0.99 (Repeating) = 1?

[Minimike3636]

My old friends from middle school were very intelligent people. They approached my math teacher with this question: "Does 0.99 repeating equal 1?"... Of course, she said No. My friends then continued to debate with her, though she refused to accept their data. I can't remember their arguements exactly, but what do you think? 0.99 = 1?



YES THIS HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE.
I completely missed it. Feel free to leave no comments.

 

[Ruzzian Roulette]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.85789?page=1

There you go.

 

[AdjectiveAnimal]

This has actually been done before.
EDIT: ninja'd

 

[Glerken]

What are your opinions on the search button?

 

[Noamuth]

.. I usually hate doing this, but hasn't this topic been done before? Recently?

EDIT: Double ninja'd. Ow.

 

[Lukirre]

The idea is this.

x = 0.99 Therefore...

10x = 9.99 Which means!

10x - x = 9.99 - x Which means!

9x = 9 Which means!

x = 1.

 

[raemiel]

No it doesn't. It's a number which is infinitely close to equaling and hence becoming the number 1 but it doesn't equal 1.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

.999(bar notation) does equal to 1. Your teacher is ignorant.

 

[Ruzzian Roulette]

This has actually been done before.
EDIT: ninja'd

.. I usually hate doing this, but hasn't this topic been done before? Recently?

EDIT: Double ninja'd. Ow.

Damn, I'm good.

 

[Minimike3636]

Crap. Sorry.

Yea, this has been done.
And yes, I did search this. All I got was "Proof that 0 = 1"

Alright. Sorry.

 

[Starke]

Could be worse. I vaguely remember years ago a teacher of mine marked me wrong for answering 2-5=(-3) in first or second grade.

 

[Dramus]

Just a quick question: does .999repeating actually exist? Nothing actually equals it. You can't divide any integer by any other integer and get it (unlike other repeating decimals, like .111repeating, which is 1/9) Please, mathy people only for answering. I want a proof (or disproof), not just logic.

 

[Dramus]

Could be worse. I vaguely remember years ago a teacher of mine marked me wrong for answering 2-5=(-3) in first or second grade.

What was their justification? That you put the answer in unnecessary parentheses?

 

[Glerken]

Well I have a question on this topic as well, is .999 (repeating) a rational number? There was a back and forth about that on the original .999=1 topic.

 

[SquirrelPants]

This is bullshit topic, math is boring and no, they were not very intelligent.

Look at data before you make assumptions, and simply because in your opinion that math is rather notfun(Yes, that IS a word goddammit) doesn't mean that it doesn't fucking run half your life.

EDIT: Oh, and on top of that, The Escapist is a very intelligent community, and many of us are interested in these sorts of things. Therefore, shut up, if you don't like a topic than don't read it.

 

[3rd rung]

It is easy to figure out with using 3/3 = 1 , so that 1/3 = .33333 and if you and (1/3)+(1/3)+(1/3)= (3/3) = .9999 and since we already said that (3/3)=1 then since (3/3)=.9999 from what we said before .9999999=1

Also where I just use several decimal places with .333 and .9999 I do mean repeating it called convergance

 

[Gitsnik]

Just a quick question: does .999repeating actually exist? Nothing actually equals it. You can't divide any integer by any other integer and get it (unlike other repeating decimals, like .111repeating, which is 1/9) Please, mathy people only for answering. I want a proof (or disproof), not just logic.

Let x be 9 to an infinite number of 9's (999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 is a starting point)
x / (x + 1) = 0.9 to an infinite number of 9's.

There you go.

Edit: Or the 1/3 post directly above me.

 

[Starke]

Could be worse. I vaguely remember years ago a teacher of mine marked me wrong for answering 2-5=(-3) in first or second grade.

What was their justification? That you put the answer in unnecessary parentheses?

There actually weren't any and it was in the vertical format, which is a pain to write here. Her justification boiled down to "you shouldn't know about that yet, so you're wrong."