.999... = 1

[john9blue]

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.

In high school Latin I was told that it was used during the later half of the Empire. Obviously they didn't develop the concept significantly.



Ita vero, cave canem.

[TheProwler]

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?

Not sure why people are so riled up about it if it doesn't matter.

[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.

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.

Haha! What's funny is that if you started a thread with this idea, 90% of the people here would be arguing with you "1 is a number. Don't be such an idiot." You know that's true.

And so do they.

[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?

Not sure why people are so riled up about it if it doesn't matter.

I'm more asking what your point is by bringing that up.

[jonesthecurl]

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.

Haha! What's funny is that if you started a thread with this idea, 90% of the people here would be arguing with you "1 is a number. Don't be such an idiot." You know that's true.

And so do they.

What is wrong with the notion that numbers are an abstraction?

[TheProwler]

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?

Not sure why people are so riled up about it if it doesn't matter.

I'm more asking what your point is by bringing that up.

Go back and look. It came up in the discussion re: topic of the thread. People jumped all over it. Not my fault.

[SultanOfSurreal]

bumping the best thread of '09







hey let's discuss this topic some more, we never reached consensus

[Army of GOD]

I always disagreed with this.


Until I read this:

lim_(m --> oo) sum_(n = 1)^m (9)/(10^n) = 1

0.9999... = 1

Thus x = 0.9999...
10x = 9.9999...
10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999...
9x = 9
x = 1.

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.9999.html

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[Titanic]

I always disagreed with this.


Until I read this:

lim_(m --> oo) sum_(n = 1)^m (9)/(10^n) = 1

0.9999... = 1

Thus x = 0.9999...
10x = 9.9999...
10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999...
9x = 9
x = 1.

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.9999.html

Ahhhh....coooooool

[TheProwler]

Well you have to ask yourself- would you notice if your wife was missing .001% of her...erm, ribs. Yeah, ribs. Well if you wouldn't notice then your formula is correct. But if you would come home and say "Shit honey! Where in the hell is the other .001% of your ribs!?!?", then obviously you're incorrect.


-Sir. Isaac Newton at your service

It's more like 0.00000....00001 of her ribs.

We can talk about it for our entire lives, and we can explain it a million ways. But I don't think anyone really fully grasps infinity. Right now! This is where a lot of you thought "No, I fully grasp the concept!!" I'm not talking about understanding the concept. I talking about grasping the reality.

The problem here, in my opinion, is that we don't really "get" infinity. We understand the concept, sure.

Our numbering system is flawed when displaying recurring sequences of numbers. It is not precise enough. That is why, in my opinion, the arithmetic "proof" is flawed.

I know people here have screamed "It's not a matter of opinion!!!!" I think that if you don't understand the deficiencies in our numbering system, you need to take a step back and learn about limits and approaching limits; then you might also believe that trying to use a simple numeric notation to portray these equations as a single number is not precise enough. Well, it's precise enough for practical reasons. I mean, if your wife is missing 0.0000000....00001 of a rib, does it really matter?

[a.sub]

please show me another place where asthmatic proofs are flawed, thank you.

[MeDeFe]

Well you have to ask yourself- would you notice if your wife was missing .001% of her...erm, ribs. Yeah, ribs. Well if you wouldn't notice then your formula is correct. But if you would come home and say "Shit honey! Where in the hell is the other .001% of your ribs!?!?", then obviously you're incorrect.


-Sir. Isaac Newton at your service

It's more like 0.00000....00001 of her ribs.

We can talk about it for our entire lives, and we can explain it a million ways. But I don't think anyone really fully grasps infinity. Right now! This is where a lot of you thought "No, I fully grasp the concept!!" I'm not talking about understanding the concept. I talking about grasping the reality.

The problem here, in my opinion, is that we don't really "get" infinity. We understand the concept, sure.

Our numbering system is flawed when displaying recurring sequences of numbers. It is not precise enough. That is why, in my opinion, the arithmetic "proof" is flawed.

I know people here have screamed "It's not a matter of opinion!!!!" I think that if you don't understand the deficiencies in our numbering system, you need to take a step back and learn about limits and approaching limits; then you might also believe that trying to use a simple numeric notation to portray these equations as a single number is not precise enough. Well, it's precise enough for practical reasons. I mean, if your wife is missing 0.0000000....00001 of a rib, does it really matter?

0.999... does still equal 1

[Titanic]

I mean, if your wife is missing 0.0000000....00001 of a rib, does it really matter?

Probably not, and so right.

[jonesthecurl]

Well you have to ask yourself- would you notice if your wife was missing .001% of her...erm, ribs. Yeah, ribs. Well if you wouldn't notice then your formula is correct. But if you would come home and say "Shit honey! Where in the hell is the other .001% of your ribs!?!?", then obviously you're incorrect.


-Sir. Isaac Newton at your service

In TGI Fridays, I complained about the missing .000...0001 % of my ribs, and they didn't take me seriously.

[Snorri1234]

bumping the best thread of '09







hey let's discuss this topic some more, we never reached consensus

hehehe

[ser stiefel]

I always disagreed with this.


Until I read this:

lim_(m --> oo) sum_(n = 1)^m (9)/(10^n) = 1

0.9999... = 1

Thus x = 0.9999...
10x = 9.9999...
10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999...
9x = 9
x = 1.

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.9999.html

Of course it is only true if you do the operation all the way out to the least significant digit.

[ser stiefel]

I always disagreed with this.


Until I read this:

lim_(m --> oo) sum_(n = 1)^m (9)/(10^n) = 1

0.9999... = 1

Thus x = 0.9999...
10x = 9.9999...
10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999...
9x = 9
x = 1.

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.9999.html

Of course it is only true if you do the operation all the way out to the least significant digit.

wait a second here... i just did this one by long hand:

1 - o.99999999999...

and came up with:

0.00000....1!!!

Took me quite a while too!! Being nigh invulnerable helps with pesky things like limits.. I can breeze right through them.

[a.sub]

I always disagreed with this.


Until I read this:

lim_(m --> oo) sum_(n = 1)^m (9)/(10^n) = 1

0.9999... = 1

Thus x = 0.9999...
10x = 9.9999...
10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999...
9x = 9
x = 1.

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.9999.html

Of course it is only true if you do the operation all the way out to the least significant digit.

its common sense,
9.9999... - 0.9999...
9+ 0.9999... - 0.9999...
9

unless u want to argue that something minus its self is not zero, in which case u shd prolly review basic math.

[Army of GOD]

I always disagreed with this.


Until I read this:

lim_(m --> oo) sum_(n = 1)^m (9)/(10^n) = 1

0.9999... = 1

Thus x = 0.9999...
10x = 9.9999...
10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999...
9x = 9
x = 1.

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.9999.html

Of course it is only true if you do the operation all the way out to the least significant digit.

its common sense,
9.9999... - 0.9999...
9+ 0.9999... - 0.9999...
9

unless u want to argue that something minus its self is not zero, in which case u shd prolly review basic math.

Yea, I was wondering where you were going with that ser.

And the number .000...0001 is not at all similar to .9999...999. In the case of .999....999, you KNOW that the next digit is 9, no matter what. In .000.0001, you'll theoretically never get to the digit which has the 1, so it's essentially 0.

[ser stiefel]

I always disagreed with this.


Until I read this:

lim_(m --> oo) sum_(n = 1)^m (9)/(10^n) = 1

0.9999... = 1

Thus x = 0.9999...
10x = 9.9999...
10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999...
9x = 9
x = 1.

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.9999.html

Of course it is only true if you do the operation all the way out to the least significant digit.

its common sense,
9.9999... - 0.9999...
9+ 0.9999... - 0.9999...
9

unless u want to argue that something minus its self is not zero, in which case u shd prolly review basic math.

Yea, I was wondering where you were going with that ser.

And the number .000...0001 is not at all similar to .9999...999. In the case of .999....999, you KNOW that the next digit is 9, no matter what. In .000.0001, you'll theoretically never get to the digit which has the 1, so it's essentially 0.

Yep. just having a little fun.

I have a B.A. in mathematics from the University of Iowa. The first time I saw the algebraic proof that 2=1 was as graffiti on a bathroom stall in the math department. True geek-hood! Math is fun!

[Army of GOD]

Yep. just having a little fun.

I have a B.A. in mathematics from the University of Iowa. The first time I saw the algebraic proof that 2=1 was as graffiti on a bathroom stall in the math department. True geek-hood! Math is fun!

Haha I know it is. I'm a freshman majoring in Physics at the moment.

Though arguing math and science is dangerous on this site. 99% of everyone on here is a nerd. The last 1% is colton and trolls.

[ser stiefel]

Yep. just having a little fun.

I have a B.A. in mathematics from the University of Iowa. The first time I saw the algebraic proof that 2=1 was as graffiti on a bathroom stall in the math department. True geek-hood! Math is fun!

Haha I know it is. I'm a freshman majoring in Physics at the moment.

Though arguing math and science is dangerous on this site. 99% of everyone on here is a nerd. The last 1% is colton and trolls.

lol.. I don't know why people get so serious. life is too short not to have some fun.

[Army of GOD]

Yep. just having a little fun.

I have a B.A. in mathematics from the University of Iowa. The first time I saw the algebraic proof that 2=1 was as graffiti on a bathroom stall in the math department. True geek-hood! Math is fun!

Haha I know it is. I'm a freshman majoring in Physics at the moment.

Though arguing math and science is dangerous on this site. 99% of everyone on here is a nerd. The last 1% is colton and trolls.

lol.. I don't know why people get so serious. life is too short not to have some fun.

Haha I know, right?

That's why 1+1=3 with no proof required.

[TheProwler]

I always disagreed with this.


Until I read this:

lim_(m --> oo) sum_(n = 1)^m (9)/(10^n) = 1

0.9999... = 1

Thus x = 0.9999...
10x = 9.9999...
10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999...
9x = 9
x = 1.

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.9999.html

Of course it is only true if you do the operation all the way out to the least significant digit.

its common sense,
9.9999... - 0.9999...
9+ 0.9999... - 0.9999...
9

unless u want to argue that something minus its self is not zero, in which case u shd prolly review basic math.

In your example, 9+ 0.9999... - 0.9999..., the first 0.9999... is approaching 1 just a wee bit slower than the second 0.9999....

Like I said, it's a deficiency in the way our numbering system shows recurring numbers.

I think somewhere in this thread I asked someone to come up with an equation that results in 0.999... and they came up with 1/3 * 3 = 0.333... * 3 = 0.999... which clearly demonstrates the lack of precision when trying to write fractions out using recurring decimal notation (or whatever it's called).

0.333... might be a one full third...but it might be a little less than one full third...the numbering system is not precise enough.