Poll: 0.999... = 1

Recommended Videos

enriel

New member
Oct 20, 2009
187
0
0
Rabid Toilet said:
God damnit, I'm getting sucked into this, but I can't let this one slide. Two numbers that are notated differently are not automatically different numbers.

3/6 = .5

Same. Number.

.999... = 3/3 = 1

Still. Same. Number.
Again, true, but those are the same based on fractions vs decimals. This is a whole number and a fraction we're talking about. .9(infite) would be called a fraction. Called a fraction because it is a fraction of a number. And therefore not a whole number, which one is.

Can you show an example where a fraction, a decimal and a whole number are all the same number?
 

feather240

New member
Jul 16, 2009
1,921
0
0
It's one, why? It's practical in any situation that I'll need to use it in.

BlacklightVirus said:
SimuLord said:
2003 called, it wants its math meme back.
This has nothing to do with any meme. I'm not some 4chan idiot. I want to see how many people reject the concept.
Your words hurt... :C
 

zfactor

New member
Jan 16, 2010
922
0
0
CrystalShadow said:
But... Isn't infinity - 1 = infinity?

It's not even a different class of infinity, so that doesn't really help any.

Whenever infinity is invoked in anything, the results are difficult to interpret.

Suffice to say, if: infinity - 1 = infinity, then x and 10x in this case both have the same number of decimal places.

It's only if: infinity - 1 =/= infinity, that the example holds as it's being explained.
Yeah, I was taking the [infinity - 1 =/= infinity] approach, because it makes sense to me. But that's probably becuause I think like a computer and I treat infinity as the maximum value any variable can hold. Therefore [infinity - 1 =/= infinity] but [infinity + 1 = infinity], because if you can go higher than infinity, that new value is infinity.

It makes sense in my brain...
 

Swny Nerdgasm

New member
Jul 31, 2010
678
0
0
OH GOD!!!!!!

ALL THIS MATH IS MAKING MY BRAIN MELT...

Well My time on this world is short thanks to this thread, I'll miss you guys, who wants my shit?
 

Rabid Toilet

New member
Mar 23, 2008
613
0
0
enriel said:
Rabid Toilet said:
God damnit, I'm getting sucked into this, but I can't let this one slide. Two numbers that are notated differently are not automatically different numbers.

3/6 = .5

Same. Number.

.999... = 3/3 = 1

Still. Same. Number.
Again, true, but those are the same based on fractions vs decimals. This is a whole number and a fraction we're talking about. .9(infite) would be called a fraction. Called a fraction because it is a fraction of a number. And therefore not a whole number, which one is.

Can you show an example where a fraction, a decimal and a whole number are all the same number?
Easily.

1/3 = .333...
3 * (1/3) = .999...
3 * (1/3) = 3/3
3/3 = 1

.999... = 3/3 = 1
 

zoulza

New member
Dec 21, 2010
31
0
0
zfactor said:
x = 0.9999999999 (a finite number of 9s, for proof of concept purposes [or you can use infinity])
10x = 9.999999999 (this is one less 9 than the number of 9s in x [or infinity - 1])

So the 10x - x would actually equal 8.9999999991, not 9. [or 8.(infinity - 1 nines)1] And no, that fraction shouldn't theoretically explode because the extra 1 on the end is the decimal place provided by subtracting 1 from infinity (providing you can do that, and in my brain, yes you can).
You're doing it wrong. Infinity and infinity-1 are in fact the same quantity. That's kind of the point of infinity. You can't say there's an infinite number of nines and then a 1 on the end because there is no end!

As such, if x = 0.9999..., then 10x - x does equal 9.
 

crudus

New member
Oct 20, 2008
4,415
0
0
CrystalShadow said:
But isn't math begging the question by default?

Eh. Maybe not. But for all it's inherent logic, Math in the end still comes down to it's axioms. And those axioms are completely arbitrary.

They have to be, because if you can logically derive them, then you can decompose them into a combination of other parts that logically lead to them.

Therefore, the most fundamental axioms cannot themselves be logical statements, or you would have a infinite regression.

Fundamental problem with logic all round to be honest.

Logic, fundamentally, isn't logical. XD
Actually it isn't. You are confusing "logic" with "proof". It is true you can't prove logic with logic. The foundations of logic are things like a=b and a!=!a. Everything kind of built upon that. Those things are then used to prove things and define others. Although you do seem to be getting more philosophical than this thread would probably like.
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
havass said:
If x = 0.999999...
Then 10x = 9.9999...
Therefore, 10x - x = 9
Which implies 9x = 9
Thus, x = 1
x also = 0.99999...

In conclusion, I have just proven 1 = 0.9999...
Wait!

x = 0.999999...
Then 10x = 9.9999...
Therefore, 10x - x = 9
^Checks out, cause its one continuous since you're using the same values.

But once you get to here:
Which implies 9x = 9
Thus, x = 1
x also = 0.99999...
^It doesnt, cause its a new problem, with new x values.

So while x = .999999..., in the second problem x = 1.
You're taking two different X values, not having the same X value.
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
havass said:
If x = 0.999999...
Then 10x = 9.9999...
Therefore, 10x - x = 9
Which implies 9x = 9
Thus, x = 1
x also = 0.99999...

In conclusion, I have just proven 1 = 0.9999...
Bolded part is invalid math. Thus, your proof fails.

That said, 0.999... is functionally equivalent to 1 in any practical setting. It's so close that the difference is safely ignorable.
 

enriel

New member
Oct 20, 2009
187
0
0
Rabid Toilet said:
enriel said:
Rabid Toilet said:
God damnit, I'm getting sucked into this, but I can't let this one slide. Two numbers that are notated differently are not automatically different numbers.

3/6 = .5

Same. Number.

.999... = 3/3 = 1

Still. Same. Number.
Again, true, but those are the same based on fractions vs decimals. This is a whole number and a fraction we're talking about. .9(infite) would be called a fraction. Called a fraction because it is a fraction of a number. And therefore not a whole number, which one is.

Can you show an example where a fraction, a decimal and a whole number are all the same number?
Easily.

1/3 = .333...
3 * (1/3) = .999...
3 * (1/3) = 3/3
3/3 = 1

.999... = 3/3 = 1
Then clearly math is flawed, but I concede defeat either way.
 

Lyx

New member
Sep 19, 2010
457
0
0
You don't really need maths to understand this, but instead just have some background understanding about concepts like "accuracy" and "infinity" - basically, a conceptual understanding what "numbers" are.

First step: Accuracy

Numbers are not absolute - ignoring what they are supposed to represent, they use a "unit" which is the base (compare: binary base and decimal base). Depending on the base, there are some values that can be expressed with *theoretical* ideal accuracy (in practice, that will never work... nothing in practice can be done with perfect accuracy, and doesnt need to). For those values that however do not lie exactly on the base, you need to express it with fractions... but the problem is, that for some values, the fractions will be repeating - so even that way, you cannot reach that "ideal accuracy"....

UNLESS you cheat.

What is infinity? Well, in short, infinity is not a value. Let me repeat this, because this is an annoyingly common myth: Infinity is not a value. What infinity is, is a looped function... for those who understand a bit about programming, infinity looks a bit like this:

1: n = n + 1
2: Goto 1:

The important thing to notice, is that the loop doesn't end, and therefore will never ever return a value, unless we stop the loop at some point - which will NOT return infinity, but just the highest precision reached at the point of the break. Or to phrase it more ironically: Infinity is a function that never returns infinity because it never finishes. The "infinite accuracy" is just a theoretical symbol - it has no corresponding phenomena (this is why mathematical points do not exist).

What does that mean for the 0.99999... = 1 question? Well, notice the "..."? Thats just saying "append another 9 forever" (infinity). In theory, if "forever" could ever be reached (contradiction), the result would be 1. It just will never happen :)

So, while 0.99999... does conceptually allow to express "infinitely close to 1", it logically makes no sense.

But in practice, this will not matter. Because in practice applications, you won't ever precisely hit "1" anyways... no matter if you use "0.999..." in your design or "1". All that matters in practice, is that the accuracy is high enough - and a "0.999..." function that is stopped when it reached enough precision, will do just that.
 

Panda Mania

New member
Jul 1, 2009
402
0
0
Well, I'm not a math major. And I actually struggle with math. Still, my feeble reasoning goes...

0.999999999...goes on into infinity! It never ends, it comes so close to but never becomes 1. 1, on the other hand, is a whole, with a beginning, a middle, and a definite end. It's ONE, complete and finite (and comprehensible). True, for purposes of sanity and ease, 0.999999999999... can be equated to 1 for use in problem solving/computation/practical mathematical uses, but the concept is ultimately that 0.99999999... does not equal 1, because to equal something is to be the same as something, to be indistinguishable from it. 0.9999999... is close to but clearly not 1.

Wow. That sounded idiotic. ^^ Yeeeaah, definitely won't be going into the sciences anytime soon... >.>
 

Klopy

New member
Nov 30, 2009
147
0
0
Some of the math in this thread is flawed... jeez. Double check, please. :p

.9999... is not equal to 1.
Why?

Still being in high school, and with my chemistry background, I would have to say that .9 etc. is not equal to 1 because of its significant figures. You can round up when the math is over, but it will never be correct. .9999999 will always be <1, no matter how close it gets. In the math world, this is just how it has to be.

In real life, it would get so close to 1 that it wouldn't really matter.
But in theoretical conversations, it will always be <1.
 

tthor

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,931
0
0
Rubashov said:
Naheal said:
crudus said:
Naheal said:
Whenever someone puts that up to me, I point to this shirt:

It's funny because that shirt divided by 0.
Actually, it didn't :-/ That proof works.
The shirt divides both sides by (a - b). Because a = b, (a - b) = 0. Thus, the proof is invalid.
are you refering to canceling out (a - b) by dividing both sides by it? so, (a - b) / (a - b), and (a - b) = 0, so it would be 0 / 0, or simplified, 0, which is a mathematically correct term
 

Rubashov

New member
Jun 23, 2010
174
0
0
zfactor said:
Rubashov said:
zfactor said:
havass said:
If x = 0.999999...
Then 10x = 9.9999...
Therefore, 10x - x = 9
Which implies 9x = 9
Thus, x = 1
x also = 0.99999...

In conclusion, I have just proven 1 = 0.9999...
Uh, wait, the second part will have one less 9 after the decimal point than the first part.
No. That's not how infinity works. Both 10x and x have infinite decimal places, so it doesn't make sense to talk about one having one less decimal place than the other.
He multiplied by 10 thus shifting the decimal place over to the right one space. X had infinity decimal places and 10x has infinity - 1 decimal places. The infinite decimal places applies to x, not to the polynomial 10x. At least that's how I see it, the answer to the entire question relies on how you work with infinity...
This would be a valid argument if it weren't for the fact that one less than infinity is still infinite. In fact, fifty trillion less than infinity is still infinite. Any finite number less than infinity is still infinite. If this doesn't apply to the concept you call infinity, then what you're talking about isn't infinity at all in the mathematical sense; it's an arbitrary finite value that you've decided to call infinity.
 

Rabid Toilet

New member
Mar 23, 2008
613
0
0
enriel said:
Rabid Toilet said:
enriel said:
Rabid Toilet said:
God damnit, I'm getting sucked into this, but I can't let this one slide. Two numbers that are notated differently are not automatically different numbers.

3/6 = .5

Same. Number.

.999... = 3/3 = 1

Still. Same. Number.
Again, true, but those are the same based on fractions vs decimals. This is a whole number and a fraction we're talking about. .9(infite) would be called a fraction. Called a fraction because it is a fraction of a number. And therefore not a whole number, which one is.

Can you show an example where a fraction, a decimal and a whole number are all the same number?
Easily.

1/3 = .333...
3 * (1/3) = .999...
3 * (1/3) = 3/3
3/3 = 1

.999... = 3/3 = 1
Then clearly math is flawed, but I concede defeat either way.
Math is not flawed in the least.

.999... and 1 are the same number because .999... is the decimal equivalent of the fraction 3/3 or 9/9. Just like .5 is the decimal equivalent of 1/2 and 1 is the decimal equivalent of 3/3.

That might seem like math magic, but it's really not. They're just different ways of writing the same number.
 

zfactor

New member
Jan 16, 2010
922
0
0
Rabid Toilet said:
enriel said:
Again, true, but those are the same based on fractions vs decimals. This is a whole number and a fraction we're talking about. .9(infite) would be called a fraction. Called a fraction because it is a fraction of a number. And therefore not a whole number, which one is.

Can you show an example where a fraction, a decimal and a whole number are all the same number?
Easily.

1/3 = .333...
3 * (1/3) = .999...
3 * (1/3) = 3/3
3/3 = 1

.999... = 3/3 = 1
Except 1/3 is not .333333[infinity]. It is .33333[infinity][1/3]. By your example, 3 * [1/3] would be .9999999[infinity]. If you tack on the [1/3] at the end of the infinity decimal, there is an extra .0000[infinity]1 which makes the whole thing equal exactly 1.

But, balls, there doesn't seem to be any way to prove this without circular logic (i reasoned something extra needed to be there because .999999 =/= 1)... I really need to stop getting in on these physics/math forums... I'll make my brain explode at some point.
 

havass

New member
Dec 15, 2009
1,298
0
0
Agayek said:
havass said:
If x = 0.999999...
Then 10x = 9.9999...
Therefore, 10x - x = 9
Which implies 9x = 9
Thus, x = 1
x also = 0.99999...

In conclusion, I have just proven 1 = 0.9999...
Bolded part is invalid math. Thus, your proof fails.

That said, 0.999... is functionally equivalent to 1 in any practical setting. It's so close that the difference is safely ignorable.
Why is it invalid, though?
 

Denamic

New member
Aug 19, 2009
3,804
0
0
havass said:
If x = 0.999999...
Then 10x = 9.9999...
Therefore, 10x - x = 9
Which implies 9x = 9
Thus, x = 1
x also = 0.99999...

In conclusion, I have just proven 1 = 0.9999...
If you have an oddity and subtract with the 'same' oddity, you don't automatically get to assume you've broken logic.
The thing is that infinity is just a broken concept that we cannot even begin to understand.
You've just assumed that 1 'infinity' is the same as 9 'infinities'.
This is true and untrue at the same time.
On the one hand, infinity is infinity, no more and no less.
And on the other, 1 infinity is less than 9 infinities.
Mathematically, we have to go with the latter.
 

skeliton112

New member
Aug 12, 2009
519
0
0
havass said:
If x = 0.999999...
Then 10x = 9.9999...
Therefore, 10x - x = 9
Which implies 9x = 9
Thus, x = 1
x also = 0.99999...

In conclusion, I have just proven 1 = 0.9999...
However 0.999... < 1 as 1x10 = 10
0.999...x10 = 9.999...
Therefore 0.999...(not equal)1

EDIT: I know that it is true according to accepted maths im just proposing a counter arguement.