all.

[Anonymous No.10365848]

>>10365810
actually it's 0.999...85

[Anonymous No.10365881]

>>10365837
I represented periodical fraction is usual fraction (1/1 exactly), this itself allow to do everything what I want with 0,(9)
It's a goddamn trick form school, it's obvious. Give me any periodical fraction and I will represent it as usual fraction.

[Anonymous No.10365898]

>>10365844
I like it how people cant fucking read
>/sci/ has really fallen

[Anonymous No.10365983]

>>10365721
a^2-ab is 0... U can't divide by 0 this shows 2*0 = 1*0 gj

[Anonymous No.10365988]

>>10363407
Wtf, what am I supposed to disprove, this is correct.

[Anonymous No.10366021]

>>10363549
>Pi isn’t real because circles aren’t real.
the opposite is the case, straight lines and right angles are not real

[Anonymous No.10367346]

>>10364905
>the SUM of the SERIES denoted by .999 is =1
>.999.... IS NOT =1 ITSELF


>The SUM of the SERIES denoted by [math] \displaymode \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{\left({\ln{\left(10 \right)}} \right)^{k}}{k!} [/math] is =10
>[math] \displaymode \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{\left({\ln{\left(10 \right)}} \right)^{k}}{k!} [/math] IS NOT =10 ITSELF

>The SUM of the SERIES denoted by 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 is =10
>1 + 2 + 3 + 4 IS NOT =10 ITSELF

>The SUM of the SERIES denoted by 10 is =10.
>10 IS NOT =10 ITSELF


Based fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.10368420]

Irrational and seemingly unending repitition decimal numbers aren't real numbers.

No one would ever rationally come upon [0.999...] as an answer in most everyday math. It becomes the goobertards trick to want to rather figure it must simply equal 1 then, and throw out some retarded rationale "equations" supporting the idea. However, not only can [0.999...] be created as value in calculus, there are unending possibilities to do so which have direct greaterthan and lessthan comparisons with each other. For example
[math]\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{x}{(x+1)^n}[/math]
Provides
[math]\sum \frac{1}{2^n} < \sum \frac{2}{3^n} < \sum \frac{3}{4^n} < ...[/math] when checking any equal n-termed partial sum, yet all tend towards [0.999...]

So [0.999...] is not a hard, real, singular, comprehensive value that arithmetic can be performed on or with. There is unironically always a greater value than any instance of [0.999...] which simply contains yet another extra 9.

[Anonymous No.10368426]

>>10368420
>1/3 isn't a real number, but 1/8 is
wew lad

[Anonymous No.10368428]

>>10368420
and in case it needs to be said, the existence of an always greater value solves for "[0.999...] < ? < 1"

The issue isn't that such numbers exist, because the rationale is already used to define infinity in "R < ? < ∞". There are always bigger numbers to solve, if not at least the previous largest number, plus one.

No. The real issue is there not being a good written way of expressing this math, or a divine misunderstanding of the intent and meaning behind repitition shorthand symbology with ellipses and overlines.

>>10368426
[math]\frac{1}{3}[/math] is well enough reasoned and solved with while just left alone as a fractional.
[math]\frac{1}{3}[/math] is real, but [0.333.. ] is not, or more accurately it's not equal to [math]\frac{1}{3}[/math] but instead lesser than.

[Anonymous No.10368441]

I dare you to count to infinity.

[Anonymous No.10368456]

>>10368441
OK

ONE

TWO
THREE
FOUR FIVE SIX
SEVENEIGHTNINETEN
ELETWETHIFOFFF--
A-ZIBBLEGABBABADRUBBA-----
*inhales*
I N F I N I T Y !

[Anonymous No.10368465]

>>10363407
its [math]\frac{1}{0.4999\dots} - 1[/math]

[Anonymous No.10368468]

>>10368465
Prove [math]\frac{0.\overline{9}}{2} = 0.4\overline{9}[/math]

[Anonymous No.10368478]

>>10368468
0.5 × 2 = 1
0.4 × 2 = 0.8
0.45 × 2 = 0.9
0.49 × 2 = 0.98
0.499 × 2 = 0.998
0.4999 × 2 = 0.9998
0.49999 × 2 = 0.99998
0.4(9999) × 2 = 0.(9999)8
0.4(x amt of 9's) × 2 = 0.(x amt of 9's)8

0.4(∞ 9's) × 2 = 0.(∞ 9's)8

>0.4999... ×2 = 0.999...8

[Anonymous No.10368491]

>>10368478
>infinite sequence of 9s ends on 4

[Anonymous No.10368501]

>>10368428
1/3 = 0.3...
silly boi

[Anonymous No.10368504]

>>10368441
by definition, you can't.
and yet it exists in math

[Anonymous No.10368508]

>>10368478
>let's pretend infinity is finite

[Anonymous No.10368536]

>>10368478
>0.49... × 2 = 0.999...8
= 0.9... + 8*10^-inf
= 0.9... + 0
= 0.9... = 1

[Anonymous No.10368909]

>>10368536
Multiplying/Dividing with ∞ is no less retarded and invalid as with 0.

[Anonymous No.10368916]

>>10368491
>infinite

[Anonymous No.10368923]

>>10368504
>>10368456
Literally never got any more valid or complicated than the schoolyard

[Anonymous No.10368930]

>>10368508
I think you meant to say
>let'a pretend infinity is an amount

[Anonymous No.10368935]

I think you meant to say
>let's pretend infinity is an amount

[Anonymous No.10368946]

>>10368501
1/3 > 0.3
1/3 > 0.33
1/3 > 0.333
...
1/3 > 0.333...

The ellipses means keep going.

[Anonymous No.10369043]

>>10368916
>...
yes, infinite

[Anonymous No.10369048]

>>10368935
>an amount
a finite amount, correct

[Anonymous No.10369053]

>>10368946
>The ellipses means keep going.
no, it means infinite

[Anonymous No.10369062]

>>10368909
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=8*10%5E-inf

[Anonymous No.10369072]

>>10365151
1÷3=0.333...
(1÷3)*3=0.333...*3
Ho
(1÷3)*3=1
У нac пoлyчaeтcя 1=0.999...

[Anonymous No.10369082]

>>10364537

You can’t do that.

Imagine you’re doing (8-2)/2. The answer is actually 6/2=3. With the logic you mentioned, (8-2)/2 = 8 which isn’t true.

[Anonymous No.10369084]

>>10368923
>i don't know the definition

[Anonymous No.10369092]

>>10369082
is too

[Anonymous No.10369346]

>>10363473
>>10363650
I honestly can't tell what's bait anymore.

[Anonymous No.10369349]

>>10368441
1, 2, 3, ..., infinity

[Anonymous No.10369353]

>>10363549
Actually, only circles exist.

[Anonymous No.10369358]

>>10364905
0.999... denotes the sum of the series. More generally, [math]0.a_1a_2a_3a_4\dots = \sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n 10^{-n}[/math].

[Anonymous No.10369371]

>>10368946
What is true at finity is not necessarily true at infinity. It's like saying
0.1 is rational
0.101 is rational
0.101001 is rational
0.1010010001 is rational
0.101001000100001 is rational
...
Therefore 0.10100100010001... is rational

[Anonymous No.10369519]

>>10369043
>>10369053
>>10369048
Infinity is an ongoing active process. You're the one claiming its a finite, passive, past tense value. You cannot ever reach to infinity. Saying [0.999...] represents "infinite 9's" and is equal to 1 is like saying there is a largest real number equal to infinity. There isn't. You're wrong. You're more than just wrong, you're underdeveloped and oversimplified and incapable of performing your task.

[Anonymous No.10369527]

>>10369072
[math]\frac{1}{3} > 0.\bar{3} \\ \frac{1}{3}×3 > 0.\bar{3}×3 \\ \frac{3}{3} > 0.\bar{9}[/math]
>>10368946

[Anonymous No.10369533]

>>10369519
>Infinity is an ongoing active process.
no it isn't, retard

infinity is immediately everything

you're thinking of a growing number

infinity isn't a number, by definition

[Anonymous No.10369547]

>>10369533
>infinity is immediately everything
wew sounds like >>10368456 to me...

[Anonymous No.10369553]

If 0.999... = 1

then 0.333... = 0.333...4

Thats what you're really trying to say.

[Anonymous No.10369557]

>>10369547
if you had half a brain the definition would interest you, but no

p.s.
a bus stop masturbation guru isn't helping you

[Anonymous No.10369564]

>>10369553
>0.333...4
= 0.333... + 4*10^-inf
= 0.333... + 0
= 0.333...

[Anonymous No.10369581]

>>10369564
>>10368909
stupid dumb baby! I already gave you a (You). Pay attention!

[Anonymous No.10369587]

>>10369553
>then 0.333... = 0.333...4
they are in the same equivalence class of cauchy sequences
or if you prefer, they are the same when using dedekind cuts
op probably agrees

[Anonymous No.10369594]

>>10369553
Yes, also 0.111...= 0.111....2

[Anonymous No.10369597]

>>10369371
If there's a period then it is rational.

[Anonymous No.10369598]

>>10369594
0.111...2 ×3 = 0.333...6 [math]\neq[/math] 0.333...4

[Anonymous No.10369609]

>>10369598
0.333...6 = 0.333...4
they are in the same equivalence class of cauchy sequences
or if you prefer, they are the same when using dedekind cuts
op probably agrees

[Anonymous No.10369612]

>>10369557
I have more brain than you enough to realize your retarded definition for infinity is an analog for all space and time, regardless of time, aka you're a nut who believes the future is predermined and can be accounted for now, in the relatove past.

Literally lay off the drugs.

[Anonymous No.10369629]

>>10369581
dumb every time, consistent

[Anonymous No.10369633]

>>10369598
No, also 0.111...= 0.111...2=0.111...3=0.111...7

[Anonymous No.10369634]

>>10369598
0.111...2 ×3 = 0.333...6 = 0.333...4

[Anonymous No.10369638]

>>10369612
>doesn't know the definition
retard

[Anonymous No.10369648]

>>10363407

answer = 0.222....

prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.10369651]

>>10369638
Everyone point and laugh at this retard, he thinks the future is predetermined. Ask him the winning lottery numbers then bust his knees when he's wrong.

[Anonymous No.10369655]

>>10369612
>lay off the drugs
you're the one posting masturbation fan pics.
try posting with your zipper closed next time

[Anonymous No.10369663]

>>10369651
>thinks the future is predetermined
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.10369681]

[math]\frac{2 - 0.9}{0.9} = 1.\bar{2} \\ \\ \frac{2 - 0.99}{0.99} = 1.\bar{02} \\ \\ \frac{2 - 0.999}{0.999} = 1.\bar{002} \\ ... \\ \frac{2 - 0.\bar{9}}{0.\bar{9}} = 1.\overline{\bar{0}2}[/math]

[Anonymous No.10369688]

>>10369663
>>infinity is immediately everything

[Anonymous No.10369694]

>>10369688
now =/= future

retard

[Anonymous No.10369699]

>>10369597
Exactly. All values except the last one I listed are rational.

[Anonymous No.10369709]

>>10365151
>0.9999... etc IS NOT EQUAL TO 1 YOU BRAINLETS.

Is too.

[Anonymous No.10369713]

>>10365584
>proof? Nice circular reasoning.

Get a piece of paper and do the long division.

[Anonymous No.10371127]

>>10364554
Winner

[Anonymous No.10372320]

Infinity is not nor ever has been a value which can be met, achieved, reached or had.

A repeating decimal doesn't "have" infinite repetition. It doesn't "have" an attribute of infinity. A repeating decimal merely just has repeating patterns that encourage rendering the number like [math]0.999...[/math] or [math]0.\overline{9}[/math] for the sake of convenience and readability. It may be implied that the repetition may go on infinitely, but the rendering of the number like this does not actually have a whole infinite pattern accounted for.

There are exponentially reduced "accuracy gains" the more decimals there are:
1.9 inches could obviously be marked on a standard US ruler, but 1.99999999999 inches wouldn't be any more legible in difference than 1.999999 inches. At some point it's easier to just place the mark on 2 inches, but this method of applied realworld utilized accuracy ironically loses accuracy if dealing with a value like 0.999•••, dependant upon what is and isn't accounted for.

For example if dealing with money, there is no "$0.999•••". You got $0.99 or $1.00 and there is an obvious difference of a penny between them, a penny that ought to be accounted for and doesn't simply evaporate into the ether as too miniscule to care about. Overlooking pennies in wallstreet is how some people have made millions of dollars. I'm pretty sure this was even part of the plot in Office Space iirc.

and if you're still thinking "well its infinite 9's and therefore just round up to a dollar" then you're also still thinking incorrectly.
Realworld values that may look like 0.999••• may instead be 0.99999999172, for example. Not in trivial shit like (1÷3) ×3, but in real applications with arbitrary variables. It might not be so hard to find a similar looking number by merely calculating sin and cos and atan, which then comes back to the idea that more and more decimals return lesser accuracy gains, so there is a real finite cutoff and finite remainder.

[Anonymous No.10372325]

hehehe finance guys seethe when they realize they’re nubs@math

[Anonymous No.10372337]

>>10372320
So [math]0.999... \stackrel{<}{\neq} 1[/math] and [math]1 - 0.\overline{9} = 0.\overline{0}1[/math] where applied arithmetic is concerned. If your desired decimal accuracy is 10 digits, then you know to render [math]0.\overline{0}1[/math] as 0.0000000001, and if your desired decimal limit is 20 or 40 or 100 digits, then you still know a 1 belongs on the last digit after the zeros.

[Anonymous No.10372340]

>>10372337
except no, it renders as .0000000000 if you go to a precision of 10 digits

[Anonymous No.10372348]

>>10372340
[ 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ]
-[0 . 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 ] =
[ 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ]

[Anonymous No.10372358]

>>10369681
>set theory allows nested infinites and values beyond infinity

[Anonymous No.10372378]

Imagine an omega supercomputer calculator that truly and magically has infinite arbitrary accuracy so it actually can account for every 9 in 0.999... or every digit of pi, and do so instantly with arithmetic as quickly as any handheld calculator might give you the answer to whatever problem you type in. The only caveat of this calculator is that when attached to a printer, the printer still has to work in real time to print out results. You could print out all the digits of pi for the rest of time but ultimately just be wasting paper.

The question then becomes clear: although this omega computer can accomodate these values, how useful are they for some application? If calculating any circle of any arbitrary size, do you really need infinite digits of PI to get the desired accuracy for the desired results? Do you even need 1 million digits? Do you honestly even need 1000 digits? Probably not. There is always a premeditated bias of the decimal accuracy needed for an application of the arithmetic, and this defines the real hard finite limit of the application wherein smallest possible values exist as real numbers which must be accounted for in relation to the whole.

[Anonymous No.10372403]

>>10372325
Aren't half of the quants on wallstreet math PhDs though?

[Anonymous No.10372447]

>>10365159
The notation "0.(9)" is ambiguous as it may indicate the knwon precision of a physical measurement. 0.999... is unambiguous.

[Anonymous No.10372453]

>>10372378
>so it actually can account for every 9 in 0.999...
so it will give it a value equal to 1 in the context of the real numbers
rest of the post is kinda obsolete

[Anonymous No.10372457]

>>10372378
>magically has infinite arbitrary accuracy s
>infinite arbitrary accuracy
>infinite
But that doesn't exist because infinity doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.10372464]

>>10372453
No. It accounts for infinite numbers. It doesn't have to round up like your tiny brain does.

>>10372457
>imagine
>magically

[Anonymous No.10372495]

>>10372464
>round up
no rounding involved at all, just an easier way of writing it
they are in the same equivalence class of cauchy sequences
or if you prefer, they are the same when using dedekind cuts
would you write 1/2 or 0.5000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...?

[Anonymous No.10372628]

>>10372495
Infinite arbitrary accuracy defines an obvious difference between
1.00000000000000000000000000000...
and
0.99999999999999999999999999999...

again, its just your dumb brain and rounding up.

[Anonymous No.10372646]

>>10372320
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=infinity
An unbounded quantity that is greater than every real number.

[Anonymous No.10372676]

>>10372646
Put that definition in laymans terms to prove you actually understand it.

[Anonymous No.10372678]

>>10372628
>Infinite arbitrary accuracy defines an obvious difference between
they are the same number written differently
your computer is borked

[Anonymous No.10372683]

>>10372678
>different is same
Its just one penny goy, you wont miss it.

[Anonymous No.10372702]

>>10372683
>2/2 is not 1 because written differently

go to /x/ mr willyburger

[Anonymous No.10372710]

>>10372676
if that isn't laymans terms for you then you are a retard

[Anonymous No.10372872]

>>10372337
>[math]1-0.\overline{9}=0.\overline{0}1[/math]
Are you dumb?

[Anonymous No.10372877]

>>10372710
Nice admission that you have no fucking clue what infinity means. Damn nigga, you seriously can't even reword that definition.

[Anonymous No.10372884]

>>10372320
>A repeating decimal doesn't "have" infinite repetition.
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.10372890]

>>10372877
>can't even reword that definition
correct, that's how definitions work.
retard

[Anonymous No.10372896]

>>10372884
I>nfinity is not nor ever has been a value which can be met, achieved, reached or had.

>A repeating decimal doesn't "have" infinite repetition.

you skipped over the first sentence, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10372911]

>>10372890
Holy shit kill yourself you stupid nigger.
Holy moly neck yourself you dumb bastard.
Holy fuck drink bleach you retarded motherfucker.

How the fuck don't you know how to rewrite a sentence?
What's wrong with you that you never figured out how to reword a statement?
Did God take a dump in your skull instead of giving you a brain? You should be able to understand the concept of rephrasing.

[Anonymous No.10372912]

>>10372896
topkek
your own insane mumbling doesn't count

[Anonymous No.10372920]

>>10372912
>infiddy has been counted we did it boys we reached the end of all the natural numbers

[Anonymous No.10372928]

>>10372911
no rewriting because it's perfect as it is

how about doing some math based on it instead

[Anonymous No.10372935]

>>10372920
>more insane mumbling

[Anonymous No.10372948]

>>10372928
You just don't understand it. It may as well be latin to you. You don't know what it translates to. You don't know what that definition says.

You're just a fat retarded mexican aren't you?

[Anonymous No.10372957]

>>10372935
It is what you said, though.

[Anonymous No.10372973]

>>10372948
>no math
>no independent source for claim
sad little sucker, aren't you.
delusional retard

[Anonymous No.10372980]

>>10372973
You don't even understand infinity. Why would I waste the effort providing arithmetic when you wont understand it? I'm not doing that. Go away if you don't want to learn.

[Anonymous No.10372992]

>>10372980
>no math
>no independent source for claim
bla bla blah

[Anonymous No.10373013]

>>10372992
You don't understand math. You would still argue against any math posted, because you don't understand it.

[Anonymous No.10373107]

>>10373013
>>10372992

[Anonymous No.10373380]

>>10363407
Where’s the profit tho?

[Anonymous No.10373960]

>>10363407
I think I'm answering different question though. Isn't 0,999... Same as 3*(1/3)??

[Anonymous No.10373993]

>>10373960
[math]
1 = \dfrac{3}{3} = 3 \cdot \dfrac{1}{3} = 3 \cdot 0.\bar{3} = 0.\bar{9}
[/math]

[Anonymous No.10374456]

The answer is zero.

Since clearly [math]
0.999...\neq1
[/math] let us do what every Physicist worth their salt would do and add a hypothetical dark number [math]
x>0
[/math] :

[eqn]
0.999...+x=1
[/eqn]

[eqn]
\frac{0.999...}{x}+1=\frac{1}{x}
[/eqn]
[eqn]
\frac{0.999...}{x}+0.999...+x=\frac{1}{x}
[/eqn]

[eqn]
0.999...+0.999...\cdot x+x^2=1
[/eqn]
[eqn]
x^2+0.999...\cdot x+0.999...-1=0
[/eqn]
[eqn]
\Delta=b^2-4ac=
[/eqn]

[eqn]
=0.999...^2-4(0.999...-1)=
[/eqn]

[eqn]
=0.999...^2-4\cdot0.999...+4=
[/eqn]

[eqn]
=(0.999...-2)^2
[/eqn]

[eqn]
x=\frac{-b\pm\sqrt{\Delta}}{2a}=
[/eqn]

[eqn]
=\frac{-0.999...\pm(0.999...-2)}{2}=
[/eqn]

[eqn]
=\frac{-0.999...\pm(0.999...-2)}{2}=
[/eqn]

[eqn]
=\frac{-0.999...+0.999...-2}{2};\frac{-0.999...-0.999...+2}{2}=
[/eqn]
[eqn]
= -1;1-0.999...
[/eqn]

We can now continue:

[eqn]
0.999...+x=1
[/eqn]

[eqn]
0.999...-1=1
[/eqn]

[eqn]
0.999...=2
[/eqn]

What an astounding result!

Therefore:
[eqn]
\frac{2-0.999...}{0.999...}=\frac{2-2}{2}=0
[/eqn]

[Anonymous No.10374479]

>>10374456
the pills won't help unless you take them

[Anonymous No.10374483]

>>10374456
dividing with zero

[Anonymous No.10376075]

>>10374456
>>10374483
He does not divide with 0. He assumes x > 0.
The issue is he then uses a negative number for x which has to be positive.
If you plug in the other solution, you'll get 1 = 1

[Anonymous No.10376117]

>>10376075
assumption x>0 leads to a/b=0
so it's bullshit

[Anonymous No.10376175]

>>10368420
[math]\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{\bar{9}}{1\bar{0}^n}[/math] aka 9/10, 99/100, 999/1000, etc. are the only real "0.999..." numbers. Anything else will have random numbers trailing after the 9's. That anything othrr than this 9&10 pattern would be considered "0.999..." (like [math]\frac{x}{(x+1)^n}[/math]) then explicitly defines that the symbolism of elipses and overlines defining repitition are explicitly not about "infinity", but rather merely and simply just pattern recognition in a finite and small substring of the decimal, aka "0.999..." literally just accounts for the first three digits but implies some amount of extra 9's are probably there.

[Anonymous No.10376213]

>>10365844
>>10365397
>a proof with no mathematical bullshittery
>not even any complex bullshittery
>muh sci has fallen

[Anonymous No.10376347]

>>10376213
It does use bullshit though.

What is 0.99 × 10?
0.99 × 10 = 9.90
0.999 × 10 = 9.990
0.9999 × 10 = 9.9990
There is a pattern in the real math here. You just move the decimal place over. You don't add or substract other 9 elements from the number.
If there are five 9's in 0.99999, then
0.99999 × 10 = 9.99990 and there are still only just five 9 elements.
So IF "0.999..." has n 9's, then 0.999...×10 will too still have n 9's.
And IF you define the repitition to "have infinite 9's"(it doesn't btw), then you have
x = 0.[∞ 9's] {0.999...}
10x = 9.[(∞-1) 9's] {9.99..}
NOT
>10x = 9.[∞ 9's] {9.999...}

Just as
x= 0.[3 9's] {0.999}
10x= 9.[(3-1) 9's] {9.99}

Infinity is a problematic concept because it's aim is to muddy and confuse normal working and intelligible axioms of arithmetic. It desperately begs to be treated by different rules than numbers, while insisting it belongs alongside numbers. Infinity is a fucking niggerfaggot.

[Anonymous No.10376428]

>>10376347
>Infinity is a problematic concept
it's not a number - end of problem

[Anonymous No.10376465]

>>10376428
Thanks for proving the point by posting an image of infinity alongside numbers as if there is meant to be a relation between them.

There isn't.

[Anonymous No.10376469]

>>10376465
it's big. duh

[Anonymous No.10376475]

>>10369681
Correct

[Anonymous No.10376484]

Its 1 because 2-0.999÷0.999 the 0.999 cancel out so it becomes 2-1 which equals 1

[Anonymous No.10376533]

>>10369681
[math]
\dfrac{2-0. \overline{9}}{0. \overline{9}} = 1. \overline{ \overline{0}2}=1.0...=1
[/math]

[Anonymous No.10376991]

>>10364537
Yo, it's NASA. We need your help. How can we contact you?

[Anonymous No.10377014]

>>10376991
Don't spook me like that.

[Anonymous No.10377016]

>>10376484
that hurt to fucking read

[Anonymous No.10377035]

>>10373960
It all depends how you do the math.
[math]\frac{1}{3} × 3 = \frac{3}{3} = 1 \\ 0.\overline{3} × 3 = 0.\overline{9}[/math]

The issue comes from how do you define overline repitition, and whether or not 1÷3 actually equals 0.333...

Long division to evaluate 1÷3 presents itself in steps where you can't have a final equality because there is no final step, so you end up with
1/3 > 0.3
1/3 > 0.33
1/3 > 0.333
1/3 > 0.3333
1/3 > 0.33333
and so on, until you ought to realize
1/3 > 0.333...
is what it's really trying to evaluate as.

This leads to
>[math]\\ \frac{1}{3} > 0.\bar{3} \\ \frac{1}{3} × 3 > 0.\bar{3} × 3 \\ \frac{3}{3} > 0.\bar{9}[/math]
1 > 0.999...

[Anonymous No.10377039]

>>10363407
>0.999...
>well defined under the real numbers
pick one negro

[Anonymous No.10377068]

[Anonymous No.10377075]

>>10377035
all aboard the insanity train

[Anonymous No.10377080]

>>10377035
Wouldn't be a problem if remainder notation was used beyond elementary school.
A: 1÷3 = 0.3r1
B: 2÷3 = 0.6r2
A+B = 0.9r3
But remainder notation doesn't carry identity in its solution, so 0.9r3 is no more intelligible than 0.999••• without knowing the original problems involved thirds.

But you can just make up a working remainder notation like
[math]A: 1÷3 = 0.\overline{3}_{\frac{1}{3}} \\ B: 2÷3 = 0.\overline{6}_{\frac{2}{3}} \\ A+B = 0.\overline{9}_{\frac{3}{3}} = 0.\overline{9}_{\leftarrow 1} = 1[/math]

and voila, no ambiguity. The answer is simply and only just 1.

And it was never important in the first place cause all it did was only address them as fractions and no different than
[math]\frac{1}{3} + \frac{2}{3} = \frac{3}{3} = 1[/math]

[Anonymous No.10377085]

>>10377075
Insanity is believing in infinity, especially when (You) already know you don't understand it.

[Anonymous No.10377125]

>>10363407
As an unironic mathlet even I see that it's 1 and I'm sure my IQ is a double digit

[Anonymous No.10377129]

>>10377085
>he can't use anything beyond highschool math to explain his reasoning
>calls out others for incomplete understanding
lmao, retard

[Anonymous No.10377193]

Borrowing thread since it's basically /999 reoccurring general/:

Mathologer says here that any "closing" number can be written as a continuation of repeating 9's, best seen in pic related. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDtFBSjNmm0

But wouldn't this mean that:

2.9 = 2.89 = 2.889 = 2.8889 = 2.88889 and so forth? At every decimal place, you should be able to "round it down" to 0.999... but if you do so continuously you wouldn't ever reach 0.999... because you could just round it downwards infinitely in the same way you'd round 1=0.999... downwards infinitely which sort of would mean that 2.9 = 2.888... (which also means that 2.8 = 2.777... and 2.7 = 2.666...)

More examples:
666.2347 = 666.2346999...
but 666.23469 = 666.23468999...
666.234689 = 666.234688999...
and so on.

Another issue i don't understand:

1 = 9/10 + 90/100 + 900/1000 ...
1 = (8 + 9/10 + 90/100 + 900/1000)/10 + 90/100 + 900/1000 + ... <- this should work since (8 + 9/10 + 90/100 + 900/1000 ...)/10 = 8.999... = 9
Going on:
1 = ((7 + 9/10 + 90/100+ 900/1000)/10 + 9/10 + 90/100 ...) + 90/100 + 900/1000 + ... <- and so on, 8 = 7.999... = (7 + 9/10 + 90/100+ 900/1000)/10
...
All the way down to:
1 = (1 + 9/10 + 90/100 + 900/1000 ...) + 90/100 + 900/1000 + 9000/10000 ... where 1 = 9 /10 + 90/100 + 900/1000... giving:
1 = ( (9/10 + 90/100 + 900/1000 ...) + 9/10 + 90/100 + 900/1000 ...) + 90/100 + 900/1000 + 9000/10000 ... giving:
1 = ( (8/10 + 90/100 + 900/1000 ...)/10 + 90/100 + 900/1000 ...) + 9/10 + 90/100 + 900/1000 ...) + 90/100 + 900/1000 + 9000/10000 ... Rinse and repeat for every first 9 infinitely.

You'd get 1 = (((((9/10+90/100 + 900/1000...) + 9/10+90/100 + 900/1000...) + 9/10+90/100 + 900/1000...)...

It would be stuck describing the first 9 in 0.9 forever, never actually reaching anywhere. Is this what calculating infinity is like?

[Anonymous No.10377217]

>>10365584
>proof? Nice circular reasoning.
Gotchu senpai
1/9 = 0.111...
9 * 1/9 = 0.999...
1 = 0.999...

[Anonymous No.10377227]

>>10377193
I left a comment calling infinite series retarded and he said I was smarter than most mathematicians and even though I know he was being facetious, it still stands that he said it and context is everything motherfucker.

According to his logic, any terminating decimal can be derped into a repeating one by fuckling the last original significant digit.
2.9 = 2.8999999...
It of course assumes "0.999...= 1" as a prerequisit.

[Anonymous No.10377244]

>>10369082
>autistic response to troll post
>can't into [math]\color{#789922}\LaTeX[/math]
>reddit spacing
>"you can't do that"
>"imagine"
definitely not deutsche mathematik

[Anonymous No.10377245]

>>10377227
0.000...9 = 0.000...8999...

an infinite amount of 0's followed by a 9 becomes a different number where half the digits are 0's but the other half are 9's and there is an 8 in the middle, but its still just one invocation of infinity. Mathlets want to say "0.000...1 can't exist cause nothing comes after infinity so its just 0.000...", yet this all proves that nothing can even be defined [math]within[/math] infinity either, nevermind after.

[Anonymous No.10377255]

>>10377245
Infinity = Not A Number
Half of Infinity = NaN
1% of Infinity = NaN
Infinity - 1 = NaN
Infinity - Infinity = NaN
0 × Infinity = NaN
1 / Infinity = NaN

Infinity is not a number.

[Anonymous No.10377260]

>>10377255
that depends on how you define infinity

[Anonymous No.10377263]

>>10377255
>Infinity is not a number.
ffs stop watching youtube videos and go read some actual fucking literature on mathematical constructs

[Anonymous No.10377275]

>>10377263
>ffs stop watching youtube videos and go read some actual fucking literature on mathematical constructs
>mathematical constructs
>constructs

[Anonymous No.10377277]

>>10377263
Infinity is an invalid concept as modern math treats it. Its amazing it even has a place in modern math when the axiom of infinity was discounted and disregarded because it didn't work. Infinity fags will just keep makin up dumb bullshit reasonings and proofs and pretend it matters regardless of who tells them they're wrong.

[Anonymous No.10377281]

>>10377193
>1 = 9/10 + 90/100 + 900/1000 ...
are you fucking nuts?

[Anonymous No.10377283]

>>10377255
>Half of Infinity = NaN
Wrong. half of infinity = [math]\frac{\infty}{2}[/math]
>1% of Infinity = NaN
Wrong again, anon. 1% of infinity = [math]\frac{\infty}{100}[/math]
>Infinity - 1 = NaN
Betcha think complex numbers are fake too, right?
>Infinity - Infinity = NaN
XDDDD my sides nigga

[Anonymous No.10377289]

>>10377255
>Infinity = Not A Number
yes
>Half of Infinity = NaN
inf/2=inf
>1% of Infinity = NaN
inf/100=inf
>Infinity - 1 = NaN
inf-1=inf
>Infinity - Infinity = NaN
inf-inf undefined
>0 × Infinity = NaN
0*inf undefined
>1 / Infinity = NaN
1/inf=0, is a number

[Anonymous No.10377294]

>>10377283
>>10377289
infinity isn't defined under subtraction or division tardos

[Anonymous No.10377295]

>>10377283

[Anonymous No.10377296]

>>10377289
fucking drones
both you and the other anon

[Anonymous No.10377300]

>>10377294
you can fight it out with Wolfram-Alpha

[Anonymous No.10377301]

>>10377294
>infinity isn't defined under subtraction or division tardos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory
Anton Setzer - Wheels
http://www.cs.swan.ac.uk/~csetzer/articles/wheel.pdf
Jesper Carlstrom - Wheels: On Division by Zero
http://www2.math.su.se/reports/2001/11/2001-11.pdf

[Anonymous No.10377304]

>>10377227
>"0.9 = 0.89999999... if we just change something!"
This is how infiniggers reason. It's never enough for them to have math that just reasons out correctly and is unambigous in exactness, no. They always just want to introduce a change, an unknown, a variable, where the original equations and solutions didn't have them in the first place, just so they can muddy shit up and produce auxillary alternative answers however they feel.

0.999... [math]\neq[/math] 1 because 0.999... doesn't even exist, and any number that might actually look like it will definitely also actually have a countable and finite amount of 9's. That's the trick they want to pull on you. Convincing you something that may be a little inconveniently long but certainly finite is instead WAY TOO LONG AND INFINITE AND JUST CUT OFF THE REST ITS NOT IMPORTANT.

Fuck Infinity and Fuck Infiniggers.

[Anonymous No.10377308]

>>10377304
>0.999... finite amount of 9's.
no, the ... means infinite

[Anonymous No.10377318]

>>10377296
>>10377300

[Anonymous No.10377344]

>>10377301
real number field isn't a wheel you fucking idiot

>>10377300
Oh, it's an engineer.

[Anonymous No.10377346]

>>10377344
Oh, it's a retard.

[Anonymous No.10377358]

>>10377344
>real number field
Doesn't have infinity.
Since inf is used here, we are using real numbers appended with +inf and -inf.

[Anonymous No.10377359]

>>10377346
seething

[Anonymous No.10377362]

>>10377359
lazy copypasting
So W-A confirmed what I said huh
salty retard tears, tasty

[Anonymous No.10377372]

>>10377281
whops. 9/100, 9/1000 and so on. The point still stands.

[Anonymous No.10377376]

>>10377358
>>real number field
>Doesn't have infinity.
Ok, glad we agree, considering we're using the real number field after all.

>>10377362
>Wolframalpha is god
reddit tier argument.

[Anonymous No.10377378]

>>10377255
Yeah, but numbers are abstract constructs made by man and doesn't exist either.

[Anonymous No.10377380]

>>10377376
>>Wolframalpha is god
>reddit tier argument.

>rambling llama fellatio specialist is god
retard tier argument

[Anonymous No.10377384]

>>10377380
so that's it then? wolfram alpha and llama fellatio specialist? that's your argument?

[Anonymous No.10377405]

>>10377384
and your argument is?

[Anonymous No.10377412]

>>10377405
that something that is a real number is not equal to something that is not a real number?

[Anonymous No.10377415]

>>10377412
too vague, can't comment

[Anonymous No.10377424]

>>10377308
There is no infinity. There are no infinite 9's.

What is [math]\frac{1}{3} × 3[/math]?
It's 1. It's only just 1. It's not 0.999...
And why is this the case if 0.333...×3 = 0.999...???
Cause [math]\frac{1}{3} \neq [/math] 0.333..., cause 0.333... doesn't exist either.
1÷3 is proven to be greater than any number that is 0.3 with [math]any[/math] amount of repeating 3's after it. The fraction [math]\frac{1}{3}[/math] currently does not have an exactly equal (aka valid) translation to decimal, so it simply shouldn't be translated to decimal and left as a fraction, but if a decimal translation is required then it's important to append a note of the translation's original identity, like rendering as [math]1÷3 = 0.\overline{3}_{\frac{1}{3}}[/math], being exact and disallowing ambiguity.

[math]1÷3 = \frac{1}{3} \\ 1÷3 = 0.\overline{3}_{\frac{1}{3}} \\ 1÷3 \neq 0.\overline{3} \\ 1÷3 > 0.\overline{3} \\ \\ 3÷3 = \frac{3}{3} = 1 \\ 3÷3 = 0.\overline{9}_{\frac{3}{3}} = 1 \\ 3÷3 \neq 0.\overline{9} \\ 3÷3 > 0.\overline{9} \\ \\ 1 > 0.\overline{9}[/math]

[Anonymous No.10377427]

>>10377378
Numbers are used to count, and account for non-abstract things. Infinity can't do that.

[Anonymous No.10377430]

>>10377424
Wait, so you don't believe in irrational numbers either? Your math is going to be very boring buddy.

[Anonymous No.10377434]

>>10377424
>There is no infinity.
in math there is
>There are no infinite 9's
yes there is, in math you don't run out of lumber
1=3/3=3*(1/3)=3*0.3...=0.9...
etc.

[Anonymous No.10377438]

>>10377427
what is Hilbert Hotel

[Anonymous No.10377565]

>>10377424
>13 currently does not have an exactly equal (aka valid) translation to decimal

in base 3 it is exactly 0.1
there is nothing 'clean' about base 10
1/10 looks nice in it just because monkeys have 10 fingers and we picked the symbols accordingly.
in hexadecimal it's a fucking mess

[Anonymous No.10378568]

>>10377430
>he thinks there are an infinite amount of real numbers
>real
>infinite
yawn

[Anonymous No.10378571]

>>10377565
>in base 3 it is exactly 0.1
I think you mean, 0.0222...

[Anonymous No.10378576]

Why can't mathematicians get over the elementary school stage where they think decimal is the best way to represent numbers?

[Anonymous No.10378588]

>>10378568
[math]
\aleph_1
[/math]

[Anonymous No.10378595]

>>10378571
[math]
1 \ dot 3^{-1}
[/math]

[Anonymous No.10378668]

>>10378571
jah is gut too

[Anonymous No.10378679]

>>10378568
https://youtu.be/elvOZm0d4H0?t=4m

[Anonymous No.10378805]

>>10363473
Yes, and the limit of an infinite sequence can be calculated. This is not new math. This was figured out many decades ago. Take a class, or read a book, but dont come back here until you understand what you're talking about. Peace among worlds

[Anonymous No.10378829]

>>10378805
>the limit of an infinite series is the same as the infinite series itself

>>10378679
I don't need a close up face shot of some autism laden creatura to know what hyperreals are, thanks though.

[Anonymous No.10378971]

>>10378829
le zeno faec

[Anonymous No.10379847]

>>10363512
>t mathlet
Learn the definition of convergent series.

[Anonymous No.10380786]

>>10368468
[math]\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^\infty9\times10^{-k} = \sum_{k=1}^\infty (4.5)\times 10^{-k} = 0.4\overline{9}[/math]

[Anonymous No.10381023]

>>10377035
You are dumb in the head.
Long division algorithm is the fucking definition of division? You think you are funny kiddo? I've graduated Cambridge on top of my class. I'm skilled in gorilla theory as well as warfare theorem you. Stop pretending that you know something and spreading this nonsense. I've already calculated your IP in my head and I will use it to DDOS you by my sheer brainpower.

[Anonymous No.10381894]

>>10363407
(2-0.99...)/0.99...
= 2/0.99...-0.99.../0.99..
~1-1=0

[Anonymous No.10382595]

>>10372320
>stuck with pre-17th century mathematics
Wew lad

[Anonymous No.10382598]

>>10372911
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.10382599]

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

[Anonymous No.10382613]

>>10377304
0.999... does exist. And it's equal to 1.

[Anonymous No.10382622]

>>10381023
>I'm skilled in gorilla theory
Lost.

[Anonymous No.10382635]

I used to be one of those that considered 0.999... to not be equal to 1, but then I realized, it's not the value I'm opposing, but how we write it. 0.999... might be considered a perfectly valid way of writing it, but I honestly prefer

lim_(x->1-) x = 1

It just feels better