[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 28 KB, 520x353, visualizing_0.999.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11584695 No.11584695 [Reply] [Original]

Name a number on R between .999... and 1.
You can't.
Therefore .999... = 1

>> No.11584698 [DELETED] 

reminder that Trump/gop saw it unfolding on the news for 3 months but did nothing
https://youtu.be/xfPk1HIBLfM
https://youtu.be/bkMwvmJLnc0
https://youtu.be/UHjJydZO99A

>> No.11584706

>>11584695
Please stop this shit, I hate seeing this thread everyday.

>> No.11584709

>>11584698
>Reminder that so did the whole world and dem leadership sat on their hands too

>> No.11584724 [DELETED] 

>>11584709

Jan 3 ----- Trump told of virus in China
Jan 4 - Golf
Jan 5 - Golf
Jan 8 ----- CDC issues its first warning
Jan 9 - Campaign rally
Jan 14 - Campaign rally
Jan 18 - Golf
Jan 19 - Golf
Jan 28 - Campaign rally
Jan 30 - Campaign rally

Feb 1 - Golf
Feb 2 - Golf
Feb 10 - Campaign rally
Feb 15 - Golf
Feb 16 - Daytona 500
Feb 19 - Campaign rally
Feb 20 - Campaign rally
Feb 21 - Campaign rally
Feb 28 [-](https://youtu.be/WSIuBzKUPDw?t=4m24s)) Campaing rally, claims the virus is “Their new Hoax”

March 7 - Golf
March 8 - Golf
March 9 - tweets comparing it to the flu
March 10 - says “And it will go away. Just relax. It will go away”

3/13/2020 - Trump for first time admits COVID-19 is a concern, declares National Emergency but says “I don’t take responsibility at all"

>> No.11584728 [DELETED] 

>>11584709

Jan 3 ----- Trump told of virus in China
Jan 4 - Golf
Jan 5 - Golf
Jan 8 ----- CDC issues its first warning
Jan 9 - Campaign rally
Jan 14 - Campaign rally
Jan 18 - Golf
Jan 19 - Golf
Jan 28 - Campaign rally
Jan 30 - Campaign rally

Feb 1 - Golf
Feb 2 - Golf
Feb 10 - Campaign rally
Feb 15 - Golf
Feb 16 - Daytona 500
Feb 19 - Campaign rally
Feb 20 - Campaign rally
Feb 21 - Campaign rally
Feb 28 -Campaing rally, claims the virus is “Their new Hoax”

March 7 - Golf
March 8 - Golf
March 9 - tweets comparing it to the flu
March 10 - says “And it will go away. Just relax. It will go away”

3/13/2020 - Trump for first time admits COVID-19 is a concern, declares National Emergency but says “I don’t take responsibility at all"

>> No.11584731

>>11584695
So this invalidates everything my blue collar ass learned in pre calculus?

>> No.11584737

>>11584728
>comparing it to the flu
turns out he was right

>> No.11584741

>>11584695
[eqn]r=\frac{1+0.999...}{2}[/eqn]
Since 0.999... < 1 it follows that 0.999... < r < 1.

>> No.11584743
File: 51 KB, 960x634, 2020.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11584743

>>11584737
https://youtu.be/_8NkuVId2Lw?t=3m

>> No.11584755
File: 18 KB, 1769x844, 9=1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11584755

learn calc fags

>> No.11584760

>>11584755
not enough white space

>> No.11584775

>>11584741
r will equal exactly 1 because .9999... is exactly equal to 1

>> No.11584929

>>11584698

He shut off travel from China early, you're a liar.

>> No.11584947

>>11584929
Any epidemiologist knows that shutting the border with even a 0.001% leak is nothing but a speed bump, you win just a few weeks.
So what did he waste that on?
>>11584728

>> No.11584979

>>11584695
>Name an integer between 1 and 2
>hurr durr, you can't so 1 and 2 are the same
ex dee ex dee so smart haha look at me.
>>11584947
Get the fuck off /sci/ and go get rekt in /pol/. No one likes Trump but he's better than whoever you want.

>> No.11584985

>>11584979
The Naturals aren't dense, so the argument doesn't work on them. The Reals are dense, so it is a valid argument. Learn SOME fucking math god damn it!

>> No.11584987

>>11584695
0.999...<0.9999...<0.99999.... etc <1

YOU ARE RETARD

>> No.11584990

Does 9.899... = 9.999...?

>> No.11584991

>>11584947
Stop moving the goal post, LIAR!

>> No.11584993

>>11584985
But I am. I have my final exam in calculus 2 and even if I shit the bed on it, I will be passing with an A-. But I won't shit the bed. I'm saying you're retarded that is all.

>> No.11585001

>hurr durr its approaching 1 so it must be 1!
Anyways, I'm out. Enjoy the same garbage over and over.

>> No.11585007

>>11584991
read a book
or watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxAaO2rsdIs

Even worse, Washington already had covid-19 spreading, and Europe had free access.

>> No.11585009

>>11584695
name a number on N between 1 and 2
you can't
therefore 1 = 2

>> No.11585012

>>11584979
Make America Gasp Again

Make America Grapes of wrath Again

>> No.11585014

>>11584728
The fact that you didn't include "Trump shuts down travel from China, and gets called racist for it", and did include the "Claims virus is a hoax" fake news proves that you are lying scum. You should be ashamed of yourself.

>> No.11585017

>>11585009
anon...
[math] \displaystyle
\boxed{ \mathbb{T} \;
\boxed{ \mathbb{S} \;
\boxed{ \mathbb{O} \;
\boxed{ \mathbb{H} \;
\boxed{ \mathbb{C} \;
\boxed{ \mathbb{R} \;
\boxed{ \mathbb{Q} \;
\boxed{ \mathbb{Z} \;
\boxed{ \mathbb{N}}}}}}}}}}
[/math]

>> No.11585020

>>11585014
>>11584947

>> No.11585023

>>11584993
If you think being unable to find a 'c' such that 0.999...<c<1 isn't a humongous problem for you, then you clearly don't deserve even an F.

>> No.11585026

>>11585001
You are a retard who doesn't understand what "approaching" means in a mathematical context. Just like how creationists are too stupid to understand what "theory" means in a scientific context.

>> No.11585030

>>11585020
That's not an apology for lying...

>> No.11585032

>>11585023
0.999...<0.99999...<0.999999999....<1

RETARD

>> No.11585034

>>11584990
no
9.899... = 9.8 + 0.0999... = 9.8 + 0.1 = 9.9

>> No.11585036

>>11585030
no lie, no apology

>> No.11585038

>>11585032
kek, they are all =1

>> No.11585058

>>11585036
Yes you did. You lied by saying Trump did nothing, and that he called the virus itself a hoax. Those are a lie by omission and an outright lie respectively. Fuck you, LIAR. And you KNOW that you're lying because you move the goalpost after being called out for your disgusting lies.

>> No.11585064

>>11585032
I'm so confused. What does the "..." mean to you?.

>> No.11585076

>>11585058
No lie, no apology.

>> No.11585104
File: 198 KB, 1057x820, Trump Actual Timeline.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11585104

>>11585076
There are only two ways you could argue that honestly: you are stupid enough to believe that you're telling the truth, or you aren't the same guy who posted the deceptive timeline.

>> No.11585106

>>11585058
I'm not going to list all the useless things he did.
He knew, and ignored, that the pandemic was unstoppable. That is the moment he had to start a war effort to get tests, masks, visors, gloves, gowns, ventilators. He didn't, and now he has killed more Americans than bin Laden ever even dared to dream of.
Trump - the leading cause of death in America.

>> No.11585124

>>11585104
That timeline is even more disingenuous than the other guy's

>> No.11585126

>>11585104
- during Jan & Feb: export of masks, gowns and ventilators went up 1000%
- during Jan & Feb: import of hand sanitizer and ventilators fell by 11%
- government's contracts for PPE will not arrive until Sep/Oct
https://twitter.com/MiaFarrow/status/1248255386383253506

>> No.11585162

>>11585124
Wrong. It's less disingenuous.

>> No.11585166

>>11585106
>>11585104
Stop lying, retard.

>> No.11585173

>>11585166
>projecting

>> No.11585175

>>11584695
Name a number between 0.111... and 0.222..., protip: You can't.

See? You can make that argument about literally any number

>> No.11585194

>>11585009
Notice I specified the reals
>>11585175
.2
Done. Your argument was wrong to begin with, mine has held up under scrutiny.
>>11584987
Those are the same number.

>> No.11585195

>>11585175
Yes you can: 0.111...<0.12111...<0.2222...
If two Real Numbers are not equal, you can ALWAYS find at least one number strictly between them. Either provide a number in between point nine repeating and one, or admit that you are a retard who can't understand basic calculus/analysis.

>> No.11585207 [DELETED] 

>>11585195
>If two Real Numbers are not equal
you can find infinite (aleph-1) real numbers between them

>> No.11585217

>>11585195
>If two Real Numbers are not equal
you can find infinite (aleph_1) real numbers between them

>> No.11585223

>>11585207
Thank you for agreeing with me.

>> No.11585228

>>11585223
>>11585217
I meant this one.

>> No.11585239
File: 10 KB, 192x192, dUYGZaH.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11585239

>>11585195
>>11585194
I baited and outplayed you

>> No.11585256

>>11584728
You know what if he just likes golfing to stay in shape? What if someone gave you shit for lifting weights or jogging a couple of minutes a day?

>> No.11585261

>>11585032
>a repeating sequence of 9s is not equal to a repeating sequence of 9s
thanks for the bait fren 10/10 made me laugh and reply

>> No.11585264

>>11585239
You successful convinced me that you were retarded. Congratulations?

>> No.11585289

>>11584695
>look mum, I posted it again!

>> No.11585291

>>11584731
OP is retarded. .9... is the largest number that is less than 1 and as such there is no number between them. Not all .9... are equal so another way of looking at it is that .9... is between .9... and 1
>>11584698
The virus is no more deadly than influenza, fuck off (((CDC)))

>> No.11585294

>>11585291
>no more deadly than influenza
>>11584743

>> No.11585297

>>11585264
Thank you. The 0.999...!=1 threads really put the bar low though so I don't take that much credit

>> No.11585305

>>11585064
pattern extends to infinity.
>>11585261
dumb bastard
10^(x+1) > 10^x is always true, even as x extends to infinity

IDIOT

>> No.11585312

>>11585305
>IDIOT
/thread

Like, the entire thread.

>> No.11585320

>>11585291
>.9... is the largest number that is less than 1
There is no such number. Stop lying to people by insinuating that you actually know what you're talking about.

>> No.11585344

>>11584741
"to prove 0.999... < 1, let's start by assuming 0.999... < 1"

>> No.11585436
File: 66 KB, 300x449, thumb_master-trole-kid-know-your-meme-54280473.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11585436

>>11584695
>Name a number on R between .999... and 1.
[eqn]\frac{.999... + 1}{2}[/eqn]

>> No.11585449

>>11585436
That equals 1, which isn't strictly between 0.9... and 1. Also it's circular reasoning, because you need to assume that 0.9...<1 in order for that to be an example.

>> No.11585496

>>11584695
Name a number on Z between 1 and 2
You can't
Therefore 1=2.

>> No.11585529

>>11585496
1<1.5<2
Retard, we're talking about the Reals. The Reals are dense, therefore asking for such a number IS valid. The integers aren't dense, therefore it isn't valid. Stop being a retard who doesn't understand BASIC analysis.

>> No.11585530

>>11585529
I said Z, not R =)

>> No.11585555

>>11585530
Why do you think I said "Retard, we're talking about the Reals"? It's because I understood that you changed the subject from the Reals to the Integers, and I called you out on your pathetic attempt to sound smart with a non-sequitur.

>> No.11585560

>>11585555
>you changed the subject from the Reals to the Integers
yeah that's what I chose to talk about, and you brought up 1.5 so to be honest, you're the moron here. Also w a s t e d.

>> No.11585580

>>11585496
>Therefore
non-sequitur

>> No.11585582

>>11585560
You "chose" to talk about the Integers because you're a retard who thought that bringing them up would disprove the assertion that "find a number between .9... and 1" is a valid question to ask.

>> No.11585584

>>11584706
this debate will reign eternal, it's /sci/'s sunken cost fallacy

>> No.11585599

>>11585582
Because it is.
But the fact that is it dense (like you) makes it even worse, it means there is a number between 0.999(...) and 1.

>> No.11585600

>>11585584
THIS. LONG LIVE THE GREAT DEBATE

>> No.11585607

>>11585600
/sci/ literally arguing over nothing
1-.9999=0

>> No.11585669

>>11585599
Retard. If a set of numbers are dense, such as the Reals but NOT the Integers, then there is at least one number between a and b if a<b.
You are arguing the literally retarded idea that .9...<1 so it is up to you to show a number c such that .9...<c<1. I argue that it's impossible to do so because .9...=1. You argue, without realizing because YOU are the retard here, that it is possible. Show me the c. Don't change the subject, don't weasel out of it, just give me the fucking number.

>> No.11585673

>>11585607
Wrong. It equals 0.0001.
The "..." is important.

>> No.11585677

>>11585673
Ah yes of course

>> No.11585680

>>11585669
>so it is up to you to show a number c such that .9...<c<1
c=.99.... duh

>> No.11585683

>>11585449
dude i don't actually think 1 > 0.99... lmao

>> No.11585709

>>11585680
The "..." means the nines repeat infinitely. So .99...=.9...
Writing down one extra nine doesn't actually change the value, retard.

>> No.11585726

>>11585709
>.99...=.9...
Wow hold up now you're creating and entirely new debate here, lets stick to 1>.9...

>> No.11585739

>>11585726
You're probably right, these .9...=/=1 retards literally argue that 1/3=/=.3...
It's like playing whack-a-mole; every time you pound down one stupid thing they say, another one pops up.

>> No.11585744

>>11585739
now you understand

>> No.11585762

>>11585739
>You're probably right, these .9...=/=1 retards literally argue that 1/3=/=.3...
no we don't. I have never said that 1/3 =/= 0.3..., and in fact I believe 1/3 = .3.... I believe you came to the incorrect conclusion that we would argue 1/3=/=.3... based on the incorrect assumption that .9.../3 = .3..., which is provably false.

>> No.11585767

>>11585261

I thought strict inequalities didn't hold for infinite decimal expansions? seems you're flip flopping buddy

>>11585436
>>11585449

1 + 0.999... = 1.999...

1.999... /2 = 0.999...

>> No.11585769

>>11585762
so you disagree with 3*0.333... = 0.999... ?

>> No.11585773

>>11585762
>>11585739

0.333... is not a number until it terminates broheimsky

>> No.11585776

>>11585773
source: my ass

>> No.11585780

>>11584695
0.000...1

>> No.11585782

>>11585769
3*.333...=1

>> No.11585793

>>11585762
lol, so .999(...)/3=?

>> No.11585794

>>11585762
Yes you do. You HAVE to. Because otherwise it's trivial to show that .9...=1
1=3/3=3(.3...)=.9...

>> No.11585798

>>11585767
Strict inequalities don't GENERALLY hold for infinite decimal expansions. Stop being a retard who doesn't understand math jargon.

>> No.11585802

>>11585780
>0.000...1 is greater than .9...
Thank you for confirming that you are a literal retard.

>> No.11585807

>>11585773
Yes it is, retard. It's just the decimal expansion for 1/3. Stop being a retard who thinks 1/3 isn't a number.

>> No.11585814

>>11585776
he's right. try using long division to obtain the decimal form of 1/3. you can never get an answer, because the process never completes. you are always left with a remainder of 1 at each step and must continue with the next iteration. there is no decimal expansion. representing this infinite expansion with ellispes has never served any purpose but to cause confusion and leads people into falsely concluding that you can manipulate the idea of 0.33... as though it were a real number, when it references an idea that cannot exist as a number and is not concrete. the only valid and rigorous way to interpret "0.3..." is as an ad hoc alias for the fraction 1/3, not as an infinite decimal expansion, which cannot exist. Then if we take 3*0.3..., we replace 0.3... with the more rigoriously defined fractional equivalent 1/3 whose long division it represents, we get 3*1/3 which is obviously 1, not 0.9...

>> No.11585821

>>11585794
false, see my post >>11585814

>> No.11585822

>>11585814
>the process I use takes time therefore the final result doesn't exist
lel

>> No.11585826

>>11585821
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mistaking_the_map_for_the_territory
Fuck you for making me cite rationalpedia. You are confusing the semantics of the notation .3... with the number it represents. Stop it.

>> No.11585830

>>11585814
do you have a conceptual problem with functions ? like sin(x), x^2 +1 etc.

>> No.11585833

>>11585822
no matter how fast you are at computing the decimal expansion, you can never compute it, because it is infinite. there is never an end to the computation. the end doesn't exist. the decimal expansion doesn't exist.

>> No.11585836

>>11585830
He's arguing that .3...=/=1/3
Of course he's a fucking retard who can't understand trig.

>> No.11585837

>>11585833
>thinking its contingent on how fast you'd have to compute at all.

>> No.11585840

>>11585833
Yes it fucking does. It's .3...
Just because you don't like ellipses doesn't mean they don't exist and aren't useful. God fucking damn it! Arguing with you is like arguing with a five year with a cookie in their hand if he took any cookies. ARGH!

>> No.11585844

I dropped out of high school after doing pre-calc, so forgive me if I'm being a math brainlet, but here's my read on the situation:
>/sci/ nerds are generally autists who are going to take the bait every time somebody tries to come up with a flawed argument for it not being equal
>this is a hot topic because it's already a point of contention between smoothbrains and math nerds because intuitively it doesn't make sense but mathematically it does
>shitposters love an easy way to rile people up and get you's, other kinds of shitposters love stirring the pot in a stupid argument
>therefore we have a thread like this every day
Also, isn't 0.999... not a real number? Even though they represent the same value, saying they are equal is part of the problem because 1 is actually a number and 0.999... is not, and that's what the smoothbrains don't get.

>> No.11585845

>>11585837
go ahead, try writing out the decimal expansion of 1/3, without using "..." to represent the result of the rest of the long division, which doesn't exist. you can't. the only way to write the decimal expansion of 1/3 is to invoke the notion of the "rest" of the infinite long division.

>> No.11585846

>>11584695
imagine i'm using a base 12 number system, and have b represent this new '11' equivalent.

0.bbb... would be between 0.999 and 1 in the sense that 0.9 < 0.b <1, 0.99 < 0.bb < 1, 0.999 < 0.bbb < 1
and so on

>> No.11585857

>>11585845
>YOU HAVE TO WRITE OUT A SPECIFIC FORM OF THE NUMBER ON FUCKING PAPER FOR IT TO EXIST
We're reaching levels of idiocy I never thought possible.

>> No.11585864
File: 27 KB, 621x494, images (15).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11585864

>>11585009
>The integers are complete

>> No.11585867

>>11585844
yes. 0.9... is not a real number, and yes that is why 0.9 can never be equal to 1. try to name dividend and divisor that will compute to 0.9... . You can't, because 0.9... does not exist.

>> No.11585873

>>11585773
this

>> No.11585876

>>11585840
>hurr durr i can't express this number using actual numers so I'm going to make up ellispses and use them to define fake numbers!
i'd like to introduce the new number 1#9 and define 1#9 = 3. don't agree with me? well then you must be a brainlet.

>> No.11585877

>>11585864
while completeness satisfies this property, what you're thinking of is "dense"

>> No.11585881

>>11585867
They are equal in the sense that they represent the same value on a number scale, no?

>> No.11585887

>>11585881
exactly

>> No.11585896

>>11585881
sure, if you define .9... in an ad hoc way to be a mere alias for 1, in the same way that .3... is defined in an ad hoc way as an alias for 1/3.

>> No.11585897

>>11585867
0.999... is not a number, it's a short-hand verbalization of an expression of limits.

>> No.11585910

>>11584929
He "shut off travel from China" after all of the major airline companies already did.

>> No.11585949

>>11585844
.9... is a number, specifically it's another way of writing 1. Other than that, you're fucking spot on in your analysis.

>> No.11585956

>>11585845
That's like asking for someone to write a fraction without the fraction bar. You could, but the person asking for it is so dishonest and dumb that they'll come up with an excuse to not accept it.
.3... IS the decimal representation of 1/3. Your immature temper tuntrum over how "ellipses don't count" doesn't change that. Grow up.

>> No.11585961

>>11585876
Technically you can do that. What operation does the # represent? What's the definition? What's 2#9? Or 9#9? Or did you slam your fist on the keyboard as a replacement for an argument?

>> No.11585962

>>11585896
You being too stupid to understand the notation doesn't make it ad hoc.

>> No.11585966

>>11585910
Remove the quotes, liar. There's more travel than just the airlines, retard.

>> No.11585968

>>11585961
Not that guy but the it's because it's infinite that it'll never touch one.

>> No.11585969
File: 92 KB, 596x1008, 1579576263169.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11585969

>Your immature temper tuntrum doesn't change that. Grow up.

>> No.11585975

>>11585968
The nines are already there. It's a number, not a process.

>> No.11585981

>>11585969
>Resorting a wojak meme instead of actually responding.
Pathetic.

>> No.11586176

>>11585607
>>11585673

1 - 0.999... = 0.00...1

You're welcome.

>> No.11586230

>>11585017
Trigintaduonions

>> No.11586239

(1/3) * 3 = 1

1/3 = 0.3333...
0.3333... * 3 = 0.9999...
Therefore 0.9999... = 1
How is this so hard to understand?

>> No.11586369

this is stupid because i could similarly ask you write the number N such that 1/N = 0 and N>0

such a number needs to exist otherwise 1/infinity is 0 but we know that the number get gets smaller. it can just never = 0

similarly 0.999... gets close to 1 but it can never be 1

>> No.11586378

>>11586176
Damn, anon just solved it guys pack it up

>> No.11586409

>>11586369
>0.999... gets close
0.999... is static, the length is aleph_0 from the get go.
Your naive cartoon vision of a diesel engine chugging along is ridiculous. Embarrassing even.

>> No.11586443

>>11585436
Add .999.. + .999 and you'll get something with an 8 at the end 1.99..8
Now what?

>> No.11586623

>>11584695
That graph would go on infinitely and you could zoom in forever without it ever touching 1. This is just as stupid as that image where pi is depicted as 4, except that one was joking. I really hate you 1tards more than anything

>> No.11586628

>>11585897
>0.9... is not a real number
>0.9=1
So you are saying 1 is not a real number? Is this really the level 1tards are on?

>> No.11586800

>>11584698
>Disinformation shill posts completely off-topic misinfo to derail legitimate thread
Mods

>> No.11586860

>brainlets can't understand infinite series
>their number of braincells converges to 0

>> No.11586869

>>11584775
You cannot use the solution you're wanting to find as part of the proof.

>> No.11586896

>>11584695
>You can't.
prove it

>> No.11586904
File: 97 KB, 1654x2339, For 1 tards.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11586904

>>11586896
There, proven.

>> No.11588685

>>11584728
>claims the virus is “Their new Hoax”
Never happened. Your credibility just dropped to zero.

>> No.11588689

>>11584947
>Any epidemiologist knows that shutting the border with even a 0.001% leak is nothing but a speed bump, you win just a few weeks.
>Source: my dumb ass.
Look up what “flattening the curve” and ”initial viral load” mean, retard.

>> No.11588694

>>11585076
Retard

>> No.11588706

>>11585124
How so?

>> No.11588713
File: 38 KB, 684x354, 1or2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11588713

>>11584695
So, /sci/ how would you answer this question? :)

>> No.11588722

>>11585844
Of course it’s a real number ya dingus. Every decimal expansion denotes a real number.

>> No.11588730

>>11586369
A fixed number doesn’t “get close” to anything.

>> No.11589291

>>11588730
Well no, it's the progression of the sequence that gets close.

>> No.11589325

>>11588713
Depends whether you want the answer to be the decimal representation of a real number,

>> No.11589328

>>11584695
You GOD CURSED SODOMITES just cant leave it alone, can you?
Well, we are done arguing. Once you have joined the rest of the SINNERS in the fires of a finite HELL we will be free to write the text books anyway we want, and you can be sure that each and EVERY page, from simple arithmetic to some shit about manifolds and the Riemann hypothesis will have
0.999... does NOT equal 1 written in BIG FIERY BOLD PRINT across the top of EACH and EVERY sacred page. Accompanied by little pictures of Crusaders butchering Heretics.

>> No.11589396

>>11589291
Right. And 0.999... denotes a fixed number, not a sequence.

>> No.11589530

>>11588713
1.
your point ?

>> No.11589536

>>11588713
0.999999 is not the same as 0.999...

>> No.11589542

>>11588713
Haha wow so funny
Yeah no shit dumbass we're discussing whether 0.999...= 1, not whether 1 = 0.999...

>> No.11589794

>>11589396
That fixed number being the limit of a sequence. Learn notation

>> No.11590064

>>11589542
Oh so now real numbers no longer have reflexivity. topkek

>> No.11590656

>>11584695
why can't you retards understand that .999.. isn't a number but a limit ? same thing with 0.333... it is just a limit

>> No.11590665

>>11590656
>>11586409

>> No.11590868

'...' doesn't mean anything.
0.333... means nothing other than the unsolvability of the divisional translation of 1/3 between Fractional to Decimal. The translation is inaccurate because '1/3' doesn't exist in Decimal.

This is not a hard concept to understand if you're multilingual. some languages have words for abstract ideas that other languages do not.

>> No.11590886

>>11590868
>source: my ass

>> No.11590943

>>11590656
and a limit isn't a number ?

>> No.11590959

>>11584695
why complicate things?

[math]0,(9) \times 10 = 9,(9) = 9 + 0,(9)[/math]

replacing 0,(9) with [math]x[/math]
[eqn]10x = 9 + x\\
x = 1[/eqn]
since [math]x = 0,(9) \Leftrightarrow 0,(9) = 1{ }[/math]
[math]\square[/math]

>> No.11590965

>>11590959
>clunky

[math] \displaystyle
1 = \frac {3}{3} = 3 \cdot \frac {1}{3} = 3 \cdot 0. \bar{3} = 0. \bar{9}
[/math]

>> No.11590970

>>11590965
that is a lot cleaner, and equivalent of course
but I have been replied that "one cannot simply multiply by 3, because that means summing an infinite series"
well, it seems that for some folks the 10 multiplication makes it easier to understand

>> No.11590996

>>11590943
It might not be a real number, like [math]\infty[/math]

>> No.11591114

>>11586869
>Since 0.999... < 1

>> No.11591116

>>11590996
But it is a number. Also, limits don't converge rather than being equal to inf. Also, you haven't shown that 0.999... is like inf.

>> No.11591149

>>11586369
0.99... is equal to the limit of whatever construction you use to create it.
The construction might never reach 1, but the limit is equal to it, which is why 0.99... is equal to 1.
If you say otherwise you don't understand limits.

>> No.11591152

god how do people actually still argue about this

>> No.11591174

>>11591116
I was merely stating that not all limits are real numbers.
I am not >>11590656, who clearly could use some math lessons

>> No.11591177

>>11584695
I can, .9999

And no, .999 doesn't = 1 since to get to 1 from .999 you still need to add .001

>> No.11591178

>>11591174
>I was merely stating that not all limits are real numbers.
But you failed since a limit which "goes to infinity" is not equal to infinity, it simply doesn't converge.

>> No.11591183

>>11590656
[math]\lim\limits_{k\rightarrow\infty} 1^k[/math] is a number, and that number is your IQ.

>> No.11591186

>>11584695
>Name a number on R between .999... and 1.
0.(0)1

>> No.11591195

>>11591178
very well, then
lets stick with that for now
in that case, if a limit is "infinity", then not all limits are numbers

>> No.11591304

>>11591183
[math]
\lim\limits_{k\rightarrow\infty} 1^k \neq 1^\infty
[/math]

>> No.11591306

I could do a similar graph to show the harmonic series is convergent

>> No.11591310

>>11591186
>1<0<1
lol

>> No.11591319

>>11585294
>comparing a disease that has a cure to one that doesn't have one (yet)

>> No.11591352

>>11591178
Maybe if you're still in highschool you would believe this nonsense, but in topology, limit points of a set aren't always inside of that set. The closure of R is R with {infty, -infty}.

>> No.11591356
File: 25 KB, 500x410, Dlr-vvzW0AAXxOR[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11591356

>>11591352
*closure of R in R with {infty, -infty} is R with {infty, -infty}

>> No.11591366

>>11591195
>if a limit is "infinity", then not all limits are numbers
But that's still wrong, since infinity is a number. And a limit isn't infinity.

>> No.11591371

>>11591356
KYS! While what you posted was not wrong, I meant what I wrote. The closure of R is the extended real numbers. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/AffinelyExtendedRealNumbers.html

>> No.11591374

>>11591352
>limit point
Not a limit.

>> No.11591378

>>11591374
Is in fact a limit.
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Limit_Point_is_Limit_of_Convergent_Sequence
Feel free to travel back in time and give your mother a sloppy coat hanger abortion.

>> No.11591441

>>11591371
>The closure of R is the extended real numbers
this doesn't make any sense until you say in what space you take the closure

>> No.11591602

>>11591441
true

>> No.11591607

>>11591371
>>11591378
You could just have said that a limit can be equal to inf in the extended reals with induced order topology. A limit point can only be inf when a limit being equal to inf is valid in the first place. Of course that begs the question of whether we are in that context.

>> No.11592370

[eqn]Let \; x=0.999...[/eqn]
[eqn]∴10x=9.999...=(9+0.999...)=(9+x)[/eqn]
[eqn]∴9x=9[/eqn]
Find the mistake

>> No.11592478

>>11589794
I'm agreeing with you.

>> No.11592485
File: 2 KB, 116x125, wut.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11592485

>>11590656
>.999... isn't a number but a limit
What did you mean by this?

>> No.11592854

>>11592485
>What did you mean by this?
I'm retarded

>> No.11593203

>>11584695
Jesus Christ dude if you can't comprehend limits at an intuitive level just chop off your dick and eat it

>> No.11593296

>>11592370
you're just being sloppy and losing track of the last 9s. Let me fix that
x = 0.999...99
therefore
10x = 9.999...9 = 9 + 0.999...9 = 9 + 0.999...99 - 0.000...09 = 9 + x - 0.000...09
note that I have shifted the 9 after the ...s over to the left because they now have come after only infinity - 1 9s.
therefore
9x = 9 - 0.000...09 = 8.999...91
divide by 9 and you get
x = 0.999...99

>> No.11593419

>>11591319
Do you know how many working vaccines have been created for coronaviruses?

>> No.11593445

>>11593296
>the last 9s
There is no last 9.

>> No.11593451

>>11593296
>infinity - 1
So infinity?

>> No.11593457

>>11593445
manifestly incorrect
>>11593451
no, infinity - 1, hence why I wrote infinity - 1 and not infinity

>> No.11593471

>>11592370
Do you agree that .999 + .999 = 1.998?

Does .999... + .999... = 1.99..8 considering that the two infinity's are the same size since infinity's can have different sizes allegedly?

>> No.11593580

>>11593457
>manifestly incorrect
Why? That's what the ... means.

>> No.11593583

>>11593457
>no, infinity - 1
which is just infinity

>> No.11593662

Here is a friendly reminder that people who subscribe to the notion of 0.999...= 1 are GOD CURSED SODOMITES and will burn in HELL

DEUS VULT!

>> No.11593678

>>11593583

No, Knuckles, infinity - 1 is not infinity. Just think about it, you have removed one of something from an infinity of something, its logically inconsistent to think nothing has changed.

>> No.11593897

>>11593678
>nothing has changed
The number of things hasn't changed.

>> No.11593905

>>11593678
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=inf-1

>> No.11593911 [DELETED] 

but that means that 0.999...998 = 0.999...999
meaning ...98 = 1
and you can keep that going until 0=1

>> No.11593916

>>11593911
0.1=10^-1
0.01=10^-2
0.001=10^-3
:
0.0...1=10^-inf=0

anything after "..." is meaningless

>> No.11593922
File: 34 KB, 566x358, D98CE442-BD60-49EA-B793-F529BB4AD883.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11593922

Let me simplify this for you
OP is a faggot, but not a complete faggot. Assuming that OP is 99.999... percent of faggotry, he is certainly very CLOSE to being a faggot, but is not absolutely a faggot. The more 9’s we add don’t change anything, and don’t make OP an absolute Faggot, but EXTREMELY EXTREMELY GAY. But, from OP’s perspective, since he is 99.999... percentage of a faggot, it may as well be implied that he is INDEED A FUCKING FAGGOT.

>> No.11593931

>>11593922
>wall-of-text schizo

>> No.11593939

>>11592370
The mistake is this fucking thread

>> No.11593966

>>11593931
Fuck up bitch

>> No.11593967

>>11584695
(1+0.999...)/2

>> No.11594028

>>11584695
The sureal number {0.999...|1}

>> No.11594056

>>11584695
What about $$ 1-\frac{1}{\omega}$$?

>> No.11594647

[eqn]
\begin{align}
0.(9) &= 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009+\dots\\
&=\sum\limits_{k=1}^\infty \frac{9}{10^k} = 9 \sum\limits_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{10^k}\\
&= \frac{9}{10} \sum\limits_{k=0}^\infty \frac{1}{10^k}\\
&= \frac{9}{10} \times \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{10}} = \frac{9}{10} \times \frac{1}{\frac{9}{10}}\\
&= 1
\end{align}
[/eqn]

>> No.11594726

>>11593583
proposition: [math]\infty \neq \infty - 1[/math]
proof: Assume the contrary. Then [eqn]\infty = \infty - 1[/eqn] cancelling [math]\infty[/math] either side yields
[eqn]0 = - 1[/eqn]
which is clearly false. QED.

>> No.11594762 [DELETED] 
File: 32 KB, 138x147, ..png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11594762

>>11589325
cope

>> No.11594780

9 number uis not 1, what do you not undertant

>> No.11594784

>>11594726
You have to define infinity first, which you have not done. For every accepted definition of infinity, what you wrote is false.

>> No.11594789

>>11594784
arithmetic on infinity*

>> No.11594792

>>11594028
>The surreal number {1|1}
Which is just 1, you idiot.

>> No.11594802 [DELETED] 

>>11584695
This is fucking dumb.

1 is clearly above 0.999.

Getting REALLY REALLY close makes it 1.

YEAH OK PAL!

>> No.11594827

>>11594726
>cancelling ∞
can't do
inf-inf is undefined

>> No.11594834

infinity is not a number on the number line.
if you map 1 to infinity in naturals between 0 to 1 in reals, then there is absolutely no sense of ordering to that mapped 0->1 range. moreover, because infinity is not a number and there are no numbers close to it, this property remains true for the mapped range between 0->1; that 1 is not a number in this mapped range, and there is no real number close to 1.

0.999... not only doesn't equal 1, it is also not even close to 1 relative to infinity.

if 0.999... equals 1, then necessarily there is a largest real natural number equal to infinity.
What is that number?

>> No.11594846

>>11594834
[math]1.7 * 10^{308}[/math]

>> No.11594878 [DELETED] 

>>11594834
>infinity is not a number
[math]
\overline{~~~\mathbb{R}~~~} ~~ \dot{_\infty}
[/math]

>> No.11594881

>>11594834
[math]
\overline{~~~\mathbb{R}~~~} ~~ \dot{\infty}
[/math]

>> No.11594896

>>11594878


i hope you're not making the mistake of thinking infinity comes after the number line just because the number line is read from left to right .

you can write it like
[math]\dot{_\infty} ~~ \overline{~~~\mathbb{R}~~~}[/math]
too.

>> No.11594900

>>11594896
nah that's -inf

>> No.11594902
File: 56 KB, 621x702, vO7lRZ7.jpg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11594902

>>11594900

>> No.11594907

>>11584741
clever, but this is circular reasoning

>> No.11594910

>>11593905
That post has taken you a very special level of stupidity to make. A level of stupidity unmatched. There's stupid, then there's too stupid to know how stupid you are, but you have elevated stupidity to a whole new plane of existence. Ironically, this is almost something of a win, being that stupid is almost like an achievement. I am not sure whether or not you should be proud of being so stupid and bask in the glory of that fact, or whether you should run a very high voltage though your testicles so the chances of you reproducing is reduced to as near zero as possible. I will ponder this matter and let you know my conclusion.

>> No.11594913

>>11594896
>infinity comes after
normal convention is right is larger (duh)
inf is greater than every real number

>> No.11594918

>>11594910
>wall-of-text schizo

>> No.11594934

>>11594834
>if you map 1 to infinity in naturals between 0 to 1 in reals,
This doesn't even make sense. How are you mapping 1 to infinity?
>then there is absolutely no sense of ordering to that mapped 0->1 range.
>moreover, because infinity is not a number and there are no numbers close to it, this property remains true for the mapped range between 0->1;
>1 is not a number in this mapped range, and there is no real number close to 1.
Literally none of this makes sense. It's impossible to even discuss this with you retards if you don't even know basic concepts and notation.
>if 0.999... equals 1, then necessarily there is a largest real natural number equal to infinity.
Complete non sequitur, and untrue.

>> No.11594943

>>11594913
infinity isn't a number though. it has no relationship with the number line.
it isn't above it.
it isn't below it.
it isn't to the left of it.
it isn't to the right of it.

as a venn diagram, the circle surrounding all numbers does not overlap with the circle surrounding infinity.
they don't share anything in common.

>> No.11594948

>>11594943
>no relationship
the definition says larger
normal convention is right is larger (duh)
so you're wrong

>kids these days

>> No.11594949

>>11594934
feel free to learn anything before ever replying again.

>> No.11594955

>>11594948
there is no conventional solitary definition of infinity.

>> No.11594964

>>11594955
stop being a faggot

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

>> No.11594965

>>11594949
Literally kys faggot. None of what you wrote makes sense.

>> No.11594967

>>11594964
We are talking about the set of real numbers here though. Infinity is not a real number, so in the context of real numbers, you cannot say that.

>> No.11594970

>>11594967
lol, fight it out with WA

>> No.11594975

>>11594970
None of what I said disagrees with WA. If you had half a brain, you'd know that.

>> No.11594978

>>11594975
ok sweetie

>> No.11595016

>>11591177
.99990 < .99999...

>> No.11595038

>>11594784
>You have to define infinity first,
[eqn]\infty = 999...9 [/eqn]
where the 9s go on forever

>> No.11595071

>>11595038
you have literally defined infinity as a string of symbols. fair enough, how do you arithmetics with infinity ?

>> No.11595084

>>11595038
Does it terminate, or do the 9's go on forever? Because the number you wrote says that the 9's terminate, but then you wrote that they go on forever. Also, retard-tier definition. Provide a proper definition that is consistent and makes sense with the rest of math.

>> No.11595244

>>11595084
it terminates after an infinite number of 9s
>>11595071
Multiplication by a real number a
[eqn]a \infty = a\times999...9[/eqn]
addition
[eqn]a + \infty = 999...9+a[/eqn]
division
[eqn] \infty/a = 999...9/a[/eqn]
addition to another infinite number
[eqn] \infty + \infty = 18181818...1[/eqn]

>> No.11595255

>>11594918
I see you trained as a bitch for a long time.

>> No.11595361

>>11595244
>it terminates after an infinite number of 9s
Well that's a contradiction. Try to learn some basic math and read a dictionary, and then we can talk.

>> No.11595818

I am >>11590656
>>11592485
As I said 0.999.. isn't a real number because it is not quantifiable, for example find a series of reals that converges to 0.999... you can't. The reason I said it's a limit is because for most of the time a limit approximates a real number but only becomes it's limit when it reaches a given point. I failed to make the distinction between limit the expression and limit the value.
>>11590665
I don't understand how this refutes my statement that 0.999.... isn't a number same with 0.123123123...
>>11591183
1^/infty is undefined faggot
>>11592485
As stated above 0.999... is just a representation of a series of numbers that tend to 1 without ever equaling it.True a limit is a numeber

>> No.11595846

>>11595818
>As stated above 0.999... is just a representation of a series of numbers that tend to 1 without ever equaling it
this is just not true, but it's only semantics
0.999... does not denote the series
0.999... denotes the sum of the series, i.e. the limit of the sequence of partial sums

>> No.11595853

OP here. Why the FUCK are you faggots still arguing 250 posts later after I already gave the definitive proof? Tired of seeing this thread and still no counterexample. Dilate and die, .999... != 1 brainlets.

>> No.11596043

>>11595361
Wow. Just because you're not as good as maths as me doesn't mean you have to be so salty.

>> No.11596054

>>11585291
>largest number that is less than 1
The set of the real numbers is dense, so this doesn't make any sense.

>> No.11596061

>>11585291
>the largest number that is less than 1
>The virus is no more deadly than influenza
>(((CDC)))
this guy has a 200+ IQ

>> No.11596264

OP proves he is a faggot everyday and this thread is evidence.