0.9999... DOES NOT EQUAL ONE

[Anonymous No.11545901]

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH WITH YOU DUMB SCHIZOS MAKING UP MATHS AS YOU GO ALONG

YOU DEFACE WIKIPEDIA
YOU BRAINWASH STUDENTS INTO BELIEVING YOUR TRIPE
YOU MOCK THE TRULY INTELLIGENT AND FREE THINKERS FOR SHOWING THE FLAWS IN YOUR FAULTY LOGIC

WELL HERE'S THE REAL PROOF THAT 0.9999... DOES NOT EQUAL ONE:

1-0.1^(x) < 1-0.1^(x+n) < 1

THUS AS X TENDS TO INFINITY, N CAN ALWAYS BE CHOSEN SUCH THAT IT WILL BE CLOSER TO ONE

THUS THERE IS ALWAYS A VALUE GREATER THAN THE 0.999... THAT IS NOT ONE

IF THERE IS ALWAYS A VALUE BETWEEN 0.999... AND 1, THEY CAN NOT EQUAL THE SAME


THEREIN ENDS THE LESSON FOR THE RETARDS

NOW KINDLY END YOURSELVES YOU DUMB PIGS

DUMB DUMB PIGS

[Anonymous No.11545910]

>>11545901
0.999... is not the value 1-0.1^x for any x. It's the limit of that term as x goes to infinity.

[Anonymous No.11545923]

>>11545910
SHUT THE FUCK UP KID, YOU'RE IN MY THREAD NOW

(...) DOES NOT MEAN LIMIT. I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DEFACED (((WIKIPEDIA))) WITH, THE ELLIPSIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE SAME THROUGHOUT HISTORY STOP BEING STUPID

[Anonymous No.11545932]

>>11545901
think zeno's paradox. The mathy people say that the decimal expression of zenos paradox means the function describing the arrow's position = the targets position.

The other people are saying that it's absurd to say that because nowhere in the function would the arrows position ever equal the = targets position.

Now, neither are wrong. They are interpreting decimal expansion differently. The mathy people agree with more prominent figures, because there's only so many ways you can interpret decimal expansion and still have it be useful, and 'limit' is a particularly useful one, but the argument is really silly to begin with.

[Anonymous No.11545934]

>>11545923
>(...) DOES NOT MEAN LIMIT.
No, it does not. It means "this patterns continues indefinitely", i.e. an infinite sequence of 9-digits. And the meaning of a number with an infinite amount of nonzero decimals is defined as a limit, which in this particular case gives you the result I described above.

[Anonymous No.11545939]

>>11545901
>
>
>
OP, I really like your original train of though. However I don't agree with you. First and foremost, as x tends to infinity. The difference between 1 - 0.1^x and 1 - 0.1^(x+n) becomes smaller and smaller, but I see your point.
>
The problem with your argument is that the properties of the finite stages of a limit aren't necessarily the same as what it will reach. These properties could be irrationality or in this case having the exact value of 1.
>
>
>
Also x+n will tend to infinity+n which is the same as tending to infinity, meaning in the end, the two numbers which have always been different will now in fact be the same: 0.9999... = 1.
We can see that we combine our previous two bullet points here, that the difference between the two numbers tends to 0 and that properties may be lost.

[Anonymous No.11545945]

>>11545923
>SHUT THE FUCK UP KID, YOU'RE IN MY THREAD NOW
rofl this is comedy gold

[Anonymous No.11545946]

>>11545901
Two proofs 0.999... = 1

Via Cauchy sequences:

0.999... = (0.9, 0.99, 0.999,...) = lim as n-> inf of 1-1/10^n = 1

Via Dedekind cuts:

Assume to contradiction that x is a rational number such that

0.999... < x < 1

0.999... is greater than any finite string of 9s so for any natural number n

1-1/10^n < 0.999... < x < 1

1-x < 1/10^n

10^n < 1/(1-x)

n < log(1/(1-x))

Let n = ceiling(log(1/(1-x)))+1

ceiling(log(1/(1-x)))+1 < log(1/(1-x))

This is a contradiction, so x does not exist and 0.999... = 1.

[Anonymous No.11545949]

>>11545923
there is an "abstract" limit in there, not that you would know what that word means

[Anonymous No.11545951]

>>11545939
Same Anon here, just watch Mathologer video if ur a brainlet lol

[Anonymous No.11545952]

>>11545923
Pretty sure it means a limit bro

[Anonymous No.11545958]

>>11545946
>Let n = ceiling(log(1/(1-x)))+1
>ceiling(log(1/(1-x)))+1 < log(1/(1-x))
>This is a contradiction
all you've proved is that n couldn't possibly be the value you chose for it. I could give you proofs of ridiculous things if I could say "And let x = 100" in the middle.

[Anonymous No.11545959]

>>11545901
Your attempt at a proof is plausible and seems intuitively right but if you really want to know why it breaks down (basically what >>11545939
said) you should read the chapter on limits of Rudin (Principles of Mathematical Analysis 3rd ed.)

[Anonymous No.11545961]

>>11545952
"..." means the 9s continues forever. Retard.

[Anonymous No.11545964]

>>11545901
>WELL HERE'S THE REAL PROOF THAT 0.9999... DOES NOT EQUAL ONE:
>1-0.1^(x) < 1-0.1^(x+n) < 1
Where is 0.999...?

>THUS AS X TENDS TO INFINITY, N CAN ALWAYS BE CHOSEN SUCH THAT IT WILL BE CLOSER TO ONE
As long as 1-0.1^(x) =/= 0.999..., that's true. But you need 1-0.1^(x) = 0.999... for your proof to be relevant. So you lose.

>THUS THERE IS ALWAYS A VALUE GREATER THAN THE 0.999... THAT IS NOT ONE
But your "proof" says nothing about 0.999...

For an example of a proof that says something about 0.999..., see >>11545946

[Anonymous No.11545965]

>>11545932
CLASSIC BACKTRACKING....

>OOOHH NOOO I'M NOT WRONG, I JUST MEANT DIFFERENTLY!!!!

(MATHS STAYED THE SAME THROUGHOUT TIME AND HISTORY, DISAGREES STRONGLY)

>OH HEHE BETTER CHANGE THE (((WIKIPEDIA))) PAGE SO PEOPLE DON'T REALISE HOW WRONG I WAS TEEHEE

(I REMAIN VIGILANT OF THIS, ENGROSSING OF THE TRUTH)

I SEE EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND I THINK WE CAN ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THIS LEVEL OF INSIDIOUSNESS

YOU PERFIDIOUS SWINE

[Anonymous No.11545969]

>>11545901
The inability many people today who view themselves as being "scientific" as well as math fans (left-brain prisoners) have in comprehending that .999 isn't the same as 1, is completely connected to their inability to grasp eternity and infinity. Their minds have basically been programmed to believe eternity and infinity are impossibilites. Over the course of the last 10 or so centuries of indoctrination into an alien world-view, they've "learned" to be unable to comprehend it.

This difficulty they have with eternity/infinity shows up in many different fields, from math to astrophysics.

This mental handicap is inherited directly from the (((Abrahamic))) religions, more specifically Christinsanity for us Westernerns. In it's origin, the inability to understand infinity and eternity is 100% Judaic in thought/philosophy. In contrast, the non-Jewish man; the Pagan man, at least the /European/ Pagan man, never had any problem with infinity and eternity. Christinsanity introduced into the minds of people the idea of life and the world/universe being linear, starting from point A and ending with a point B, whereas in the Native European world-view everything is infinite, a circle.

That's why many people today can't understand that .999 repeating forever will never reach 1 -- they refuse to accept the idea of an infinite/eternal repetition. Saying "it's 1" is their method of escaping from the uncomfortable (and to them insurmountable) challenge which the concept of infinity/eternity is to thier Judaically-induced mental disease.

[Anonymous No.11545970]

>>11545958
but anon, it needs to work for every value we chose for it

[Anonymous No.11545973]

>>11545958
Well no, the property should hold for any natural number n. That kind of the definition of 0.999..., that it's bigger than any finite string of 9's

[Anonymous No.11545976]

>>11545958
>all you've proved is that n couldn't possibly be the value you chose for it.
The inequality must be true for all n, I can choose whatever n I want.

>I could give you proofs of ridiculous things if I could say "And let x = 100" in the middle.
If x can be any value that's fine.

[Anonymous No.11545981]

>>11545970
>>11545973
oh you're right, i thought you were choosing a value for 'a rational number such that', my bad.

The other question I had, before I thought the step was illogical, was 'why ceiling?'

[Anonymous No.11545984]

>>11545958
Learn how to read

>0.999... is greater than any finite string of 9s so for any natural number n
>1-1/10^n < 0.999... < x < 1
>for any natural number n

[Anonymous No.11545985]

>>11545981
(ceiling and +1, i mean. Why that?)

[Anonymous No.11545986]

>>11545961
So just to clarify: you're adding [math]9*10^{-n}[/math] from n = 1, 2, 3, to infinity??

[Anonymous No.11545987]

>>11545984
You're right, I made a reading error.
see >>11545981 for elaboration, if you'd like.

[Anonymous No.11545991]

From the other thread.

[Anonymous No.11545992]

>>11545976
>>11545970
YOU STUPID IDIOT, YOU ALREADY DEFINED N AS PER THE INEQUALITY EARLIER IN THE PROOF

ONLY A RETARD WOULD WRITE THAT DRIVEL DOWN AND THINK IT MEANS ANYTHING

WHERE DID YOU ASSERT IT MUST HOLD FOR ANY VALUE OF N? ABSOLUTE BOLLOCKS

I CAN SMELL THE SCHIZO FROM THAT CEILING FUNCTION AND THAT +1

TARD

[Anonymous No.11545994]

>>11545985
>>11545981

oh i c, because ceiling and +1 makes it natural, whatever it is.

[Anonymous No.11545998]

>>11545981
>The other question I had, before I thought the step was illogical, was 'why ceiling?'
Because n must be an integer.

>>11545985
+1 because we want to make n greater than log(1/(1-x)), and ceiling(log(1/(1-x))) = log(1/(1-x)) when log(1/(1-x)) is an integer.

[Anonymous No.11545999]

>>11545901
>so furious that he got btfo in the other threads he couldn’t resist making a new one
Kek.
>>11536628
>>11541285

[Anonymous No.11546005]

>>11545992
>YOU STUPID IDIOT, YOU ALREADY DEFINED N AS PER THE INEQUALITY EARLIER IN THE PROOF
I defined n as any natural number. Do you not understand how proof by contradiction works?

>WHERE DID YOU ASSERT IT MUST HOLD FOR ANY VALUE OF N?
Can you not read?

"0.999... is greater than any finite string of 9s so for any natural number n"

>I CAN SMELL THE SCHIZO FROM THAT CEILING FUNCTION AND THAT +1
Not an argument, you lose.

[Anonymous No.11546008]

>>11545961
Yes, and the real number denoted by that sequence of digits is 1.

[Anonymous No.11546012]

I want to understand what is the philosophical motivation for this?

[Anonymous No.11546013]

>>11545998
YOU STUPID SWINE

THERE IS NO NECESSITY FOR INTEGER CLAMPING

BY ASSERT N, DISREGARDING PREVIOUS INEQUALITY, YOUR PREVIOUS FINDINGS ARE INVALIDATED

IN ORDER TO DO A PROOF BY CONTRADICTION IN THAT MANNER, YOU MUST HAVE TWO CONTRIBUTING SOURCES OF DEFINITIONS AND BY CHOOSING ONE YOU CONTRADICT THE OTHER

YOU ONLY STATED ONE LIKE A FUCKING RETARD

NOW PACK UP AND GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY THREAD FAGGOT

[Anonymous No.11546017]

>>11545969
nice schizo rant, you forgot the math tho desu

[Anonymous No.11546019]

>>11546013
>THERE IS NO NECESSITY FOR INTEGER CLAMPING
I don't really care what you think is necessary. The proof is correct, you lose.

>BY ASSERT N, DISREGARDING PREVIOUS INEQUALITY, YOUR PREVIOUS FINDINGS ARE INVALIDATED
Is this English? Are you attempting to describe how a proof by contradiction works? Good try buddy.

>IN ORDER TO DO A PROOF BY CONTRADICTION IN THAT MANNER, YOU MUST HAVE TWO CONTRIBUTING SOURCES OF DEFINITIONS AND BY CHOOSING ONE YOU CONTRADICT THE OTHER
The assertion that x exists contradicts the fact that 1-1/10^n < 0.999... for any n.

>YOU ONLY STATED ONE LIKE A FUCKING RETARD
Still can't read huh?

[Anonymous No.11546022]

>>11545901
>>11545923
>>11545965
>>11545992
>>11546013
YOU TELL EM OP

[Anonymous No.11546027]

>>11545986
>>11545961

Can I get an answer for my question please?

[Anonymous No.11546029]

>>11546027
Yeah OP, where is the response to my post >>11545964

[Anonymous No.11546031]

>>11545901
let 0.999 = x

0.999... *10 = 9.999...

9.999... = 10x

9.999... - 0.999... = 9

9 = 9x

x = 1

0.999... = 1

[Anonymous No.11546039]

>>11545992
>I CAN SMELL THE SCHIZO FROM THAT CEILING FUNCTION
lol based

[Anonymous No.11546040]

op is unhinged

[Anonymous No.11546042]

>>11546019
STUPID CUNT

YOUR """"PROOF"""" IS EXTREMELY DUMB. JUST FUCKING THINK ABOUT IT IDIOT. YOU DON'T EVEN RELATE 0.9999... INTO THE SET OF EQUALITIES

>>11546029
DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE NUMBER OF NINES ARE, INFINITY OR NOT, PROOF IN THE OP ALWAYS WORKS STUPID WHORE

>>11546031

RETARD

[Anonymous No.11546043]

PROOF DENIERS GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY THREAD THIS IS YOUR ONLY WARNING

[Anonymous No.11546044]

>>11546043
hey can you answer my question:
>>11545986

[Anonymous No.11546046]

>>11545969 this guy is the best. always appears out of nowhere and gets totally ignored every time lol. give him some credit

[Anonymous No.11546053]

>>11545992
>I CAN SMELL THE SCHIZO FROM THAT CEILING FUNCTION AND THAT +1
kek
this is getting good

[Anonymous No.11546061]

>>11546042
>>11546043

[Anonymous No.11546063]

>>11546042
such a simple proof, nothing to even nitpick at, so you sling a retard

based retard anon

[Anonymous No.11546065]

>>11546044
CORRECT
>>11545946
DELETE THIS

IF THIS PROOF IS CORRECT THEN MINE IS TOO, THUS SHOWING THAT THE EXISTENCE OF A NUMBER GREATER THAN 0.999... BUT LESS THAN 1 EXISTS SINCE YOUR PROOF IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE OF X NOT EXISTING (FROM ITS ORDER DEPENDANT ADDITIONS TO AN INFINITIVE INDEX)

[Anonymous No.11546070]

>>11546065
>CORRECT

Awesome, I think I'm starting to understand.

So adding up [math]9*10^{-n}[/math] from n = 1,2,3, to infinity can be written like this, right?:

[math]\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}9*10^{-n}[/math]

[Anonymous No.11546074]

>>11546070
>>11546065
sorry, I messed up my LaTeX

[math]\sum_{n=1}^{inf}9*10^{-n}[/math]

[Anonymous No.11546081]

>>11546070
>>11546074
YOU STUPID IDIOT...CANNOT EVEN GET LATEX RIGHT
PATHETIC

[Anonymous No.11546082]

>>11546074
>>11546070
>>11546065
4chan's LaTeX interpreter is trash. I attached it as a pic

[Anonymous No.11546084]

>>11546042
>YOUR """"PROOF"""" IS EXTREMELY DUMB. JUST FUCKING THINK ABOUT IT IDIOT.
Not an argument. You lose.

>YOU DON'T EVEN RELATE 0.9999... INTO THE SET OF EQUALITIES
So you don't see 0.999... in 1-1/10^n < 0.999... < x < 1?

Time to get your reading glasses changed.

>DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE NUMBER OF NINES ARE, INFINITY OR NOT, PROOF IN THE OP ALWAYS WORKS STUPID WHORE
That doesn't answer his question.

[Anonymous No.11546086]

>>11546081
we haven't seen much latex from you either
show us some mad latex skill bro

[Anonymous No.11546087]

>>11546081
>>11546082
Well so tell me, do you agree that this is also equivalent to 0.999...?

[Anonymous No.11546088]

>>11546081
kek!

>>11546082
my guy, i think you need a space after the first math tag and a space before the second

[math] \R [\math]

[Anonymous No.11546090]

>>11546065
>IF THIS PROOF IS CORRECT THEN MINE IS TOO
Why?

>SINCE YOUR PROOF IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE OF X NOT EXISTING
How is it not exhaustive? Which x am I missing?

>FROM ITS ORDER DEPENDANT ADDITIONS TO AN INFINITIVE INDEX
What additions?

[Anonymous No.11546092]

I'VE HAD IT WITH THIS GAY BOARD,,,I'M OFF TO SOMEWHERE THAT INTELLIGENCE IS VALUED

BUT I HEREBY PREDICT THE END OF ALL RATIONAL THINKING, AND PERHAPS THIS BOARD IS THE CANARY IN THE COAL MINE SO TO SPEAK. PERHAPS THIS WILL BE LOOKED BACK AS THE "BIG MISTAKE" THE ONE THAT YOU NEVER RECOVERED ONE FAGS


GOODBYE CUNTS, YOU STUPID FAGGOTS

[Anonymous No.11546093]

>>11546088
Oh no, you need a forward slash / instead of a backslash my bad

[math] 2^2 [/math]

[Anonymous No.11546097]

>>11545969
Most based post I’ve read this week

[Anonymous No.11546098]

>>11546092
>>11546082
wait I need to know whether you agree with this

[Anonymous No.11546100]

>>11546092
lame. I was just getting into it

[Anonymous No.11546107]

>>11546098
WELL OF COURSE I AGREE WITH IT IDIOT, WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU EXPECT

YES, CORRECT YOU WROTE THE EXTENDED FORM OF 0.9999... WELL DONE LAD
HAVE A BACON RASHER YOU DESERVE IT

CLAP CLAP FUCKING
CLAP

>>11546040
SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH YOUR INSULTS AND DEBATE ME

[Anonymous No.11546113]

>>11546107
>WELL OF COURSE I AGREE WITH IT IDIOT, WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU EXPECT

Cool, so check out pic related.

[Anonymous No.11546116]

>>11545961
OH FINALLY, THE COMMON SENSE FINALLY WANDERS IN
>>11545946
THIS PROOF IS JUST RETARDED, EVERY TIME I THINK ABOUT IT I REALISE SOMETHING NEW ABOUT HOW STUPID IT IS
YOU CAN'T COMPARE INFNITITIES RETARD

[Anonymous No.11546120]

>>11546113
made a typo in line 2 by accident but proof still checks out

[Anonymous No.11546121]

>>11546113
WELL DONE RETARD, YOU FOUND THE LIMIT

HAD YOU EVEN THE SMALLEST SAMPLE OF NEURONS, YOU WOULD REASLISE THAT WAS NEVER EVEN THE FUCKING DEBATE
KYS

[Anonymous No.11546129]

I'M FUCKING OFF WITH THIS BOARD

NO MORE COMING BACK

CHAO YOU STUPID CUNTS

[Anonymous No.11546130]

>>11546121
I used the equation you agreed was equal to 0.999 and showed that it was equivalent to 1 using the geometric series theorem. You agreed in these posts to axioms that result in solving for 1:

>>11546107
>>11546065

[Anonymous No.11546132]

>>11546129
Thank you for agreeing to the precepts of my proof and gladly accepting that 0.999... = 1.

I think this has been an awesome learning experience for everyone. Chao

[Anonymous No.11546138]

>>11546088
Nah the problem was \infty

[Anonymous No.11546141]

>>11546138
does 4chan's interpreter not allow /infty? what do I use instead?

[Anonymous No.11546145]

Everyone on this thread is either a mathematically illiterate brainlet or a pedantic autist who can only understand axioms. You fuckers can't prove 0.999... = 1 because that immediately follows from the mainstream definition of infinite digits and is not helpful for anyone who is skeptical of that definition.

[Anonymous No.11546149]

>>11546141
[math] \infty [/math]

[Anonymous No.11546153]

>>11546141
it allows [math] \infty [/math]. the problem was you had a backslash instead of a forward slash in the second tag

[Anonymous No.11546154]

>>11546145
He agreed to the axioms of the proof I wrote here (>>11546120) and then got mad when it reduced to 1.

OP doesn't have some 'alternative' view of how infinite digits works. He agrees it works the same way everyone else has explained it, and yet refuses to accept any proof showing that 0.999... = 1

[Anonymous No.11546172]

[0.999...] is a self-computating number, not a number.
[1] is a number.

wala

[Anonymous No.11546174]

>>11546172
googled "self-computating number" and got 0 results

anon you just made that up

[Anonymous No.11546180]

>>11546154
Does OP even know that a series is defined to be the limit of its partial sums? Never seen him acknowledge that.

[Anonymous No.11546183]

>>11546017
If you need ANY math at all in order to understand that an infinite number of 9s after 0 will never ever be equal to the next whole number ("1" in this case) then you're beyond any hope. Anything less than 1 isn't 1 and can never ever become 1 -- no matter how many 9s you use, even when the amount is infinite.

[Anonymous No.11546186]

>>11546183
then explain literally any of these posts
>>11546120
>>11546031
>>11545991
>>11545946

[Anonymous No.11546190]

>>11546174
>you just made that up
I just published it under the pseudonym "Anonymous".
One could also call it, "Condensed Limit Notation."

[Anonymous No.11546193]

>>11546186
Examples of coping. No amount of deluding oneself using math will ever change reality.

[Anonymous No.11546196]

>>11546190
How about Condensed Bovine Discharge?

[Anonymous No.11546201]

>>11546183
>>11546193
>[schizo intensifies]

[Anonymous No.11546203]

>>11546193
That's not how math works though. If you think it's bullshit coping, then point out where it's wrong.

It's not like people are drowning you in theory that you couldn't possibly know - several of those posts are Calc II level mathematics.

[Anonymous No.11546214]

>>11546196
Yum. Think I'll get some for myself now. You want anything, Doc?

[Anonymous No.11546217]

>>11546183
>>11546193
The decimal notation is not even a fundamental description of numbers. It's a contrived invention of mathematics used to more easily describe numbers. You can't pretend that such an artificial convention MUST follow such intuitions that you assume to be true.

[Anonymous No.11546287]

>>11546145
>skeptical of a standard definition
based retard

[Anonymous No.11546319]

>>11545901
Let's say n = 0.9999...

It follows that

1/(1-n) = 1/ε = infinity

(ε is an infinitely small yet positive number)

As opposed to

1/(1-1) = 1/0 = undefined

infinity =/= undefined

Thus, n =/= 1

In case you're still not convinced, consider that the set [0,n] is the same as [0,1>, but not [0,1]. To say that n is 1 is like saying that [0,1> is the same as [0,1]

While in all practical purposes they are the same number, however theoretically they are not

[Anonymous No.11546326]

>>11546319
>Let's say n = 0.9999...
>It follows that
>1/(1-n) = 1/ε = infinity
>(ε is an infinitely small yet positive number)
Wrong. ε = 0.
>To say that n is 1 is like saying that [0,1> is the same as [0,1]
Wrong. n = 1.

[Anonymous No.11546356]

>>11545923
>SHUT THE FUCK UP KID, YOU'RE IN MY THREAD NOW
HOLY BASED

[Anonymous No.11546369]

Faggot, here's proof you're wrong
>x = 1
10x - x
10(1) - (1)
10 - 1 = 9
>x = 0.999... for n->1
10x - x
10(0.999...) - (0.999...)
9.999... - 0.999... = 9
Therefore 1 = 0.999... for n->1
This is secondary school shit why are you here?

[Anonymous No.11546439]

>>11546116
>YOU CAN'T COMPARE INFNITITIES RETARD
Where did I compare infinities?

[Anonymous No.11546468]

>>11546369
>nooo you cant do operations with infinities
>yes, operations with 0.(9)
gtfo

[Anonymous No.11546481]

>>11546120
>Q.E.D
>>11546129
>>11546132
>chao
I would laugh if the world, even the Academy (academia is not an English word anglx-saxxns), wasn't filled with people that wrote like morons like this

[Anonymous No.11546610]

>>11546481
>failing to recognize ironic use of QED to mock a brainlet

[Anonymous No.11546811]

do not reply to .999.... posters

[Anonymous No.11546819]

>>11546120
not a proof
just a plug & chug

[Anonymous No.11546825]

>>11546082
[math] \displaystyle
\sum_{n=1}^{ \infty}9 \cdot 10^{-n}
[/math]

[Anonymous No.11547395]

>>11545923
kino response

[Anonymous No.11547407]

>>11546092
try /pol/ and /x/, they are much more rational than people here

[Anonymous No.11547666]

>>11547407
correct

[Anonymous No.11548839]

>>11545923

Now THIS is how you do a 0.999... = 1 thread

[Anonymous No.11549124]

the mods deleted my full proof proof because they fear me.

[Anonymous No.11549306]

>>11546819
hey give me a break, I'm an engineer not a mathematician

[Anonymous No.11549508]

>>11545932
>but the argument is really silly to begin with.
No, its not silly, dont trivialize the importance of this war. What we have here is a titanic struggle between the forces of Evil and Good. On one side we have the evil Maths Nazis with their infinity, infinitesimals and other such indoctrinated blasphemies. They are guilty of genociding reality. On the other side we have God's chosen, who acknowledge the righteousness of a discrete and finite Universe.

The Maths Nazis will eventually lose, since the HOLY WARRIORS of THE ONE TRUE FINITE UNIVERSE have God on their side. Amen.

[Anonymous No.11549548]

>>11546031
Okay your brain is set to airplane mode if you think this is valid math

[Anonymous No.11550294]

>>11549548
It's valid.

[Anonymous No.11550314]

>>11550294
You probably also think your bed is a valid place for a shit.

[Anonymous No.11550322]

>>11550314
stop pissing in your cereal

[Anonymous No.11550331]

>>11550314
No.

[Anonymous No.11550332]

>>11545901
>but steel's heavier than feathers.

[Anonymous No.11551185]

>>11546326
Wrong. You're a faggot.

[Anonymous No.11551194]

>>11549548
explain what's not valid

[Anonymous No.11551217]

>>11545991
I dont get (2). Why would you write it as a limit of the sum and not as a series.

[Anonymous No.11551233]

Nice post. Hopefully it will end the .999... disease for eternity.

[Anonymous No.11551255]

>>11551217
becaue the "series" is defined by this limit

[Anonymous No.11551272]

>>11550332
But it is. Lifting steel is still harder than lifting feathers even with 0 atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.11551286]

>>11551272
Not so. Zero athmosphere means vaccum, so your head will explode.

[Anonymous No.11551290]

Can anyone explain to me what is happening in this thread? Why such vigorous argumentation?

[Anonymous No.11551295]

The most beautiful proof is this

1/3 = 0.3333...

0.3333... x 3 = 0.9999...

[Anonymous No.11551300]

>>11551295
3 has residue.

[Anonymous No.11551303]

>>11551290
No noone can: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

[Anonymous No.11551305]

>>11551303
That is indeed my favorite Monty Python sketch, so I rather have to believe I've encountered some sort of virgin moment to my experience on display.

[Anonymous No.11551311]

>>11551286
You're a fagg with reddit-tier responses.
Velocity of free fall has nothing to do with mass or weight. Because Gravity is not a force.

[Anonymous No.11551318]

>>11551295
1/3 does not exist in decimal form. 0,999... does not exist at all.
They're not numbers, just abstractions. This is why maths are not hard science.

[Anonymous No.11551323]

>>11551318
Essentially help users of the language identify when others are more willing to argue for repetition than inclusion/agreeance.

[Anonymous No.11551344]

>>11546081

s e e t h i n g R A G E L E T

[Anonymous No.11551360]

>>11551323
I personally thing we should separate the logical experiencable maths from the more abstract circle-jerk bullshit like infinite repeating digits.
Something you can theorically count = logical and can be found in nature. Everything else = abstraction. You shouldn't mix both. 1-0,999... makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.11551369]

>>11551360
I agree. Binary is just the moment after identifying something that resonates with another.

If you can measure/explain it without difficulty then obviously it can be infinitely counted, repeating the thing ad finitum just drills into any positive reciprocation.

[Anonymous No.11551384]

>>11551360
this argument won't get you very far
even 1 = 1 is an abstract circle jerk bullshit, beause there are no two 100% identical objects in the universe
math is abstract in its very essence. there's no reason to draw some "okay this is too much" line.

[Anonymous No.11551392]

>>11551384
It's just a way of describing priority or quantity. Knowing that saves a lot of language headaches. Once people know how to rank they learn pretty quickly.

[Anonymous No.11551409]

>>11545901
If they're not equal, then give me a number between 0.999... and 1.

[Anonymous No.11551412]

>>11551409
9 has a repeat, which would take priority for any check to see if highest number and apply.

[Anonymous No.11551414]

>>11551384
Saying that one apple is as many apples as one orange is of oranges is indeed comparing apples with oranges, literally.

[Anonymous No.11551421]

>>11551384
You're confusing counting with philosiphy and sociology anon.
Everything can be broken down to a well defined unit that serves as 1.
0,453 m = 453 x 1 cm units. You can go further and further but you'll never find an Infinite amount of a measure of a distance from x to y no matter how many times you break it down to 1, which is what 0,999... (Or 4,555... For that matter) implies. This whole misconception is rooted in the assumption that space is infinite so It theorically could mean infinite numbers exist in nature.
A-we have no means to know that as of yet, only models.
B-even if space is infinite, it means infinite that an infinity exists, not that you could beak down a defined unit like 1 in infinite little units, which 1/3 = 0,333... or 0,999... do.

[Anonymous No.11551428]

>>11551421
>sub-divides observation further

[Anonymous No.11551434]

>>11551421
Sorry for the syntax, frog anon and had too much wine. Hope you get what I meant.

[Anonymous No.11551435]

>>11551409
literally in the OP retard

>1-0.1^(x) < 1-0.1^(x+n) < 1

[Anonymous No.11551439]

>>11551421
no numbers exist in nature

[Anonymous No.11551446]

>>11551412
That is useful for checking feasibility in optimization problems written in a standard form. But basically it is due to the standard definition of Dedekind cuts. Once you know that the first decimal digit is a 9, you already know that 1 is the most you can get to. If you start with a 1, you may have to grind out decimal digits indefinitely to figure out whether you pass 1 or not.

[Anonymous No.11551456]

>>11551446
And being this explainer for a given resolution of a higher process is ultimately telling me...?

[Anonymous No.11551470]

>>11551428
If you divide a baguette in 3 equal proportions, you didn't reach 3 x 0,333... baguettes. You either had a 300g baguette and divided it in 3 100g baguettes, or a 30 cm baguette and divided it in 3 10cm baguettes, either way you had 300 or 30 units and divided them in three. It's physically impossible to separate a 100g or 1 kg baguette in three perfectly equal in weight baguettes, which means the fact that you can do that in our maths makes it an abstraction, as in something that does not and can not physically exist. My point is, instead of conceding and aproximating, every hard science field should define its units and how they break down anew and stop using faulty maths than work to a degree but comprise errors. 1 atom can be a unit, or one neutron, or whatever, but it has to be adapted to its field. We use the same conventions from the economic fields to biochemistry which is madness and stupid. Abstractions have no use in hard science that can be tested, but you can keep those abstractions for jerking off purposes akin to other humanities mathfaggs.

[Anonymous No.11551483]

>>11551470
So an ordered Grammar that is generative/procedural and punishes reaching 3 repetitions of the same abstract concept?

[Anonymous No.11551521]

>>11551483
You can break down units 10000000 times for all I care as long as it's a finite number, it's not like we lack the computing power to do that.
Our current system is outdated, a simplification based on our 10 monkey fingers to make calculus easier with a chalk and blackboard.
Every field needs its units and its language, no need for a unified system to unify fields with 0 interaction whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.11551541]

>>11551435
How does this show anything about 0.999...?

[Anonymous No.11551551]

>>11551470
>>11551483
Think of it this way, in measuring weight, 1/3 would be written down as 0,33 + 0,33 + 0,34. You can place the coma and the 4 as far as you want by convention.
In another field like quantum physics or électricity measures 1/3 would be 0,33 x 3 with one of the threes having a 1/3 chance of being 0,34, again, place the come where you want by convention. This is without even changing the counting system, just by adapting convention you already improve accuracy. Imagine if on top of that you define the 1 unit in accordance with the subject matter and the /X system as well, you wouldn't even need convention because the basic last nonbreakable unit would be one, and you could never have less than one of that.

[Anonymous No.11551552]

>>11551541
There's always a number greater than the instance of 0.999... that you're evaluating. Pretty obvious idiot

[Anonymous No.11551558]

>>11551552
>There's always a number greater than the instance of 0.999...
How does what you quoted show that? Give a proof involving 0.999...

Then explain how >>11545946 is wrong.

[Anonymous No.11551574]

>>11545901
1/3 = 0.3333333
0.3333333 * 3 = 0.9999999
1/3 * 3 = 1
Check, and mate

[Anonymous No.11551593]

>>11551574
1/3 = 0,3333 + 0,3333 + 0,3334
Where the 4 is and on which number, you have to find out by measure of whatever the fuck you were applying this to. No such thing as 0,333... cm distance.

[Anonymous No.11551603]

>>11551593
>No such thing as 1/3 cm distance.
ok

[Anonymous No.11551613]

>>11551603
It's either 0,333 or 0,334. Try the experiment yourself anon :^)
Cut something of 1 cm in three and measure with a laser or something.

[Anonymous No.11551623]

>>11551613
didn't high school teach how to divide a line segment into n equal parts ?

[Anonymous No.11551634]

>>11551623
Well go and measure me a 0,333...333...333... something and I'll believe you.

[Anonymous No.11551694]

>>11551574
0.333333... isn't a third

the limit is, but the sequence of infinite numbers is not

[Anonymous No.11551698]

>>11551360
>I personally thing we should separate the logical experiencable maths from the more abstract circle-jerk bullshit like infinite repeating digits.
but 0.333... = 1/3 is a perfectly logical experiencable math anon
1. take a ruler of unit length with marks at every third. highlight the 1/3 mark.
2. choose any finite subdivision of units into a power of 10 and mark the ruler correspondingly
3. the 1/3 mark will always land between the 0.3..33 and 0.3..34 mark
that's literally what 0.333... = 1/3 means lol

[Anonymous No.11551711]

>>11545901
Stop being retarded.

[Anonymous No.11551729]

>>11551694
0.3333... is the limit bro
how else would you comprehend it if you want it to be a real number ?

[Anonymous No.11551758]

>>11551729
Infinite 3s

[Anonymous No.11551804]

>>11551698
1/3 is only logical in a power 9 system where you can break units in 9 smaller ones.
1/3 is not a logical number in a power 10 system. You can't break down the X10 of the smallest unit in 3 equal parts, you can only get 3 + 3 + 4.
Why you chimps cling so much to an absurdity created to fit the power 10 because "chimp have 10 fingurz so everifing is baze 10", I don't know.

[Anonymous No.11551816]

>>11551729
>How else would you comprehend it
You don't, which is why you create a retarded abstract concept. You might as well define 1/3 as "&" and it would have equal validity. 0,333... cm or & cm is no different, you can't measure either.

[Anonymous No.11551818]

>>11551758
That's what the limit is.

[Anonymous No.11551843]

>>11545901
>THERE IS ALWAYS A VALUE BETWEEN 0.999... AND 1
Name 1, and give its decimal expansion.

[Anonymous No.11551872]

>>11551843
0.9999...

[Anonymous No.11551907]

>>11551816
>a method of representing every real number is a retarded abstract concept
ok

[Anonymous No.11551940]

>>11551907
You can't represent every real number RETARD

[Anonymous No.11551972]

>>11551940
more like (You) can't because you're refusing the possibility for some meme reason.
or maybe you just don't understand the abstraction involved lol

[Anonymous No.11551982]

>>11551623

Actually that was one of the first things we learned in geometry was that it was impossible to divide a line segment into three segments.

[Anonymous No.11551984]

>>11551818

The limit is the least upper bound of the number, not the number itself. No number exists between .3R and 1/3 therefore 1/3 is the limit of .3R, doesn't mean that they are equal, in fact it necessarily means that they are not equal because that's the whole point of limits- the least number that is still greater than the number.

[Anonymous No.11551988]

>>11551907
You can't represent every real number. 0,333... is an abstraction. In fact, representing it by "&" would be a step up because at least you're not using concrete concepts like 0 (absence of unit) and 3 (three units) to represent an abstract non-existing number.

[Anonymous No.11551993]

>>11551982
rofl nope

[Anonymous No.11551994]

>>11551940
Then pls give an example of a real number that you cannot represent.

[Anonymous No.11552000]

>>11551984
limit of a number, what the fuck are you talking about? you don't take a limit of a number

[Anonymous No.11552004]

>>11551994
0,111... / 0,333... / 19,666...
... = Bullshit

[Anonymous No.11552021]

>>11551907
It's not the method of representation. It's that it's a representation of something that does not exist.
This is cool and all for a religion, arts or symbolism / occultism, but don't pretend you're doing hard science if you mix up concrete + abstract and measurable + un measurable but trust me bro.

[Anonymous No.11552025]

>>11552021
>something that does not exist.
the length of the diagonal in a unit square does not exist ?

[Anonymous No.11552151]

proof:

let 1 = x, and 0.9999... = y
thusly, the proof is left as an exercise for the reader

[Anonymous No.11552153]

>>11552025
Measure it, can the diagonal in question measure the length of 0,333[1 gazillion 3] ?

[Anonymous No.11552189]

>>11552153
I'm asking you. I'm a platonist, my take is that no mathematical object exists in reality and ultimately there's no qualitative difference between the concept of "numbers" and "infinity". Both are abstractions and both are useful in modelling the world.
Also the question was about sqrt(2), not 1/3

[Anonymous No.11552246]

>>11552189
You're taking this backwards.
Maths are there to express reality and solve real life/world problems. They're just that, a tool.
Sqrt(2) is a formula. Greeks already established it was not a real number. Everything else past that was just cope : b-but if we all pretend it's real it will become real.

[Anonymous No.11552257]

>>11552000

are you saying 0.333... isn't a number? lmfao you just played yourself retard

[Anonymous No.11552278]

1/3=0.333...
2/3=0.666...
3/3=0.999...=1

[Anonymous No.11552307]

>>11552278
1 = 0,3 + 0,3 + 0,4
You can delay all you want, you need a 4 at some point.
1/3 = 0,3 in a base 9 system, 1/3 = impossible in a base 10 system

[Anonymous No.11552315]

>>11552307
>1/3 = impossible
nah 0.3... is good

[Anonymous No.11552317]

>>11545923
based

[Anonymous No.11552321]

>>11551711
THIS IS COMPLETELY FUCKING RETARDED
STOP POSTING THIS

[Anonymous No.11552325]

is there a number base where this problem doesn't exist?

[Anonymous No.11552405]

>>11552315
No it's not. It's just as good as any other abstract concept like politics or arts, it solely exists because of the human observers agreed upon it. It does not exist in nature, it's not scientific.

[Anonymous No.11552407]

>>11552325
Not sure if a base 9 would solve it, it'd be equivalent to a 0,11111111111.....0 so maybe. Idk I'm drunk.

[Anonymous No.11552408]

>>11552405

>It does not exist in nature

oh no ... he's a materialist

[Anonymous No.11552411]

>>11552325
There is practically no number base in which retardation does not exist. Thank you for your question.

[Anonymous No.11552413]

Here's the proof

A fish is a fish right? it's not a bicycle, is it?
Then 0.9999... isn't 1
Simple

I just BTFO everyone using simple logic,that's how genius i am

[Anonymous No.11552416]

>>11552408
Oh no, it's an autistic fagg.

[Anonymous No.11552420]

>>11552413
But what if ever tinier and tinier never ending bits of fishes added together are a bicycle ?
Here! Let me post some magic formula that explains it ! Maths sure are fun teehee!

[Anonymous No.11552427]

>>11552411

Some infinite decimals are solved just by looking at them with other bases. If humans can't just switch between number bases at will it's not nature's fault :)

[Anonymous No.11552428]

>>11552413

Exactly right Anon! Praise God! There are still sensible people like you left in this world. Its shocking there's so many GOD CURSED SODOMITES waving their 0.999 = 1 bullshit around in defiance of all reason and logic.

[Anonymous No.11552433]

The last time I posted this pic, someone responded that Z and W were the same point, and thus .999...=1. I pointed out that this also made 0=1 and they didn't seem to see why that would be a problem, given that they got the answer they wanted!

[Anonymous No.11552443]

>>11552427
Thank you.
All those retarded theories stem from the fact that some ape counted his fingers thousands of years ago, and other apes all agreed to it as if it was part of the 10 commandements (also 10 btw because it's a fulfilling number to ape brains) and still do to this day not seeing the abvious flaws in thinking so much inside a box.

[Anonymous No.11552452]

>>11552433
>I pointed out that this also made 0=1
Incorrect. All parallel lines meet at infinity.

[Anonymous No.11552458]

>>11552452
No they don't.

[Anonymous No.11552469]

>>11552458
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_at_infinity

[Anonymous No.11552480]

>>11552246
>Maths are there to express reality and solve real life/world problems. They're just that, a tool.
Firstly, that's not true anymore. Whether you like it or not, math has evolved into a self-contained discipline.
Secondly, that doesn't dispute what I've written. Math objects are not reality, they're just models of reality at best. Continuous mathematics (which necessarily involes some notion of infinity) models reality extremely well, there's no reason not to accept it and use it. 0.999... = 1 is just a byproduct of the theory.
>Greeks already established it was not a real number.
No, they estabilished that it's not a rational number. But that's just semantics, whatever.
>Everything else past that was just cope : b-but if we all pretend it's real it will become real.
And what makes 5/4 "real" and sqrt(2) "not real" ? Both are lengths of line segments which are perfectly constructible from the unit length.

[Anonymous No.11552484]

>>11552469
Stupid concept, completely abstract and on par with werewolves and fairies.

[Anonymous No.11552494]

>>11552484
LOL, you're the one who drew it: >>11552433

Otherwise Z and W don't exist.

[Anonymous No.11552495]

>>11552484
maybe, still falsifies >>11552433

[Anonymous No.11552498]

>>11552480
Well that's where we differ. I think everything self-contained is nothing but wishful thinking like witchcraft or yoga improving your shakras or whatever. It doesn't hold any scientific value. Feel free to disagree, but it's of the order of subjective truths akin to one's politics or social beliefs. It's even enforced by consensus just like the above.

[Anonymous No.11552499]

>>11552494
No I'm not, I'm not the anon who posted that.

[Anonymous No.11552503]

>>11552499
Doesn't matter, if you want to draw a line at infinity you have to play by its rules.

[Anonymous No.11552506]

JANNIES PLEASE PATTERN MATCH ON /999/ AND MAKE IT ILLEGAL

[Optart No.11552509]

>>11545901
Does that mean .9999... the greatest number less than 1?

[Anonymous No.11552513]

>>11552498
Then you reject mathematics as a whole

[Anonymous No.11552528]

>>11552480
They model it well because approximations work. 0,999... is a fiction extremely close to 1 by definition. It doesn't mean you coudn't make an extra effort to switch bases and be 100% accurate and reflect reality instead of modeling it. There is no reason uncertainty or quantum mechanics couldn't be included in maths to express results in (really) close intervals instead of almost accurate approximations, it's just not convenient and adds extra work for little, almost irrelevant, gains in accuracy. Just stop pretending an approximation is the real thing, let alone spend resources and pages explaining and providing proof for made up self contained bullshit. This is why most other scientists cringe at mathfaggs.

[Anonymous No.11552538]

>>11552513
No, I value maths as a tool, it's one of the best tools humanity came up with. I dislike the whole fart sniffing suffisance mathfaggs display to justify stuff they voodooed into existence.

[Anonymous No.11552563]

>>11552528
>0,999... is a fiction extremely close to 1 by definition.
>by definition
anon, but you don't know the definition of 0.999... there's no reason to lie

[Anonymous No.11552583]

>>11552563
It's an infinite succession of 9s after 0,
It's a fiction equal to 1 because it's a fiction constructed to not allow any mathematical differentiation from 1.
It's just expressed through well established symbols like "0", "," and "9" but it is no different from other fictions constructed upon other observable units like sqrt(2) or 5/7 in decimal form.

[Anonymous No.11552617]

>>11552583
>It's an infinite succession of 9s after 0,
So you agree with the second proof here >>11545946

[Anonymous No.11552626]

>>11552583
what's a fiction now ? "5/7" or "5/7 in decimal form"

[Anonymous No.11552663]

>>11552617
I said it's a fiction, so it's equal to my balls if enough mathematicians agree it is.
>>11552626
5/7 is a ratio. It can be expressed through a number depending on the base X you use. The number in decimal form is an abstract concept expressing that ratio in base 10.

[Anonymous No.11552676]

>>11552663
>>11552626
For instance, and to illustrate, 5/7 is 25 in 35 base.

[Anonymous No.11552789]

>>11552408
retard

[Anonymous No.11552887]

>>11552663
and ratio is not an abstract concept ?

[Anonymous No.11552896]

>>11552887
ratios are like wicked abstract if u think about it

[Anonymous No.11552961]

>>11545901
Ironic or genuine, you're autistic.

[Anonymous No.11553051]

I am really pleased that this debate has been settled. Thank God the voice of reason has won!

0.999... does not equal 1.

Now its time to move on. The question now is how we go about repairing the terrible damage caused to Mathematics by those GOD CURSED SODOMITES who had their wicked way for so long. I suggest we begin with prayer.

"Oh Almighty! We have reclaimed the Universe for the finite! Holy be the discrete! May the infinity Sodomites burn in Hell for a period of time equal to the largest finite number in existence. Amen "

[Anonymous No.11553068]

>>11553051
agreed

[Anonymous No.11553223]

>>11552495
>maybe, still falsifies >>11552433 (You)

Admits it's stupid, it's fine because it gives the answer he wants.

>>11552452
>>I pointed out that this also made 0=1
>Incorrect. All parallel lines meet at infinity.

So ALL numbers equal zero. Sure that's much better.

>>11552494
>LOL, you're the one who drew it: >>11552433 (You)

Nope. I drew it.

>>11552503
>Doesn't matter, if you want to draw a line at infinity you have to play by its rules.

Rules that you just made up, you mean? Common sense says that if your theory says that parallel lines intersect, it's time to get a better theory.

>>11552509
>Does that mean .9999... the greatest number less than 1?

This is a more logical construct then "The square root of negative one." Infinitesimals get you out of other problems in the real numbers too, such as "Possible with a probability of zero." being different from "Impossible."

>>11552480
>>Maths are there to express reality and solve real life/world problems. They're just that, a tool.
>Firstly, that's not true anymore. Whether you like it or not, math has evolved into a self-contained discipline.

Once math has disconnected itself from reality in this way, it stops being true or false, and becomes more like canon in fiction. Klingons are just as real as "real numbers".

[Anonymous No.11553226]

>>11553068
>>>11553051
>agreed

Seconded.

[Anonymous No.11553503]

>>11553223
>So ALL numbers equal zero
Nothing I said implies that.

>Rules that you just made up, you mean?
No.

>Common sense says that if your theory says that parallel lines intersect, it's time to get a better theory.
"Common sense" is not math.

[Anonymous No.11553507]

>>11553068
>>11553226
dumb & dumber

[Anonymous No.11553511]

>>11553223
>parallel lines
define
as in, what test (other than 'don't meet') proves that two lines are parallel

[Anonymous No.11553519]

>.999... Is equal to 1
The only people who genuinely believe this dumb shit are just larper intellectuals who think just because they have a different opinion they’re special or unique. Faggots.

[Anonymous No.11553520]

>>11545923
A true patricians choice of response

[Anonymous No.11553542]

so many autists baited by trolls...

[Anonymous No.11553543]

>>11546129
>>11546130
Lmao come back OP, a limit is just the value a function approaches not what it is

[Anonymous No.11553607]

>>11553519
nonequals are the "different opinion"
retards

[Anonymous No.11553622]

>Plebbit spacing
>Plebbit capping
>Wojak image
>"Subreddit"
You're not welcome here OP you faggot.

[Anonymous No.11553709]

>>11545901
Alright I will end this once and for all.
OP, let's assume that 0.9999... != 1
if that's the case, then 0.9999... should certainly be lesser than 1, do you agree?
But forall real numbers a and b if a is lesser than b then there exists a real number c between them (you can easily prove that by taking c to be (a + b) / 2)
so if we assume that 0.9999 != 1 then there should be a real number c between them and since it is a real number it should have some decimal expansion since all real numbers have some decimal expansion, do you agree, OP?
What would that decimal expansion be?
Now tell me, OP.

[Anonymous No.11553756]

>>11553709
RETARD GET THE FUCK OUT FROM MY THREAD

[Anonymous No.11553773]

>>11553756
what's wrong, OP? I thought you have left already, haven't you? Now give me an answer. I'm waiting.

[Anonymous No.11553889]

>>11553773
Not OP, but I will answer on his behalf. There is no response to your retardation. Its not worthy of a response. The science has been settled. The debate is over. We won. 0.999 does not equal 1. You can leave now, Sodomite, and take your retardation with you. This is now a good God fearing thread, a sanctuary of divinely inspired wisdom, there is no place for you here.

[Anonymous No.11553903]

0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999=1

[Anonymous No.11553909]

>>11553223
>Common sense says that if your theory says that parallel lines intersect, it's time to get a better theory.
you have a shit common sense anon

[Anonymous No.11553912]

>>11553889
ok schizo

[Anonymous No.11553922]

>>11553909
>Parallel lines intersect
>This is common sense.

Tell us, Sodomite, do you understand the reflection in the mirror is you, or are you still grappling with this concept?

[Anonymous No.11553953]

>>11553922
uhmm I'm pretty sure that if we start walking in parallel directions, our paths will eventually intersect

anon are you a flat earther ?

[Anonymous No.11553959]

>>11553953
Okay so now maths are no longer self contained but include real hard science like physics or geography because it suits you, amazing.
Btw that's not the shape of Earth.

[Anonymous No.11554021]

>>11553507
Idiot

[Anonymous No.11554026]

>>11553959
but anon, you're the one who brought up common sense

[Anonymous No.11554077]

>>11554021
>so needy of attention
jeez ok
dumb & dumber & idiot

[Anonymous No.11554160]

>>11554026
You're just making shit up on the go to justify your nonsense now.
Because you make up abstraction than happen to work does not mean they're true. Greek mythology worked and explained everything in the world as a self enclosed system. Think about that and see the parallels you can draw with modern-day mathfaggotry.

[Anonymous No.11554161]

>>11554160
>abstraction
>true
but anon, this is not how abstraction works....

[Anonymous No.11554171]

>>11554161
This is my point. 0,999... can't exist in the material world, it's an abstraction like a nymph or a fairy.

[Anonymous No.11554175]

>>11554171
>1 doesn't exist
found the virgin

[Anonymous No.11554178]

>>11554171
but anon, no mathematical object exists in the material world.............

[Anonymous No.11554186]

>>11554175
1 is a unit, 0,999... is an abstract concept. No such thing as 0,999... unit of something. You can break the unit of X in smaller unit up to the point where you have a certain number of smaller units you can express without decimals. You can't break 0,999... therefore it is not a unit measure.
>>11554178
1 exists, 0 is the absence of 1, every other number is how many 1s you have.
Get.
Fucked.

[Anonymous No.11554196]

>>11554186
but anon, units are also an abstract concept..........
>1 exists
really ? where do I find it ?

[Anonymous No.11554213]

>>11554196
No they are not. You have 1 normal nose.
But what is a normal nose?
It's an imperfect consensus of what this organ normally is, and every well-formed mammal has 1 unit of this imperfect agreed upon consensus.
No mammal has 0,999.... unit of a normal nose.
As the definition goes, you either have 1 unit or 0 unit of it.
If you have a fucked up torn up nose by a bullet or something, you don't have half of it, you have 0 unit of normal nose but 1 unit of fucked up nose.
The unit is the starting point quantification of an observable thing.
You're confusing two different sorts of abstractions, one akin to philosophy, and the other akin to mathematics.
The two are not equivalent, and if we lack the sensatory capacity to perceive the material world unbiased, it's still counterintuitive, useless and unscientific to add computing / calculating abstractions on top of that.

[Anonymous No.11554222]

>>11554213
stop talking about noses and tell me where the 1 is

[Anonymous No.11554225]

>>11554186
1 is a unit and an abstract concept.
0.9... is a unit and an abstract concept.
0.9...=1 >>11551711

[Anonymous No.11554226]

>>11554222
Count how many noses you have and find out.

[Anonymous No.11554229]

>>11554226
I have exactly 0.999... noses

[Anonymous No.11554233]

>>11554229
most do

[Anonymous No.11554235]

>>11554226
I don't want "1 nose". I want "1".

[Anonymous No.11554242]

>>11554225
0,999... is not a unit.
: : : : :
":" Is a unit for this experiment.
You see 5 units of ":"
But what are
: . . : :
4/5 units of ":" ? If we break the unit down by 2, we find there are 8 "." units.
That's how a unit works, It can be broken down to the point It can be expressed in a certain number of "1"s.
You can't break down 0,999... unlike 4/5 therefore it does not describe a unit and it can never do so. Therefore it is not a valid unit.

[Anonymous No.11554245]

>>11554235
1 serves to count X, it's the whole point of inventing numbers and maths, stop being retarded.

[Anonymous No.11554259]

>>11554245
>1 serves to count X
?
is this supposed to say that "1" exists in the material world ?

[Anonymous No.11554260]

>>11554242
>0,999... is not a unit.
0.9...=1 so you're wrong

[Anonymous No.11554261]

>>11554229
The unit of "normal nose" can't be broken down, it's either 1 or 0.
If 1 meganose is 7 normal noses, you'd have 1/7 meganose in a group of 7 people, and 1 normal nose if you break it down, but you can't break down further than that.
Every unit can be broken down to a minimal unit, or bundled up in maximal units indefinitely. Physics support that, at some point you reach a minimum sized particle composing neutrons or quarks, then that's it. You can't break further than that practically.

[Anonymous No.11554262]

Is 5.9999.. = 6?

[Anonymous No.11554264]

>>11554235
no one knows

[Anonymous No.11554266]

>>11554259
Yes, it serves as a tool to count and measure stuff. 0,999... is a faulty useless tool.

[Anonymous No.11554267]

>>11554262
Yeah.

[Anonymous No.11554272]

>>11554242
>0,999... unlike 4/5
0.7999...

[Anonymous No.11554277]

Why the fuck do we have like 3 threads about this topic up at the same time

[Anonymous No.11554279]

>>11554266
0.999... is the exact same tool as 1. it just has a different name.

[Anonymous No.11554282]

>>11554277
pol attack

[Anonymous No.11554286]

>>11554261
>unit of "normal nose" can't be broken down
start insulting people and you'll quickly find out how wrong you are

[Anonymous No.11554288]

>>11554272
Point being the ratio 4/5 can represent a unit in the correct base X if broken down. 0,799... is a faulty representation of 4/5 in base 10.
0,999... does not represent any known ratio.
>>11554279
No, because it can't be fucking broken down. It stays almost 1 unit for ever no matter how many times you multiply it by any base.

[Anonymous No.11554292]

>>11554286
Upvoted.

[Anonymous No.11554296]

>>11554288
>fucking broken
you're fucking broken & all you do is yell nein-nein-nein

[Anonymous No.11554303]

>>11554296
You're indoctrinated and don't see how this is an open question because it involves purely theorerical concepts that can never be verified empirically. It's a philosophical debate at best, not a scientific one. The fact you insist it's the one truth is annoying but I'll stop replying because I wasted way too much time already.
>inb4 time is also an abstract concept, find me time in nature

[Anonymous No.11554310]

>>11554288
>Point being the ratio 4/5 can represent a unit in the correct base X if broken down. 0,799... is a faulty representation of 4/5 in base 10.
what makes a representation faulty or not faulty ?
>0,999... does not represent any known ratio.
firstly, it represents 1/1. secondly what's the deal with ratios? I can easily construct an irrational multiple of a unit length, even in the "material world"
>No, because it can't be fucking broken down. It stays almost 1 unit for ever no matter how many times you multiply it by any base.
what the fuck are you talking about ? it's starting to smell like schizo around here

[Anonymous No.11554311]

>>11554303
ha-ha, I ONE

[Anonymous No.11554326]

>>11554310
Unwhole numbers indefinitely are faulty representations of units.
A/ 1 kg can be broken into 1000 g for instance.
0,95 kg = 950 units of 1 g.
0,999... kg is a faulty representation because you can never reach a point where a measure unit can be expressed in x units of 1.
B/ If you divide 1 kg by 3, you obtain 333g + 333g + 334 g in base 10.
In base 9 you'd get 300g X 3.
0,999... Kg does not work by breaking down (as in A/) nor by chaning base (as in B/) therefore it can't exist in nature, or more precisely, it can't be used as a functionnal, theoretically 100% accurate tool in nature.

[Anonymous No.11554336]

>>11554326
fristly, what's "unwhole number" ?
secondly, you're kind of sayig that if I take a ruler of length two units, I can break it into two parts of length 1U and 1U, but I can't break it into sqrt(2)U and (2-sqrt(2))U. but it's clearly possible using an elementary geometric construction. what's up with that ?

[Anonymous No.11554339]

Why is so much of this thread just about reducing another poster's position?

[Anonymous No.11554348]

>>11554336
To express sqrt(2) correcty you have to change base, or break down 1 unit into smaller units. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.11554362]

>>11554336
Numbers are just tools to measure stuff, and 1 unit is a bad tool to express sqrt(2) correctly. That's why you use another tool.
0,999... is useless for any purpose. It's not a byproduct of anything, and it doesn't pop up casually. You have to define x=0,999... which raises the question why be a faggot and not use 1 instead.

[Anonymous No.11554374]

The polygon will never be a circle. For all useful purposes it will look and act like one though, but you will never be able to measure it surface with π. Therefore 0,999... can't be 1, but the difference between the two can't be tested because the polygon will never reach a definite state.

[Anonymous No.11554421]

>>11554362
>1 unit is a bad tool to express sqrt(2) correctly.
did you mean sqrt(2) doesn't have a finite decimal representation ?
>0,999... is useless for any purpose
so ?
>It's not a byproduct of anything, and it doesn't pop up casually
it pops up the moment you start talking about decimal expansions
>why be a faggot and not use 1 instead.
we use 1 instead

[Anonymous No.11554736]

>>11554374
Agreed, lim(0.9999...)=1 but 0.9999... does not equal 1.

[Anonymous No.11554766]

>>11554736
>Agreed, lim(0.9999...)
which is lim(1),
> =1
because 1 is constant 1,
> but 0.9999...
which is 1
> does not equal 1.
And therefore 1 = 1 does not mean that 1 equals 1.

[Anonymous No.11554776]

>>11554766
take your meds, schizo

[Anonymous No.11554781]

>>11554736
but anon, lim(k) = k for any real number k

[Anonymous No.11554847]

>>11554781
Correct, but how does that relate to what I'm saying? Retard

[Anonymous No.11554883]

>>11553709
>for all real numbers a and b if a is lesser than b then there exists a real number c between them

0.999... is clearly a counter example to this. You're thinking about this whole thing backwards because you're uncomfortable with infinity. There is clearly no decimal expansion greater than 0.999... that is also less than 1. That doesn't mean they're the same number. This is an issue with how you define successor functions in sets with infinite decimal expansions.

[Anonymous No.11554888]

>>11554883
>That doesn't mean they're the same number.
source: my ass

[Anonymous No.11554899]

>>11554883
>There is clearly no decimal expansion greater than 0.999...
yes there is retard: 0.9999...

[Anonymous No.11554904]

>>11545901
Can the admins just fucking make 0.999... =/= 1 its own containment board already?

[Anonymous No.11554905]

>>11554847
0.999... is a real number, innit

[Anonymous No.11554907]

oh shit 300 posts, someone post a new 0.9999..!=1 thread

[Anonymous No.11554908]

>>11554883
Yes it does mean they are the same, moron. Stop using your made up definitions of the Reals.

[Anonymous No.11554914]

>>11554883
do you know what a densely ordered set is ?

[Anonymous No.11554941]

>>11554905
It must not be then. Problem solved.

[Anonymous No.11555031]

>>11545923
And they say \sci\ doesn't have good memes

[Anonymous No.11555051]

y = 0
x = ?
Well /sci/?

[Anonymous No.11555173]

>>11555051
undefined stupidhead

[Anonymous No.11555204]

1/3 = 0.33333333

1/3 x 3 = 1

Therefore 0.33333 x 3 = 0.999999999999.....equals to 1

[Anonymous No.11555227]

>>11555204
>1/3 = 0.33333333

Even if you had remembered the "..." this would still be circular logic.

[Anonymous No.11555577]

>>11553519
>>11553051
>>11553889
>>11554736
x = 0.999...
10x = 9.999...
10x - 9x = 9
9x = 9
x = 1

[Anonymous No.11555581]

>>11555577
Typo: 10x - x = 9

[Anonymous No.11555668]

>>11555577
But Anon, 9x = 9 X 0,999... = 8,999...

[Anonymous No.11555826]

>>11545901
bah, you're wrong

[Anonymous No.11555828]

>>11555826
shut up

[Anonymous No.11555859]

If 1 = 0.999...

Then 0.9 = 0.8999...

If 0.9 = 0.8999...

Then 1 = 0.8999...

But 1 > 0.8999...

Therefore 1 != 0.999...

[Anonymous No.11556097]

>>11555859
Based

[Anonymous No.11556314]

>>11555859
I know you're trolling, but this is roughly the actual math level of people who say .9...=/=1

[Anonymous No.11556368]

>>11555859
>1 = 0.9

[Anonymous No.11556378]

>>11556368

if 1 = 0.999...

then 0.9 = 0.8999...

if 0.9 = 0.8999...

then 0.999... = 0.8999...

and if 1 = 0.999...

and 0.999... = 0.8999...

then 1 = 0.8999...

[Anonymous No.11556397]

>>11556368

0.999... = 0.9 + 0.0999...

0.9 = 0.8999...

0.8999... + 0.0999... = 0.9998...

0.999... = 0.998...

[Anonymous No.11556405]

>>11556397

Huh, that almost looks like a contradiction don't it?