/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

Is it true that 1 - .99 repeating is zero?

Yep.

>>7985559nope, since it still holds a value it cannot be zero. Zero has no value.

>>7985572wrong

>>7985573Please explain how it is wrong, isn't it just like 0.999.. will never be one?

>>7985582But 0.999...= 1

>>7985582Ever taken a limit?

>>79855999 repeating is not the same as 99 repeating. 99 is bigger than 9.>>7985601The limit is only a hypothetical point at infinity and never reached.

>>7985603are you still in high school, kid?

>>7985603>The limit is only a hypothetical point at infinity and never reached.That's a real shame considering the real numbers are essentially defined as limits of Cauchy sequences.

>>7985599Die in a fire uneducated ignorant cuck

>>7985559If 1 - 0.999... were not 0 then it would have to be some real number greater than 0

>>7985669>questioning the establishment equates to being immature.

>>7985909It's 0.000...1 obviously.

>>7985603>>79856901/3 = 0.333...3/3 = 0.999... = 1>get gut faggots

>>7986002If it isn't 0 than what is 1/0.000...1 ?What's 0.000...1 times 10 ?What's 0.000...1 divided by 10 ?What's (0.000...1)^2?

>>7986223>[math]\infty - 0.000 ... 1[/math]>0.000...10>0.000...01>0.000...000...1Try harder.

1/3 = 0.3..3/3 = 0.9..3/3 = 10.9.. = 11-1 = 0

>>7985559x=0.99999...10x=9.99999...10x-x=9.9999..-0.9999..=9=9x9x=9x=10.999../3=0.3333..0.3333..=1/31/3*3=1=0.9999..0.9999..=1

x=0.000...110x=00.000...110x-x=0.000...1-0.000...19x=0x=0

>>7986289I can't - you've convinced me that 1 != 0.999...

>>7986354(1/3)*3 = 1.333... * 3 ~= 1problem with rounding, computers cant store more than x amount of decimals for calculations.

it's a 0.0, followed by an infinite string of zeroes, except that on the end of that infinite string of zeroes, there's a fucking zeroit's fucking nothingi fucking hate this fucking memefuck

yesss these threads never get old

[math]x = 0.99\bar{9}[/math][math]10x = 9.99\bar{9}[/math][math]10x - x = 9.99\bar{9} - 0.99\bar{9}[/math][math]9x = 9[/math][math]x=1[/math]but earlier we said that [math]x = 0.99\bar{9}[/math]therefore,[math]0.99\bar{9}=1[/math]end of proof

>>7986884>.333... * 3 ~= 1false.0.333... = 1/3 therefore 0.333...*3 =1

>>7986884No 0.333.... is actually perfectly equal to 1/3

>>7986953Point 1 in yellow is right. Point two shouldn't even come into discussion because 1 - 0.333... isn't the same as "0.666...7". Pic needs the trick for getting fractions out of repeating decimals.

Infinity doesn't exist, it is an abstract concept. So the 9's can not repeat for ever, there must be a limit.

>>7986988Math =/= reality

>>7986988Jumping off what this guy said, I always thought infinite numbers didn't exist in reality? .999... does not occur in the universe

>>7987009Well it does, because its the same thing as 1

>>7986953Slight error there.9.(999...) - 0.(999...9) = 99.(999...) - 0.(999...) =/= 90.(999...) = 1 for other reason.Its is because (999..) = | 1 | of a higher cycle, as "9" is the highest possible digit of the base-10

>>7986289if 0.000...1 * 10 = 0.000...10then 0.000...1 * 10 = 0.000...1divide by 0.000...1 on both sides and we get 10 = 1which doesnt make sensealso 0.000...1^2 = 0.000...000...1so 0.000...1^2 = 0.000...1and for x^2=x. the solutions are x = 0 and x = 1so 0.000...1 is either equal to 0 or 1

>>7987009But .999... is rational so its alright

>>7986953Literally all of these and every single proof for this relies on approximation fallacies.

All this argument does is highlight the fact that our system of math doesn't quite represent reality, as well as the failures of approximation in the realm of theory.

>>7987009It does though. It's 1.

>>7985582It's wrong because 0 is a value. If I have a set which contains only 0 and another set which is empty (the empty set), these sets are not equal. Thus 0 is a value. You are wrong.

>>7986988You don't fucking understand what you're saying.1, 2, 3, none of these numbers exist. Literally every number is an abstract concept because that's all numbers are.Math is not physics. Stop conflating the two.

How can the limit as x approaches 1 of 1/(1-x) be infinityIFThe limit as x approaches 0 of 1/(1-x) = 1?

>>7988125To clarify, I don't get this because in the first one, you're basically saying that x will never become 1, otherwise it will be undefined. So, how can x become 0 in the bottom one to give the limit = 1? If you follow the same rule as the first one, that it never reaches 0, then the answer must be greater than 1?

>>7987096No. Don't confuse what you see written with what is expressed.0.999... and 1 ARE the same because these symbols MEAN the same. Just like 'horse' and 'paard' mean the same.