.999... = 1

[InkL0sed]

She is a solid 8.

When I talk about zero existing, consider it to mean existing as a number. The difference is just semantics. If zero only exists as a concept, I am saying this is equivalent to not existing.

A 17-headed sea creature with 1024 arms.

Now that I said it, does it exist?


Just like nothing. It is a word. But nothing does not exist. Or you wouldn't be here.

Numbers are abstractions. The number 1 doesn't actually exist either.

[TheProwler]

I'm going to type one letter: a

[InkL0sed]

Good for you. I'm going to type zero letters:

[TheProwler]

There's nothing there.

It doesn't exist.

[jonesthecurl]

All numbers are an illusion.
Builders' estimates doubly so.

[InkL0sed]

That is an absurd argument, and I'm not going to bother refuting it. It's pure sophistry, and you know it.

[jonesthecurl]

I'm not sure if you were replying to Prowler or me.
In either case: you're right.

[InkL0sed]

I was responding to Prowler. You fastposted me.

[TheProwler]

That is an absurd argument, and I'm not going to bother refuting it. It's pure sophistry, and you know it.

I'd refute your refusal to refute, but I don't know what "sophistry" means.

[TheProwler]

Without searching for it, does anyone know the Roman Numeral for zero?

[StiffMittens]

Without searching for it, does anyone know the Roman Numeral for zero?

Don't think there is one. Zero is an Arabic invention, I think (or maybe Indian).

[TheProwler]

So, when in Rome....

[owheelj]

Are we in Rome?

[john9blue]

The later Romans used N for nullus.

[MeDeFe]

N = n


discuss.

[SultanOfSurreal]

zero exists, in a broad sense (as does i, as do negative numbers). zero exists because nothing exists, that is to say it is because everything isn't (or more succinctly not everything is).

however zero things don't exist. when you have zero things, those things aren't. get it?

[xelabale]

Romans, as you know, never had a zero - that comes from arabic scholars much later.

one is an imaginary concept as a number. In reality we can represent for example 1 letter like this: a
Similarly two is an imaginary concept as a number. We can represent it like this with letters: aa
Similarly zero is an imaginary concept as a number. We can represent it like this with letters:
Or, we can assign each of the above a symbol to represent it:
first line's symbol: 1
second line's symbol: 2
third line's symbol: 0

It's not the only way to represent these concepts, it's just the one's we've chosen.

Sophistry means being a philosophical dick. It's the difference between having a real philosophical debate and being klobber. You tend to play a smarter line than klobber Prowler, but of course we all deviate sometimes.

[TheProwler]

The later Romans used N for nullus.

Ha, once or twice...there's always one in the crowd. 1 in the crowd.

[TheProwler]

zero exists, in a broad sense (as does i, as do negative numbers). zero exists because nothing exists, that is to say it is because everything isn't (or more succinctly not everything is).

however zero things don't exist. when you have zero things, those things aren't. get it?

The zero that you say exists only exists as a concept or as a definition.

It does not exist in reality.

[Snorri1234]

She is a solid 8.

When I talk about zero existing, consider it to mean existing as a number. The difference is just semantics. If zero only exists as a concept, I am saying this is equivalent to not existing.

So? What does that matter?

[jonesthecurl]

The later Romans used N for nullus.

Ha, once or twice...there's always one in the crowd. 1 in the crowd.

I hadn't heard of "N" for nullus before, I'm not sure how it would work in the way that the Romans did numbering.
It was the fact that they couldn't do "0" and thus couldn't do decimals that limited their ability to do math.
They were very puzzled by numbers that couldn't be expressed as an exact fraction, or the sum of several exact fractions added together, such as Pi, or the square root of 2.

Hey, are you a Roman that somehow got left behind?
Cave Canem.

[InkL0sed]

zero exists, in a broad sense (as does i, as do negative numbers). zero exists because nothing exists, that is to say it is because everything isn't (or more succinctly not everything is).

however zero things don't exist. when you have zero things, those things aren't. get it?

The zero that you say exists only exists as a concept or as a definition.

It does not exist in reality.

1 does not exist in reality either. They are all concepts.

A number is not a finger. It is not a stone. It is not a stick. It is not a person. It is an abstraction.

[MrBenn]

...and once again I refer you to Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems

Prove it (if you can)

[e_i_pi]

...and once again I refer you to Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems

Prove it (if you can)

Haha very funny Benn

[AAFitz]

I liked your post, AAFitz.

0.999... does not approach anything. It is a single value which does not change.

I'm still kinda hoping someone can come up with an equation that will result in an answer of 0.999recurring without using recursion or a recursive number or some declared value that is "infinitely small". If you can't, then I would like someone to explain how 0.999recurring can even exist. Obviously, if something can't exist, it can't equal 1.

Actually, it is the exact reason that it cant "exist" that it does equal one

Can something that does not exist equal something that does exist?

The only thing more infinite or pointless about this conversation, really is its uselessness.

I agree. For a few reasons.

One, it will eliminate the obvious possibility that people will think 1/3 times 3 equals 0.999recurring (and other similar mistakes). This will occur when people don't recognize the limitations and inaccuracies of trying to represent fractions with recurring decimals.

Two, differences this small never actually exist. Quantum physics and all that stuff. Heck, one little electron floating around an atom will cause your measurements to constantly change if you are trying to measure so precisely.

This is kinda why I asked if someone could show me an equation to generate an answer of 0.999recurring without using, etc..

Right or wrong, the difference if there was one between 1 and .99... would be infinitely small. As an infintely small number, it would be = to 0.

Same argument. I think an infinitely small number is not equal to zero.

Some would argue that zero doesn't even exist. One sentence, but very relevant to this entire thread. So I'll say it again.

Some would argue that zero doesn't even exist. And they might be right.

since .999... in every practical and useful meaningful way, will always and always has =1

I agree with that.

, then .999...=1.

But, I disagree with that.

well I can live with that... if in a thread we disagree by only 1-.999... id say thats a milestone

and btw... 0. There it exits. It is an idea and a numerical represention of the existence of nothing. It is perhaps the most important numerical representation, because it is what all other numbers are compared to. Without 0 none of the others could possibly exist, therefore it has to exist. All other numbers x = 0+x and x-0. They represent the exact difference between themselves and 0. Without 0 no other number has any meaning. All numbers simply compare themselves to zero to exist in the first place.