/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9997294]

>0.111... = 1/9
>0.222... = 2/9
>0.333... = 3/9
>0.444... = 4/9
>0.555... = 5/9
>0.666... = 6/9
>0.777... = 7/9
>0.888... = 8/9
>0.999... = 1

[Anonymous No.9997299]

>>9997294
High IQ post

[Anonymous No.9997353]

That is not in proper arithmetic.
>0.00+0/36
>0.00+4/36
>0.00+8/36
>0.25+3/36
>0.25+7/36
>0.50+2/36
>0.50+6/36
>0.75+1/36
>0.75+5/36
>1.00+0/36
This is the correct format for listing numbers. Everything in the year 2318 uses this format.

[Anonymous No.9997375]

>>9997294
"0.999..." is meaningless, watch this video brainlet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--HdatJwbQY

[Anonymous No.9997427]

>>9997375
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.
- Friedrich Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.9997431]

>>9997353
except the year

[Anonymous No.9997464]

>>9997353
Based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.9997468]

>>9997294
but it is equal to one. what is high iq about it?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999......

[Anonymous No.9998753]

>>9997353
>arithmetic

isnt that like ancient jew language

[Anonymous No.9998774]

>0.000...001 = 0
where do I collect my fields medal?

[Anonymous No.9998893]

>>9997294
Hi. Could you please name any number that you could add to 9.999... without it being >10?
no? hm....

[Anonymous No.9998901]

>>9997353
Holy fuck anon my sides

[Anonymous No.9998905]

>>9997353

[Anonymous No.9999286]

>>9998893
0.00....01

[Anonymous No.9999304]

>>9999286
would equal 10.000...01
the nines are INFINITE, anon.

[Anonymous No.9999404]

>>9999286
>infinitely repeating 0s
>oh but there's a 1 on the end

[Anonymous No.9999408]

>>9999304
So are the zeros, anon. For every nine there's a zero.
>>9999404
Exactly

[Anonymous No.9999421]

>>9999408
right... and since the 0s are infinite, that means the number is zero yes?
and if the only number you can add to 9.99... to get 10 is zero, then 9.99=10

[Anonymous No.10000002]

>>9997294

Stupid frogposter!

[Anonymous No.10000087]

>>9997294
stop playing with your calculator anon, btw 1 = 1

[Anonymous No.10000104]

>>9998774
*Your* medal comes with a Happy Meal

[Anonymous No.10000837]

1/4 = 0,2... | 10x = 2,... | x = 0,2... | 9x = 2 | x = 0,2222....

[Anonymous No.10001249]

>>9997294
>0.000...1 = 0
>0.000...2 = 0
>1=2

[Anonymous No.10001295]

>>9997294
1/9 > 0.111
2/9 > 0.222
3/9 > 0.333
4/9 > 0.444
5/9 > 0.555
6/9 > 0.666
7/9 > 0.777
8/9 > 0.888
9/9 > 0.999

9/9 = 1

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

1÷9 ≠ 0.111... (1÷9 > 0.111...)
2÷9 ≠ 0.222... (2÷9 > 0.222...)
3÷9 ≠ 0.333... (3÷9 > 0.333...)
4÷9 ≠ 0.444... (4÷9 > 0.444...)
5÷9 ≠ 0.555... (5÷9 > 0.555...)
6÷9 ≠ 0.666... (6÷9 > 0.666...)
7÷9 ≠ 0.777... (7÷9 > 0.777...)
8÷9 ≠ 0.888... (8÷9 > 0.888...)
9÷9 ≠ 0.999... (9÷9 > 0.999...)

[Anonymous No.10001307]

Explain the difference in elements for all sets.

[ 1 . 0 ]
-[0 . 9 ]

[ 1 . 0 0 0 ]
-[0 . 9 9 9 ]

[ 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ]
-[0 . 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 ]

[ 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ]
-[0 . 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 ]

[ 1 . 0 0 0 ... ]
-[0 . 9 9 9 ... ]

[Anonymous No.10001358]

>>10001307
If the infinite'th element of the set {1, 0, 0, 0, ...} is 0, and the infinite'th element of the set {0, 9, 9, 9, ...} is 9, then the answer of subtraction is the set {0, 0, 0, 0, ...} where the infinite'th element is 1, and if anyone should argue against this, they are retarded.

[Anonymous No.10001412]

>>10001249
1/inf = 2/inf = 0

[Anonymous No.10001413]

>>10001295
>i have no argument

[Anonymous No.10001415]

>>10001295
1/9 = 0.111...
+
8/9 = 0.888...
=
9/9 = 0.999...

[Anonymous No.10002262]

>>9997294
0.999... = 1/1

[Anonymous No.10002392]

>>10001415
1/9 ≠ 0.111...
8/9 ≠ 0.888...

1/9 > 0.111...
8/9 > 0.888...

[ 1/9 + 8/9 = 9/9 = 1 ] > [ 0.111... + 0.888... = 0.999... ≠ 1]

if you think this is wrong, evaluate 1/9 by hand with pen and paper. Show all your work and make sure to show exactly how many 1's after the decimal you get.

[Anonymous No.10002408]

The "0.999... = 1" problem is an NPC filter. Anyone with a working brain can rationalize these two values are not the same value. The issue can even be broken down part by part to show that NPC's have no working understanding of "infinity", and instead assume to arbitrarily redefine it from one usage to the next. Ultimately, is is an NPC problem and not a real problem, as only NPCs seem to use it or have any strong opinion in insisting its usage as required in certain methods. As NPC's do not have internal monologue, they can neither think abstractly or internally do math in their heads either. They only can understand as much as a computer would, and computers have been programmed to have a strictly real-number finite implement of the term, making it a false infinity and instead an absolute real largest finite number around 1.799 × 10^308, defining why NPC's believe it is possible to grasp infinity and perform calculations with it.

[Anonymous No.10002413]

>>10002392
1 = 9/10 + 1/10 = 0.9 + 1/10
= 0.9 + 9/100 + 1/100 = 0.99 + 1/100
= 0.99 + 9/1000 + 1/1000 = 0.999 + 1/1000
= 0.999 + 9/10000 + 1/10000 = 0.9999 + 1/10000

and so on

each line = 1
exactly, not approaching it.

line #1 is exactly 1
line #10 is exactly 1
line #98327498236483689 is exactly 1

At infinity, it still is exactly 1

[Anonymous No.10002422]

>>10002413
Are you pretending that you're not adding a smallest value at the end of each line...?

> +1/10 = 1
> +1/100 = 1
> +1/1000 = 1
> +1/10000 = 1

this addition of a smallest part is required for every case to infinity.

[Anonymous No.10002433]

>>10002422
I'm saying there's no drift in the value
each line is =1

Your job is to show where the value starts shifting away from being exactly 1
If you can't, then at infinity we have
0.999... + 1/inf still equaling 1
0.9... + 1/inf = 0.9... + 0 = 0.9...
0.9... = 1

[Anonymous No.10002440]

>>10002433
1/inf is not defined you retarded nigger.

Infinity is not a real finite number.
1/inf makes as much sense as 1/Mars

1/inf does not equal 0.
1/Mars does not equal 0.

it would appear you are an NPC as pointed out in >>10002408
you treat infinity as a real limit which can be reached in real values but cannot be surpassed in real values, so you assume 1/inf, having gone over your limit of real smallest possibilities, must simply be 0.

It's not. Your limit of smallest possibilities is nowhere close to the actual limit of smallest possibilities. You have a false and finite limit for being an NPC.

[Anonymous No.10002448]

>>10002440
>the actual limit of smallest possibilities
If you're even considering a smallest amount (which we do not) then you're admitting 1/inf=0 or that you have no idea what infinity is.

[Anonymous No.10002465]

>>10002408
>being a PC
basically the new incel. pic is u.

[Anonymous No.10002478]

>>10002440
Just curious, do you know any calculus?

[Anonymous No.10002496]

>>10002448
No, you're the one who thinks 1/inf=0 lmfao

You're the one admitting you don't know what infinity is. It was another NPC test.
You treat it as a real number with properties a real number would have, such as uniqueness and exactness. You understand 8 is the simplest way to write 8, and you know enough that each number has a simplest and unique way to express it.
7 is not 8. 9 is not 8. Only 8 is 8.
This understanding is supported by arithmetic. 8 can be evaluated by any arbitrary evaluation equating 8.
7+1 = 8
9-1 = 8
3.14 + 4.86 = 8
There are innumerable ways to evaluate each individual unique identity of any number.

You treat infinity the same, even though it actually defies these properties. There is no value which can be combined or transformed by another which equates to infinity. You as an NPC would believe otherwise though, because infinity is technically a real number limit to you as it has been programmed as such into computers. It may be arbitrarily large and well outside the normal bounds of arithmetic, but you definitely treat it as a real value which can be enumerated to, and once reached, cannot be enumerated from to return it back to a real number.

There is some indication of the rules of infinity in your usage, but "some" is not enough, and the dealbreaker is the part when infinity is not supposed to be a real finite number.

In the end, you ironically are a finitist without even knowing it.

[Anonymous No.10002500]

>>10002478
Yea.

What would you like to discuss?

[Anonymous No.10002507]

>>9999421
nope it means the number is infinitesimally higher than 0

learn2hyperreals

[Anonymous No.10002511]

>>9997294

OP can into counting. Good job.

[Anonymous No.10002513]

>>10002496
>>10002440
Stop berating the NPCs

[Anonymous No.10002562]

>>10002440
>1/inf is not defined
sure bud

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%2Finfinity

[Anonymous No.10002579]

>>10002440
>infinity as a real limit which can be reached

that's exactly the opposite of the definition of infinity - you are retarded

[Anonymous No.10002640]

>>10002500
So you know that 1/x, x to inf is zero right

[Anonymous No.10002670]

>>10002579
Yes, but NPC's do not care about definitions, they only care about what they can do. They don't even rationalize about what they can't do, only bound by what they know they can do, or more realistically: what they've been programmed to know.

There exists no arithmetic to be performed with infinity to break it down into parts, large or small. This is in contrast to the innumerable methods of arithmetic to break down any real number.
2 = 1 + 1
3 = -9+12
4 = 8÷2
5 = 2.5×2
etc.

Innately, this means there is no arithmetic to validate infinity, one way or the other, as either being a number or having a defineable relation to a number.

So it is alarming that an NPC would assume "1/inf=0" should be considered anything but false. If you had the capacity to even entertain this division, it would also imply that 0×inf = 1, but that isn't true either.
0 + 0 = 0
0 + 0 + 0 = 0
0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0
0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0
At no point does it never not equal 0 despite how long the equation may be, and even if it were to arbitrarily equate to 1 as NPCs assume it should, there is no prior point where it is any non-zero value less than 1, such that this zero value + zero = one, at a point NPCs believe may occur. But 0+0= 0, not 1.

[Anonymous No.10002675]

>>10002408
>Anyone with a working brain can rationalize these two values are not the same value.
>All professional mathematicians are NPCs.
>But not me!

[Anonymous No.10002678]

>>10002670
>no arithmetic to be performed with infinity
oh bullshit
infinity is unbounded, if the operation doesn't clash with that, you can do it
1/inf = 0 (if anything were left, that would be bounding the inf)
inf - inf = undefined (either inf winning, or even a tie, clashes with being unbounded)
etc.

[Anonymous No.10002679]

>>10002670
>no arithmetic to be performed with infinity
oh bullshit
infinity is unbounded, if the operation doesn't clash with that, you can do it
1/inf = 0 (if anything were left, that would be bounding the inf)
inf - inf = undefined (either inf losing, or even a tie, clashes with being unbounded)
etc.

[Anonymous No.10002688]

>>9997375
>Being a believer in extreme finitism.
>Is retarded.
Always pick both.

[Anonymous No.10002690]

>>9998774
You get nothing because you're a retard who doesn't understand how infinity works. The ...001 at the END of the number means that it isn't infinite.

[Anonymous No.10002692]

>>10002507
No, we're talking about the reals.

[Anonymous No.10002697]

>>10002392
Of fucking course 1/9=.1 repeating. Stop being a retarded contrarian and SHOW us what it actually equals if you're so damn smart.

[Anonymous No.10002698]

>*makes up arbitrary rules to redefine infinity*
ye ok.
>>10002408

[Anonymous No.10002702]

>>10002408
>Anyone with a working brain can rationalize these two values are not the same value.
How about anyone with a working brain can construct a coherent sentence.

[Anonymous No.10002703]

>>10002478
Almost no one in this thread knows about calculus. If they did, the FACT that .999...=1 wouldn't be up for discussion.

[Anonymous No.10002709]

>>10002697
It doesn't "equal" anything in decimal notation. Thats the point.

1÷9 = 1/9

1÷9 > 0.1 & < 0.12
1÷9 > 0.11 & < 0.112
1÷9 > 0.111 & < 0.1112
1÷9 > 0.1111 & < 0.11112
1÷9 > 0.11111 & < 0.111112
keep continuing this, and tell me where you go.

[Anonymous No.10002720]

>>10002690
Something coming after something doesn't mean its the end. Infinity-tards and NPCs already accept that fact, else their idea of what the continuation implied by ellipses(...) wouldn't hold true. Its something(...), after something, and implies no end.

[Anonymous No.10002752]

>>10002709
it goes to 0.1...
>retard

[Anonymous No.10002804]

Are the number of digits in .999... countable or uncountable? What would happen if you used the "wrong" infinity.

If you can't answer this question, how can .999... have any meaning at all?

[Anonymous No.10002820]

>>10002752
Incorrect

The furthest you can admit to taking it is
>1÷9 > 0.111 & < 0.111...
where the star() is used to define continued but eventually ending work
For clarity
[A] > [B] & < [C]
was the setup of the equation, where A is the evaluation "1÷9", and B does not equal C.
If you admit to being unable to go past infinity, you have to stop at B = 0.111, because in the same equation C has already reached infinite elements and presumed to push that trailing 2 out of understanding, which in itself is retarded but nevertheless a shared defacto method by NPCs. As C cannot be increased any further (you do realize even this defines a finite limit, right?), then there are no further steps to continue with. Trying to continue further to force B to reach infinite elements would require forcing C to infinite+1 elements, which you know will not be done.

Towards attempting to complete it,
1÷9 > 0.1(trailing with an arbitrary amount of 1's, whose sum total of individual elements is one less than infinity) & < 0.1(trailing with an equal amount of 1's, where a 2 follows, whose sum total of individual elements is infinite)

And even though this is the solution, it continues to be bound by a nonworking definition of infinity, for there are no values to sum infinity, thus no value that is one less than infinity, nor a value one less than infinity which adding one sums to infinity.

Infinity is a paradox to people, where people know it cannot be useful. Only NPCs insist it is useful or well defined, because they've been programmed to understand it within limits they do not notice because they only entertain what they can, but not what they cannot; where infinity is a thing you cannot do, and therefore you have no knowledge of what infinity is.

[Anonymous No.10002823]

>>10002820
Star was deleted by 4chan

The furthest you can admit to taking it is
>1÷9 > 0.111• & < 0.111...
where the dot(•) is used to define continued but eventually ending work

[Anonymous No.10002896]

>>10002820
>For clarity
topkek

[Anonymous No.10003345]

In this construction, .999... can not possibly equal 1, because if it did, then line BZ would intersect W, thus proving zero also equals one. Reductio ad absurdum.

[Anonymous No.10003416]

>>10003345
awwww, babby's first "inf isn't a real number" realization

[Anonymous No.10003427]

>>10003345
See, here's your problem, you didn't check this for Z^Z

[Anonymous No.10003434]

>>10003416

Infinity isn't a real number.
How many digits in .999...?
.999... isn't a real number, and certainly isn't one.

[Anonymous No.10003436]

>>10003427
>you didn't check this for Z^Z

1^1 = 1
Inf^Inf=Inf

What difference does that make?

[Anonymous No.10003442]

>>10003434
Every real number has infinite number of digits, retard

[Anonymous No.10003450]

>>10003442
>Every real number has infinite number of digits

No real number has an infinite number of non-zero digits.

[Anonymous No.10003459]

>>10003442

Also, if .999... can be a real number, then what is wrong with ...999. ?

[Anonymous No.10003592]

>>10003450
1/3, pi, e, 2^0.5
>retard

[Anonymous No.10003595]

>>10003459
syntax error
>what's repeating

[Anonymous No.10003614]

>>10003592
Those aren't real numbers, you just made them up.

[Prof Sai No.10003630]

>>10003416
>>10003427
>>10003442
>>10003592
>>10003595

None of you are addressing the central point of the graph. If your theory predicts that 1=0, then your theory is wrong. BZ cannot have the same slope as BW, so .999... cannot equal 1.

[Anonymous No.10003631]

>>10003592
You don't need infinite digits of pi to use pi. Most of the ancient world managed to do fine with only knowing 3.14
Most everything in the modern world reliant on computers does just fine with 3.14159265

theres a soft real limit to everything, and everything of real value uses the soft limit.

[Anonymous No.10003642]

>>10003631
You don't a woman to have sex. Most of the ancient world managed fine with goats.
>GOAT math

[Anonymous No.10003645]

>>10003631
You don't need a woman to have sex. Most of the ancient world managed fine with goats.
>GOAT math

[Anonymous No.10003651]

>>10003645
Is this a lowkey admission you're the product of goatsex?

[Anonymous No.10003679]

>>10003630
>central point of the graph
graphs need real numbers, inf isn't a real number by definition
Can't draw infinity with crayons, big surprise.

[Anonymous No.10003685]

Dailly reminder that infinity IS NOT A NUMBER and does not act like a number!

[Anonymous No.10003691]

>>10002507
It is standard to assume that we're talking about the real numbers. If you're going to invoke the hypereals, explicitly mention that you are doing so.

[Anonymous No.10003692]

>>10003685
>does not act like a number
Sometimes it does.
It's crude compared to a normal number but not totally dysfunctional.
For example, 1/inf = 0
0*inf is undefined.

[Anonymous No.10003695]

>>10002440
Well, you can work in the extend real number line and then extract the results from there onto the real number line. It is a completely valid procedure though unnecessary.

[Anonymous No.10003716]

>>10003692
I disagree.
And if you haven't noticed, Calculus isn't known for its rigor.

[Anonymous No.10003740]

>>10003692
[math]\frac{1}{\infty} \neq 0[/math]

A basic principle of arithmetic is properties of equality.
If A÷B=C, then C×B = A
If you admit infinity doesn't work with this, it defies arithmetic and has no relation to numbers.
1÷infinity = 0, but 0×infinity doesn't equal 1? One if not both of these statements are default invalid then, and all it takes is one to be false to know a non numerical value (aka A MISTAKE) has been included in a strictly numerical equation.

Infinity is not a number. If you think 1/infinity = 0, your logic is assuming
>infinity is large
and
>the larger a number under 1 becomes, it's result gets closer to 0
but this logic is flawed. Infinity has no inherent relation to numbers. It has no comparison. It is not larger, or smaller. What value of comparison is there in determining if saxaphone is larger thsn 57, or if 57 is larger than saxaphone? None, cause saxaphone isn't a numerical object; just like infinity.

If you could graph lines between (x,0) as any real number x, to (0, infinity), the result would be that all lines are of the same length, all lines are parallel, and that infinity is equidistant from all real values. It defies usefulness and ability to derive usefulness from it.

[Anonymous No.10003742]

>>10003716
>i have no argument

[Anonymous No.10003744]

>>10003740
>no inherent relation to numbers. It has no comparison. It is not larger,
BS, stop pulling crap out of your ass

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

[Anonymous No.10003779]

>>9998774
>0.000...0001
>a number that has an infinite number of 0s but yet also ends in 1.

l o l ?

[Anonymous No.10003800]

Assume we have a real number x = "0.9999999..." with the properties:
x < 1
for all y < 1, x >=y.
Becauxe x is a real number there exists a sequence x_n of rational numbers which converges to x.
Now let eps > 0, choose N such that |x_n - x| < eps/2 for all n >= N.
Let n >= N.
Then, |x_n - 1| < |x_n - x| + |x - 1|.
But |x_n - x| + |x - 1| < eps/2 + d < eps, because from the properties of x follows 1 - x < y for all y > 0 in Q.
So we get |x_n - 1| < eps which means that x_n converges to 1 as well.
If you define the real numbers by cauchy sequence equivalence classes then this should convince you that 1 = x.

[Anonymous No.10003818]

>>10003742
>I assert (1/inf = 0) and (0*inf = undefined) without any reasoning as to why.
>How dare you say my assertions are wrong without giving reason as to why!

[Anonymous No.10003824]

>>10003630
If they intersected, then there would be a point where they do so. If infinity could be found at a point on the graph it would be a number, which it isn't. While it never intersect, it TENDS TOWARD an intersection.

Infinity is not a number, it's shorthand for saying something tends toward getting arbitrarily large.

[Anonymous No.10003830]

>>10003744
Your reply didn't actually challenge anything.

[Anonymous No.10003834]

>>10003692
Brainlet.

1/infinity=0 is simply shorthand for the limit as x goes to infinity of 1/x=0

[stannis the mantis No.10003849]

real numbers don't have unique representations in terms of cauchy sequences

[Anonymous No.10003876]

I bet some one here believes 2^∞ = 3^∞ .

[Anonymous No.10003883]

>>10002448
>1/inf=0
That operation doesn't make any sense.
The fact that the limit of 1/x as x->inf is 0 doesn't mean that 1/inf = 0.

[Prof Sai No.10003890]

>>10003679
>graphs need real numbers, inf isn't a real number by definition

There is nothing wrong with an X axis with a trigonometric scale that reaches infinity in finite distance. One way to do it is to draw your X axis with nine Points, and then label each Point with the answer to tan(P*10)

>>10003800
Sorry, I don't understand what operation you are using the underscore to mean.

>>10003679
>>10003685
>>10003824

If infinity isn't a number then how can you describe .999... as meaning anything? In these discussions, there is this chronic inconsistency as to when infinity can be used, and when it can't. In this thread people say you can have infinite digits in a decimal expansion, but not in my graph. Why not? And here:
>>10003779
>0.000...0001
>a number that has an infinite number of 0s but yet also ends in 1.
...this decimal expansion is dismissed without explanation. Elsewhere I've heard it said that it is meaningless to append an additional item "after infinity". But Cantor's diagonal argument does exactly that to establish the Uncountable set.

Is it any wonder that people doubt .999... =1? You guys keep using slight of hand in your arguments.

[Anonymous No.10003895]

>>10003890
>how can you describe .999...

number of digits isn't the same as the value, retard
>what is pi, 1/3, e

[Anonymous No.10003906]

>>10003890
>Cantor's diagonal argument
>the Uncountable set.
holy shit you're stupid

https://youtu.be/elvOZm0d4H0?t=2m

[Prof Sai No.10003914]

>>10003895

Is "retard" your name that you have to post in every reply?

Pi, 1/3, and e don't require infinite digits to establish their identity. No one even claims a finite number of nines after a decimal point can equal one. You NEED an infinite some of values to define .999... The three dots MEAN infinity. But what does infinity mean? I already asked above about countable vrs uncountable numbers of digits, and that too was ignored:
>>10002804

And please don't with saying that you define .999... as equaling one, that is just more of the slight of hand I described above.

[Prof Sai No.10003918]

>>10003906
>holy shit you're stupid

If you start hurling insults without refuting the argument, that's the closest you'll ever get on 4chan to conceding defeat. Please stop posting.

[Anonymous No.10003919]

>>10003914
>Pi, 1/3, and e don't require infinite digits to establish their identity.
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10003921]

>>10003918
watch the video since you can't read a book
or shut up, retard

[Anonymous No.10003927]

>>10003890
Infinity doesn't have a defined value so performing operations and assigning equality to it doesn't make sense. It's used to represent the never ending nature or repetition of some instructions. Emphasis on "never ending."

[Prof Sai No.10003939]

>>10003919

The identity of Pi is the circumference of a circle divided by it's diameter.

See? No infinity required. Given that you just said that the above was impossible, maybe you should stop posting.

>>10003927
>Emphasis on "never ending."

Thus will never equal one. Assigning equality to .999... doesn't make sense. You just said so yourself.

[Prof Sai No.10003940]

I'm going to bed now. Type yourself silly if you want.

[Anonymous No.10003943]

>>10003939
9/9=0.999...
See?
>retard

[Prof Sai No.10003949]

>>10003943

Assuming your conclusion as a proof. You really are a retard.

[Anonymous No.10003950]

>>10003949

>>10001415

lrn2read, retard

[Anonymous No.10003959]

>>10003949
Wow this kid is dumb.

[Prof Sai No.10003984]

>>10003959
That’s what ur mom said last night faggot haha idiot

[Anonymous No.10004018]

>>10003984
looks like retards don't sleep
>or read

[Anonymous No.10004058]

>>10003876
sort of, both are undefined

[Anonymous No.10004063]

>>10003876
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2%5Einfinity%3D3%5Einfinity

[Anonymous No.10004649]

0.999... is the same as

(10^n-1)/( 10^n ) as n gets infinitely large. As the numerator will always be smaller than the denominator, the fraction can never equal one.

Intuitively: Imagine a stick of length one. Next to it, is a stick of length 9. The ratio of lengths, stick 2 to stick 1, is 9/10, or 0.9. Extend stick 2 to any length. How is it that the stick of length 1 is reduced to zero?

[Anonymous No.10004672]

>>10004649
>Imagine a stick
going up your ass as you scream NEINNEINNEIN
when it's all in, we've one