
I don't care how many 9's or how close to 1 it is. Being close, isn't being.

Better question: does it even matter?

Yes. But what does it have to do with recurring decimals?

Yes it is. No it doesn't, yes I do, and nothing.

All .9999...=1 means is that the limit, as the number of 9's increases without bound, equals 1.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/f/a/6fa510b44742046a167b4b8515162825.png)

Fancy drawings don't make you right.

3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1

nope.
There's still a very very very small number between .999999 and 1.

nope.
There's still a very very very small number between .999999 and 1.
Yes. But there isnt between 0.9999....... and 1.

Yes there is! It's just even smaller. T'would be 0.0000...1.

Is this just trolling?

Is this just trolling?
Either way, it's dumb.

All .9999...=1 means is that the limit, as the number of 9's increases without bound, equals 1.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/f/a/6fa510b44742046a167b4b8515162825.png)
what are you finding out when you find a limit? what direction does the equation head towards but then you must also determine if there is an asymptote at that number ie. graph the equation f(x)=1/(1x) and you will find that there is an asymptote at 1 because x can never=1

All .9999...=1 means is that the limit, as the number of 9's increases without bound, equals 1.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/f/a/6fa510b44742046a167b4b8515162825.png)
what are you finding out when you find a limit? what direction does the equation head towards but then you must also determine if there is an asymptote at that number ie. graph the equation f(x)=1/(1x) and you will find that there is an asymptote at 1 because x can never=1
What the heck are you talking about? If you wanted to graph the equation in his limit you would use f(x)= 1 (1/10^(x)). Notice now that there is no way for there to be a zero in the denomenator, and no vertical asymptotes exist for f(x)= 1/10^x. You could use L'Hospitals rule to prove that the limit approaches zero as n approaches infinity if you wanted.
Jdoe's proof works perfectly fine. Its obvious which direction the limit heads, as it was derived from an infinite series starting at k=1, to infinity. He dirived his limit by using the rule that determines the sum of a convergent geometric series where the sum = term 1/1 common ratio. Since the sum is a limit, finding the limit will find the sum, which he proved was one.

All .9999...=1 means is that the limit, as the number of 9's increases without bound, equals 1.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/f/a/6fa510b44742046a167b4b8515162825.png)
what are you finding out when you find a limit? what direction does the equation head towards but then you must also determine if there is an asymptote at that number ie. graph the equation f(x)=1/(1x) and you will find that there is an asymptote at 1 because x can never=1
What the heck are you talking about? If you wanted to graph the equation in his limit you would use f(x)= 1 (1/10^(x)). Notice now that there is no way for there to be a zero in the denomenator, and no vertical asymptotes exist for f(x)= 1/10^x. You could use L'Hospitals rule to prove that the limit approaches zero as n approaches infinity if you wanted.
Jdoe's proof works perfectly fine. Its obvious which direction the limit heads, as it was derived from an infinite series starting at k=1, to infinity. He dirived his limit by using the rule that determines the sum of a convergent geometric series where the sum = term 1/1 common ratio. Since the sum is a limit, finding the limit will find the sum, which he proved was one.
was I arguing against his equation or was I using a nice simple equation so those who are not strong at math could follow it better. thanks for missing the point try again later

I just don't understand what your equation, and your subsequent explaination of asymptotes has to do with jdoe's proof. What did you clarify for people? Please explain yourself.
Is this your clumsy way of explaining that the limit of (1/10^x) is 0 as x approaches infinity?

I just don't understand what your equation, and your subsequent explaination of asymptotes has to do with jdoe's proof. What did you clarify for people? Please explain yourself.
Is this your clumsy way of explaining that the limit of (1/10^x) is 0 as x approaches infinity?
what does a limit find; an answer or an approximate value?

I just don't understand what your equation, and your subsequent explaination of asymptotes has to do with jdoe's proof. What did you clarify for people? Please explain yourself.
Is this your clumsy way of explaining that the limit of (1/10^x) is 0 as x approaches infinity?
what does a limit find; an answer or an approximate value?
The limit gives an exact a sum to an infinite series (the sum is 1). Since when the hell is a limit ever an approximation? I think the definition of a limit is obvious to anyone who has ever had a class dealing with them (a calculus class), and you are no substitute for a textbook to those who have not.

I just don't understand what your equation, and your subsequent explaination of asymptotes has to do with jdoe's proof. What did you clarify for people? Please explain yourself.
Is this your clumsy way of explaining that the limit of (1/10^x) is 0 as x approaches infinity?
what does a limit find; an answer or an approximate value?
The limit gives an exact a sum to an infinite series (the sum is 1). Since when the hell is a limit ever an approximation? I think the definition of a limit is obvious to anyone who has ever had a class dealing with them (a calculus class), and you are no substitute for a textbook.
In mathematics, the limit of a function is a fundamental concept in calculus and analysis concerning the behavior of that function near a particular input. Informally, a function assigns an output f(x) to every input x. The function has a limit L at an input p if f(x) is "close" to L whenever x is "close" to p. In other words, f(x) becomes closer and closer to L as x move closer and closer to p. More specifically, when f is applied to each input sufficiently close to p, the result is an output value that is arbitrarily close to L.
Ouch for you!

3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1
Fuck calculus. This is all the proof I really need.

I just don't understand what your equation, and your subsequent explaination of asymptotes has to do with jdoe's proof. What did you clarify for people? Please explain yourself.
Is this your clumsy way of explaining that the limit of (1/10^x) is 0 as x approaches infinity?
what does a limit find; an answer or an approximate value?
The limit gives an exact a sum to an infinite series (the sum is 1). Since when the hell is a limit ever an approximation? I think the definition of a limit is obvious to anyone who has ever had a class dealing with them (a calculus class), and you are no substitute for a textbook.
In mathematics, the limit of a function is a fundamental concept in calculus and analysis concerning the behavior of that function near a particular input. Informally, a function assigns an output f(x) to every input x. The function has a limit L at an input p if f(x) is "close" to L whenever x is "close" to p. In other words, f(x) becomes closer and closer to L as x move closer and closer to p. More specifically, when f is applied to each input sufficiently close to p, the result is an output value that is arbitrarily close to L.
Ouch for you!
Right, the intuitive definition of a limit, please explain where I am wrong, if you feel that I am wrong in my conception of a limit. (So far the only thing you have proved to me is your copy/paste ability)

I just don't understand what your equation, and your subsequent explaination of asymptotes has to do with jdoe's proof. What did you clarify for people? Please explain yourself.
Is this your clumsy way of explaining that the limit of (1/10^x) is 0 as x approaches infinity?
what does a limit find; an answer or an approximate value?
The limit gives an exact a sum to an infinite series (the sum is 1). Since when the hell is a limit ever an approximation? I think the definition of a limit is obvious to anyone who has ever had a class dealing with them (a calculus class), and you are no substitute for a textbook.
In mathematics, the limit of a function is a fundamental concept in calculus and analysis concerning the behavior of that function near a particular input. Informally, a function assigns an output f(x) to every input x. The function has a limit L at an input p if f(x) is "close" to L whenever x is "close" to p. In other words, f(x) becomes closer and closer to L as x move closer and closer to p. More specifically, when f is applied to each input sufficiently close to p, the result is an output value that is arbitrarily close to L.
Ouch for you!
Right, the intuitive definition of a limit, please explain where I am wrong, if you feel that I am wrong in my conception of a limit. (So far the only thing you have proved to me is your copy/paste ability)
well you wanted something out of a textbook since you did not believe me earlier when I essentially stated the same thing so just remember, in math there is a big difference between an approximate value and an exact answer

I was criticising the clumsy way you tried to explain the concept of limits earlier in the thread, I am not saying you don't know what a limit is. Granted my first response mistook your response for a criticism of jdoe's proof. A limit is just that, a limit, not an approximation.

I was criticising the clumsy way you tried to explain the concept of limits earlier in the thread, I am not saying you don't know what a limit is. Granted my first response mistook your response for a criticism of jdoe's proof.
well then that is that

3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1
Fuck calculus. This is all the proof I really need.
But how do you know .33333... = 1/3?

3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1
Fuck calculus. This is all the proof I really need.
But how do you know .33333... = 1/3?
you can round it off, but they are not equivalent terms

3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1
Fuck calculus. This is all the proof I really need.
But how do you know .33333... = 1/3?
Okay, fine. I guess there's calculus there, in the proof that .333... = 1/3. But I know that from elementary school. I think it was 5th or 6th grade that I figured out that .999... = 1.
you can round it off, but they are not equivalent terms
I believe you're mistaken here.

unless you want to write 3's forever(as far as we know right now) then you are indeed rounding off

You don't need to put 3s forever. That's what the ellipses represent. Or putting a line over the number, if you prefer. But it's a fact that .333..., if you understand the ellipses to represent an infinite number of 3s, is equal to 1/3. And .999... is equal to 1.

You don't need to put 3s forever. That's what the ellipses represent. Or putting a line over the number, if you prefer. But it's a fact that .333..., if you understand the ellipses to represent an infinite number of 3s, is equal to 1/3. And .999... is equal to 1.
my bad did not see the line so I went into literal mode, so you are almost correct but .9999 repeating does not equal 1, that is one of the proofs of rounding errors

your retarted

your retarted

You don't need to put 3s forever. That's what the ellipses represent. Or putting a line over the number, if you prefer. But it's a fact that .333..., if you understand the ellipses to represent an infinite number of 3s, is equal to 1/3. And .999... is equal to 1.
The point is you can't write 3's forever, because it's impossible. That's why .999 can never equal 1, because you can't ever write that many nines!

You could put something on the key...

I just don't understand what your equation, and your subsequent explaination of asymptotes has to do with jdoe's proof. What did you clarify for people? Please explain yourself.
Is this your clumsy way of explaining that the limit of (1/10^x) is 0 as x approaches infinity?
what does a limit find; an answer or an approximate value?
The limit gives an exact a sum to an infinite series (the sum is 1). Since when the hell is a limit ever an approximation? I think the definition of a limit is obvious to anyone who has ever had a class dealing with them (a calculus class), and you are no substitute for a textbook to those who have not.
lolwut?

narc is right
0.99...9 < 1 for any fixed number n of 9s beyond the decimal point. Furthermore, 0.99...99 > 0.99...9.
\/ \/ \/
  
n 9s (n+1) 9s n 9s
Thus, the sequence {0.99...9} is a monotonicaly increasing and bounded. According to a famous theorem from calculus, it is convergent, meaning it has a unique limit. Let us denote this limit as x. Then we have:
x = 0.99... (notice that the sequence of 9s goes to infinity now)
Multyplying by 10, we get:
10x = 9.99...
Subtracting these two expressions and we have:
10x  x = 9.99...  0.99...
9x = 9
x  9/9
x = 1
So, the limit is 1, indicating that, when the number of decimals goes to infinity 0.99... = 1.
However, narc is wrong in saying that when a number has infinite number of decimal places, it does not exist. All irrational numbers (like √2 or π) have a decimal representation with infinite number of nonrepeating decimals. However, they do exist and are used in mathematics all the time.

I love on the old thread where the math "major" found the limit to it and said that indicated that it equals one. I left the thread.

narc is right
0.99...9 < 1 for any fixed number n of 9s beyond the decimal point. Furthermore, 0.99...99 > 0.99...9.
\/ \/ \/
  
n 9s (n+1) 9s n 9s
Thus, the sequence {0.99...9} is a monotonicaly increasing and bounded. According to a famous theorem from calculus, it is convergent, meaning it has a unique limit. Let us denote this limit as x. Then we have:
x = 0.99... (notice that the sequence of 9s goes to infinity now)
Multyplying by 10, we get:
10x = 9.99...
Subtracting these two expressions and we have:
10x  x = 9.99...  0.99...
9x = 9
x  9/9
x = 1
So, the limit is 1, indicating that, when the number of decimals goes to infinity 0.99... appraoches1.
However, narc is wrong in saying that when a number has infinite number of decimal places, it does not exist. All irrational numbers (like √2 or π) have a decimal representation with infinite number of nonrepeating decimals. However, they do exist and are used in mathematics all the time.
Fixed

??? Does a circle exist? ??? :o

3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1
.3333 repeating is not a full 1/3.

??? Does a circle exist? ??? :o
why wouldnt it?

Do repeating decimals as they are written using standard notation (ellipses, or lines or dots above the repeating digits) no longer validly represent fractions?
Of course it's true that .99999 does not equal 1. There's no finite number of 9s that can be written in there that will ever make it equal 1. But if you understand that .999... represents a decimal point followed by an infinite number of 9s, then .999... is equal to 1, plain and simple.
Unless repeating decimals are no longer valid ways to represent fractions. But if that's the case, Wikipedia should really be informed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_decimal
So should mathforum.org:
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57041.html
and Wolfram Mathworld:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RepeatingDecimal.html

If a circle exists, then so does .99999=1.

Omitting a typing error on behalf of nightmare, he is correct. A circle really only exists in theory, being defined as a polygon with infinite corners. In the same logic, .999... (That is, a decimal with an infinite amount of the number nine behind it, it has to be infinite) only exists in theory, and is theoretically equal to one. There are several explanations to this phenomenon, but I find that the simplest one is that there is no number between .999[repeat] and 1.

??? Does a circle exist? ??? :o
No.

There was a typo? Meaning the ommision of the "repeat" operator?

Omitting a typing error on behalf of nightmare, he is correct. A circle really only exists in theory, being defined as a polygon with infinite corners. In the same logic, .999... (That is, a decimal with an infinite amount of the number nine behind it, it has to be infinite) only exists in theory, and is theoretically equal to one. There are several explanations to this phenomenon, but I find that the simplest one is that there is no number between .999[repeat] and 1.
I thought a circle didn't exist because we live in a 3spacialdimension world. A circle, being a two dimensional figure, has no depth. I've yet to see something without a third dimension.

Exactly, which means all of this is purely theoretical, but in theory, it is correct. One could actually ask the same question about a sphere, but I don't really know the definition of a perfect sphere.

I don't care how many 9's or how close to 1 it is. Being close, isn't being.
Please write the number you are referring in full, or as a fraction, square root or wrote some other operation (in full) which would result in this number.
Just so we know the exact number you are talking about.
Oh as to a circle existing... well, it doesn't exist as a macroscopic physical object that's for sure.

3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1
.3333 repeating is not a full 1/3.
Yes it is. Do the math on your calculator, and then try to argue the same with it. If you do it again after the argument, tell me if it changed it's answer.
Even my iPod touch 2.0 calculator shows it. If you look, in portrait mode, the calculator is simplistic. It shows the result of the equation 1/3:
(http://i35.tinypic.com/2zgrvqo.png)
In landscape mode, it becomes a scientific calculator, with a more detailed result screen:
(http://i38.tinypic.com/3329lba.png)
There were no alterations done. Simply rotating the device ended up showing more decimal places, revealing that it is actually .33333333...., which is equal to 1/3. So (1/3)+(1/3)+(1/3) = 1. So does (.3333333...) + (.3333333...) + (.3333333...) = (.9999999...) = 1.
Simple.

Is this just trolling?
Yes

Is this just trolling?
Yes
Lol, why does anyone even need to ask on this forum. lol

Exactly, which means all of this is purely theoretical, but in theory, it is correct. One could actually ask the same question about a sphere, but I don't really know the definition of a perfect sphere.
A set of points, whereas all points are equidistant from a point not part of the set.
That is my version of the definition, but i think it is correct.
The definition for a circle isn't an infinite set of vertices, it is the same definition as the spehere but in 2 dimensions.

In order for two numbers to not be equal, there must be an infinite amount of numbers between them.

In order for two numbers to not be equal, there must be an infinite amount of numbers between them.
yes, and what is your point... ???

In order for two numbers to not be equal, there must be an infinite amount of numbers between them.
yes, and what is your point... ???
If I understand right, he's saying that .999... is equal to 1 because there is not an infinite amount of numbers between them.

There isn't even one number between them. ::)

saying .999 repeating = 1 is like saying sqrt(2)=1.4142..... and they are not equal but they are very close and for most calculations it will work but that does not mean that it is correct.

saying .999 repeating = 1 is like saying sqrt(2)=1.4142..... and they are not equal but they are very close and for most calculations it will work but that does not mean that it is correct.
It's not the same at all. You can't break down sqrt(2) to a definite fraction. You can however break .333... down to a definite fraction. Since .333... + .333... +.333... = .999..., it is selfevident (as described before) that .999... = 1. Some of you "calculus whizzes" could really use a refresher course in basic arithmetic from the looks of things. Did you look at the sources I provided earlier, cbarnett, that showed that you were wrong about .333... not being equal to 1/3?

Is this just trolling?
Yes
Lol, why does anyone even need to ask on this forum. lol
I wanted to see narc admit it was and then see if the arguing continued.

Did you look at the sources I provided earlier, cbarnett, that showed that you were wrong about .333... not being equal to 1/3?
He also sounds like he is calling all electronic calculators (my iPod touch included) liars.

Well I guess we can wrap this one up.
Sorry you guys couldn't prove me wrong.

You weren't wrong, narc. .99999 doesn't equal one, and we all agree to that. We just hijacked your topic to talk about basic maths. ;)

He also sounds like he is calling all electronic calculators (my iPod touch included) liars.
Never mind mathematical fancies, why do you own an iPod?

Because Zunes are shit.

He also sounds like he is calling all electronic calculators (my iPod touch included) liars.
Never mind mathematical fancies, why do you own an iPod?
Because Zunes are shit.
QFT.
Also, I love the multitouch interface, coupled with a UNIX based OS that once slightly modified, is probably the most powerful and useful handheld device out there. It's not just an mp3 player to me, it's more like a PDA. I can do basically anything with it.
Plus, playing Quake and Super Mario Brothers on it is a lot of fun.

Also, I love the multitouch interface, coupled with a UNIX based OS that once slightly modified, is probably the most powerful and useful handheld device out there. It's not just an mp3 player to me, it's more like a PDA. I can do basically anything with it.
Plus, playing Quake and Super Mario Brothers on it is a lot of fun.
I also have something that fits in my hand and is a lot of fun. It goes with me everywhere and best of all, I've never had to pay a cent for it!

Also, I love the multitouch interface, coupled with a UNIX based OS that once slightly modified, is probably the most powerful and useful handheld device out there. It's not just an mp3 player to me, it's more like a PDA. I can do basically anything with it.
Plus, playing Quake and Super Mario Brothers on it is a lot of fun.
I also have something that fits in my hand and is a lot of fun. It goes with me everywhere and best of all, I've never had to pay a cent for it!
I thought the same until one day...

When something ugly and screaming dropped out of the woman you love?

When something cute and quiet, but expensive dropped out of the woman you loved?
Fix'd for accuracy.

Dude. That's harsh. You didn't even love this woman?

I loved her, but no more. That was the meaning behind it.

And now you're stuck with alimony?

No.

Party! 8)
...
'mirite?

Not really.

:( This is sad topic.

Learn when to quit, bud.

:( This is sad topic.
(http://i34.tinypic.com/n4xw1j.jpg)

Yes there is! It's just even smaller. T'would be 0.0000...1.
Even if he were right, which he's not, that still wouldn't be right. .000001 isn't between .9999 and 1, not would it be taken infinite digits. And .333... = 1/3, 3*(1/3) = .999... There's really no use debating this. How would you express the number between .999... and 1 anyway?
By the way, the limit guy is wrong, too. It's not a limit, it's the same number.

1=1. Nothing else=1. Only 1=1. 1^2=1, but then again, 1^2 is 1, so you'd really just be rephrasing 1=1.

That's the beauty of it, general. 1^{2}=1 because 1^{2} is one, and the same goes for .9[repeat]=1. :) I'm glad we agree. Nothing other than one is equal to one.

0.9999... isn't an equation which, when simplified, equals one. It's just a number that doesn't. (equal one.)

Right, then find the number between it and one. (I propose that we dub the number with a symbol of some kind.. ¤ < that one, maybe?)

Right, then find the number between it and one. (I propose that we dub the number with a symbol of some kind.. ¤ < that one, maybe?)
I will give you a whole bunch: any number greater 0.9999< x >1
Now pick any "x" you want and as long as it satisfies those conditions then you have your number

0.9999....(19)

The thing is that it doesn't work that way if you have an infinite amount of nines. Infinity plus one is just infinity again. You can't put something at the end of infinity. Your sig does ring true., cbarnett.

There is no such thing as infinity. In this case, "infinity" is when your finger starts to hurt.

I know there is no such thing as infinity, but this is a theoretical equation. I didn't say that 0.<insert finite amount of nines here> was equal to one, it has to be an infinite amount.

It still isn't.

Dear God! Make it stop!

If the naysayers are ever actually able to back their position up let me know. Otherwise, it's clearly been sufficiently proven that .999... = 1. ::)

Wasn't that like, 20 years ago?

The thing is that it doesn't work that way if you have an infinite amount of nines. Infinity plus one is just infinity again. You can't put something at the end of infinity. Your sig does ring true., cbarnett.
Same Idea different numbers: F(x)=1/x when does x=0
Or f(x)=1/(1x) when does x=1

If the naysayers are ever actually able to back their position up let me know. Otherwise, it's clearly been sufficiently proven that .999... = 1. ::)

The thing is that it doesn't work that way if you have an infinite amount of nines. Infinity plus one is just infinity again. You can't put something at the end of infinity. Your sig does ring true., cbarnett.
Same Idea different numbers: F(x)=1/x when does x=0
Or f(x)=1/(1x) when does x=1
x equals one at an undefined point in the equation. That has nothing to do with .99 repeating.

The thing is that it doesn't work that way if you have an infinite amount of nines. Infinity plus one is just infinity again. You can't put something at the end of infinity. Your sig does ring true., cbarnett.
Same Idea different numbers: F(x)=1/x when does x=0
Or f(x)=1/(1x) when does x=1
x equals one at an undefined point in the equation. That has nothing to do with .99 repeating.
what set of numbers makes this equation valid?

The thing is that it doesn't work that way if you have an infinite amount of nines. Infinity plus one is just infinity again. You can't put something at the end of infinity. Your sig does ring true., cbarnett.
Same Idea different numbers: F(x)=1/x when does x=0
Or f(x)=1/(1x) when does x=1
x equals one at an undefined point in the equation. That has nothing to do with .99 repeating.
what set of numbers makes this equation valid?
You gave a domain of 1 number. Therefore no numbers in this set give f(x) a defined value. Welcome to make a point or stfu.

Welcome to make a point or stfu.
Sig'd.

The thing is that it doesn't work that way if you have an infinite amount of nines. Infinity plus one is just infinity again. You can't put something at the end of infinity. Your sig does ring true., cbarnett.
Same Idea different numbers: F(x)=1/x when does x=0
Or f(x)=1/(1x) when does x=1
x equals one at an undefined point in the equation. That has nothing to do with .99 repeating.
what set of numbers makes this equation valid?
You gave a domain of 1 number. Therefore no numbers in this set give f(x) a defined value. Welcome to make a point or stfu.
Let me slow down for you.........
Could x be .99999repeating forever and still give a defined result?

The thing is that it doesn't work that way if you have an infinite amount of nines. Infinity plus one is just infinity again. You can't put something at the end of infinity. Your sig does ring true., cbarnett.
Same Idea different numbers: F(x)=1/x when does x=0
Or f(x)=1/(1x) when does x=1
x equals one at an undefined point in the equation. That has nothing to do with .99 repeating.
what set of numbers makes this equation valid?
You gave a domain of 1 number. Therefore no numbers in this set give f(x) a defined value. Welcome to make a point or stfu.
Let me slow down for you.........
Could x be .99999repeating forever and still give a defined result?
Yes, when you use the proof I supplied.

The thing is that it doesn't work that way if you have an infinite amount of nines. Infinity plus one is just infinity again. You can't put something at the end of infinity. Your sig does ring true., cbarnett.
Same Idea different numbers: F(x)=1/x when does x=0
Or f(x)=1/(1x) when does x=1
x equals one at an undefined point in the equation. That has nothing to do with .99 repeating.
what set of numbers makes this equation valid?
You gave a domain of 1 number. Therefore no numbers in this set give f(x) a defined value. Welcome to make a point or stfu.
Let me slow down for you.........
Could x be .99999repeating forever and still give a defined result?
Yes, when you use the proof I supplied.
So when F(x)1/(1x) x can be .9999 repeating forever and be valid but it can never=1 so how can .99999....=1

so how can .99999....=1
3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1

so how can .99999....=1
3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) roughly equal 1
Fixed

If the naysayers are ever actually able to back their position up let me know.

Dear God! Make it stop!

Still trying to convince me that my calculator is wrong.
In fact, my calculator just proved that my proof is correct.
Divide 1 by 3, so you get (.3333333...). Don't clear the screen. Multiply that result by 3, and tell me what you get.
Then, remember that basic maths tell us that multiplying (.333333...) by three is the same as performing (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....). So if the result of multiplying (.333333...) by 3 = 1, so does (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1.
Go ahead, call all calculators liars.

Still trying to convince me that my calculator is wrong.
In fact, my calculator just proved that my proof is correct.
Divide 1 by 3, so you get (.3333333...). Don't clear the screen. Multiply that result by 3, and tell me what you get.
Then, remember that basic maths tell us that multiplying (.333333...) by three is the same as performing (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....). So if the result of multiplying (.333333...) by 3 = 1, so does (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1.
Go ahead, call all calculators liars.
This isn't technically proof since the calculator rounds the number off after a certain number of digits....

I think this arguement should just end now, since they are obviously quite equal to eachother.

Still trying to convince me that my calculator is wrong.
In fact, my calculator just proved that my proof is correct.
Divide 1 by 3, so you get (.3333333...). Don't clear the screen. Multiply that result by 3, and tell me what you get.
Then, remember that basic maths tell us that multiplying (.333333...) by three is the same as performing (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....). So if the result of multiplying (.333333...) by 3 = 1, so does (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1.
Go ahead, call all calculators liars.
Go ahead tell your calculator to give you the square root of 2 and then give that answer to a college professor when he wants the exact answer

In mathematics, the recurring decimal 0.999…, which is also written as 0.\bar{9} , 0.\dot{9} or \ 0.(9), denotes a real number equal to 1. In other words, the notations "0.999…" and "1" represent the same real number. The equality has long been accepted by professional mathematicians and taught in textbooks. Various proofs of this identity have been formulated with varying rigour, preferred development of the real numbers, background assumptions, historical context, and target audience.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
.9 is not 1; neither is .999, nor .9999999999. In fact if you stop the
expansion of 9s at any finite point, the fraction you have (like .9999
= 9999/10000) is never equal to 1. But each time you add a 9, the
error is less. In fact, with each 9, the error is ten times smaller.
You can show (using calculus or other methods) that with a large
enough number of 9s in the expansion, you can get arbitrarily close to
1, and here's the key:
THERE IS NO OTHER NUMBER THAT THE SEQUENCE GETS ARBITRARILY CLOSE TO.
Thus, if you are going to assign a value to .9999... (going on
forever), the only sensible value is 1.
There is nothing special about .999... The idea that 1/3 = .3333...
is the same. None of .3, .33, .333333, etc. is exactly equal to 1/3,
but with each 3 added, the fraction is closer than the previous
approximation. In addition, 1/3 is the ONLY number that the series
gets arbitrarily close to.
from http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/55748.html
As before, 0.999... = 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ... = 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + ... The expression 0.999... implies an infinite sum, i.e., a sum of an infinite number of terms. In mathematics, such infinite sums are called series. Series are introduced and studied rigorously in Calculus, where a distinction is made: some series are convergent, some are divergent. Every convergent series has a unique number associated with it, its sum. Divergent series are not so lucky. All infinite decimal fractions, like 0.999..., are shown to correspond to convergent series (which converge to their respective sums.) 0.999... converges to 1 which is expressed simply as 0.999... = 1. Similarly, 0.333... is a convergent series whose sum is 1/3: 0.333... = 1/3.
from http://www.cuttheknot.org/arithmetic/999999.shtml
Three sources, all of which state that .999... = 1. The ball is in your corner to dispute these points, backed up with sources of your own, cbarnett.

"Thus, if you are going to assign a value to .9999... (going on
forever), the only sensible value is 1."
Now where does it say that they are equal?
It says basically that while it does not equal 1 it is just a whole lot easier to write one instead of an infinte number of 9's

Still trying to convince me that my calculator is wrong.
In fact, my calculator just proved that my proof is correct.
Divide 1 by 3, so you get (.3333333...). Don't clear the screen. Multiply that result by 3, and tell me what you get.
Then, remember that basic maths tell us that multiplying (.333333...) by three is the same as performing (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....). So if the result of multiplying (.333333...) by 3 = 1, so does (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1.
Go ahead, call all calculators liars.
This isn't technically proof since the calculator rounds the number off after a certain number of digits....
Only in the display. But in memory, the number is fully crunched. Else, when I did the multiplication, it would not have told me simply "1". It would have been less than 1. But the fact that even though it only showed me a limited number of 3's and showed me the result as "1" is proof enough that my proof is 100% correct.
I have a video displaying my proof. Once it's done processing, I will link to it. Then you can try and disprove it and the three sources Roundy posted.

Still trying to convince me that my calculator is wrong.
In fact, my calculator just proved that my proof is correct.
Divide 1 by 3, so you get (.3333333...). Don't clear the screen. Multiply that result by 3, and tell me what you get.
Then, remember that basic maths tell us that multiplying (.333333...) by three is the same as performing (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....). So if the result of multiplying (.333333...) by 3 = 1, so does (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1.
Go ahead, call all calculators liars.
This isn't technically proof since the calculator rounds the number off after a certain number of digits....
Only in the display. But in memory, the number is fully crunched. Else, when I did the multiplication, it would not have told me simply "1". It would have been less than 1. But the fact that even though it only showed me a limited number of 3's and showed me the result as "1" is proof enough that my proof is 100% correct.
I have a video displaying my proof. Once it's done processing, I will link to it. Then you can try and disprove it and the three sources Roundy posted.
In the computers memory it probably holds maybe a couple hundred digits. In order for it to hold all the numbers it would have to have infinite RAM. So it rounds it off after so many decimals. Since 3 rounds down, you get straight nines. ;)

You're not seeing the point. If the calculator did, in fact, round it off, why did I get 1 and not some rounded version of .99999999999999?
My calculator displayed 0.33333333333333333333333333333333. So add that to itself 3 times, and you would get 0.999999999999999999999999999999.
EDIT: Just to make things clear, the calculator doesn't display (...) to represent the infinite decimal places. But the number displayed is infinitely long, because

V¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
But I got 1 when multiplying it in the calculator. You can see the steps I took in the video when I link to it.
EDIT: Video (http://). Watch fullscreen.

You're not seeing the point. If the calculator did, in fact, round it off, why did I get 1 and not some rounded version of .99999999999999?
My calculator displayed 0.33333333333333333333333333333333. So add that to itself 3 times, and you would get 0.999999999999999999999999999999.
But I got 1 when multiplying it in the calculator. You can see the steps I took in the video when I link to it.
EDIT: Video (http://). Watch fullscreen.
when I get home I will run it through mathematica and see what I get

Do I seriously need to post my diagrams of Oscar Wilde action figures representing an infinite number of nines? ::)

You're not seeing the point. If the calculator did, in fact, round it off, why did I get 1 and not some rounded version of .99999999999999?
My calculator displayed 0.33333333333333333333333333333333. So add that to itself 3 times, and you would get 0.999999999999999999999999999999.
But I got 1 when multiplying it in the calculator. You can see the steps I took in the video when I link to it.
EDIT: Video (http://). Watch fullscreen.
oh. I misread. Sorry. So it's a scientific calculator that either recomputes every step each time, or did all the equations at once at the end. Good job hara. Sorry for being a retard.

I think the problem with this thread is that one person does not seem to understand that the infinite series representation of .9999... sums exactly to one, not approximatly. Not signaling anyone out but... *cough* just look at the proof again. If you feel there is a disproof, express it as a formal mathmatical (dis)proof.

"Thus, if you are going to assign a value to .9999... (going on
forever), the only sensible value is 1."
Now where does it say that they are equal?
It says basically that while it does not equal 1 it is just a whole lot easier to write one instead of an infinte number of 9's
It says it all over the quotes I provided. You picked one ambiguoussounding passage to scrutinize. Bully for your selective vision and lack of ability to recognize logical and mathematical fact. ::)
So you have an opinion. That's great. Can you back it up with any actual facts? Any sources to back up your opinion that .999... does not equal 1? No? Didn't think so.
Back up your position with more than your own illinformed opinion, or else accept that you are a fucking moron. You might want to lean toward the latter option in advance because you won't find anything reputable backing up your opinion, though.

Do I seriously need to post my diagrams of Oscar Wilde action figures representing an infinite number of nines? ::)
Umm? can you really comprehend people not wanting to see that?
Post it already!!!

WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THE .999 > 1 THING (and 0/0 etc)
DON'T START THREADS ABOUT IT.
There are threads about it already, if not here then definitely in Logic Puzzles. Any more threads about it are just going to be deleted. It's been done to death, guys.
(If you disagree that 0.999... = 1, or are in an argument with someone who disagrees, go to the Wikipedia article on it. There are plenty of proofs and explanations there. If you or the person you're arguing with still doubts it after that, it's a good sign of some sort of brain damage or, at best, a complete lack of good mathematical understanding, and there is nothing any of us here will be able to do. So seriously, NO MORE POSTS ABOUT IT!)
Edit by Spitvalve:
Other things that have been done to death that we don't need more posts about:
What is 0/0 equal to?
The aeroplane on a treadmill puzzle. There's a good writeup here for the answer.
Any variant on the Monty Hall / 3 Door problem. Again Wikipedia knows all.

(If you disagree that 0.999... = 1, or are in an argument with someone who disagrees, go to the Wikipedia article on it. There are plenty of proofs and explanations there. If you or the person you're arguing with still doubts it after that, it's a good sign of some sort of brain damage or, at best, a complete lack of good mathematical understanding, and there is nothing any of us here will be able to do.
Good point, it's obvious that cbarnett lacks the mental capacity to understand this concept. It's so sad and still kind of funny all at the same time.

I think the problem with this thread is that one person does not seem to understand that the infinite series representation of .9999... sums exactly to one, not approximatly. Not signaling anyone out but... *cough* just look at the proof again. If you feel there is a disproof, express it as a formal mathmatical (dis)proof.
We understand it. Read all the posts. We're just talking now.

Well, strictly speaking .99999 does not equal 1. It equals 99999/100000.
On that note, look at the Repeating decimal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_decimal) entry in Wikipedia. Specifically, look at this quote:
In fact, a real number has an ultimately periodic decimal representation if and only if it is a rational number, that is, a number that can be expressed in the form a⁄b where a and b are integers and b is nonzero, that is, a vulgar fraction. On the one hand, the decimal representation of a rational number is ultimately periodic because it can be determined by a long division process, which must ultimately become periodic as there are only finitely many different remainders and so eventually it will find a remainder that has occurred before. On the other hand, each repeating decimal number satisfies a linear equation with integral coefficients, and its unique solution is a rational number. To illustrate the latter point, the number α = 5.8144144144... above satisfies the equation 10000α − 10α = 58144.144144... − 58.144144... = 58086, whose solution is α = 58086⁄9990 = 3227⁄555.
How, then, can you represent 0.999... (a repeating decimal, by definition) via an equation in the form a/b, where a and b are integers and b is nonzero? You could, for instance take 0.333... (again, a repeating decimal, by definition), where a=1 and b=3 and multiply it by 3... thus obtaining an equation where a=9 and b=9... or, perhaps, you could take 0.111... (with a=1 and b=9) and multiply it by 9. And so on.
In other words: you're fighting a definition, used by mathematicians to simplify things. You may not like the definition but it will still be used the way it should be.
(BTW: limits? Are an entirely different thing. They don't have anything to do with the OP).

(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y144/Vundabar/maths.jpg)

You should demonstrate ALL of your arguments using diagrams.

So far, all of my diagrams are yet to be proven wrong.

Exactly my point, Mr.Wilde. You should replace the FAQ answers with diagrams.

I'll get to work on a Wilde Edition of the FAQ as soon as possible!

The RE proponents would have to believe then, I mean, you'd be offering photographic proof.

Not signaling anyone out but... *cough* just look at the proof again.
Are you referring to my proof (simple) or the limit proof (complex)?

"Thus, if you are going to assign a value to .9999... (going on
forever), the only sensible value is 1."
Now where does it say that they are equal?
It says basically that while it does not equal 1 it is just a whole lot easier to write one instead of an infinte number of 9's
Your stupidity has leveled up again. It says the error becomes ten times smaller for each "9" inserted. Thus, since 0.999... has infinite 9s, the error becomes so small that it literally becomes negligible. Thus, they are equal.

Jeez. If you're going to debate math, debate something at least a little controversial in the world of professional mathematics.
In math, there is no argument over this. 0.999... = 1. It just does. Look at the proofs. Math is not something that is easily bent. A proof is a proof, not an argument.
Now, here's something a little more interesting to debate:
0^{0} = 1
because we need it that way
DISCUSS THIS CONTRADICTION IN THE WORLD OF MATH!

So long as we all agree that Poe point Wilde Wilde Wilde Wilde Wilde (indefinitely) equals one, I see no contradiction in mathematics whatsoever.

0^{0} = 1
DISCUSS THIS CONTRADICTION IN THE WORLD OF MATH!
Anything to the zero is one. By definition. The way that you define powers is recursively,
x^0 = 1
x^(n+1) = (x^n) * x.
0^0 = 1 is pretty weird, though.
Also, it does make sense, when x is veeeeery close to zero, x^x is close to 1.
.00001^.00001 = 0.999884877

0^{x} = 0
x^{0} = 1
0^{0} = undefined...or 1...or...AHHG.
The choice whether to define 0^{0} is based on convenience, not on correctness.
Some textbooks leave the quantity 0^{0} undefined, because the functions 0^{x} and x^{0} have different limiting values when x decreases to 0. But this is a mistake. We must define x^{0} = 1 for all x , if the binomial theorem is to be valid when x = 0 , y = 0, and/or x = −y . The theorem is too important to be arbitrarily restricted! By contrast, the function 0^{x} is quite unimportant.

Sometimes I really like you trekky.

0^{0} = 0^{1} * 0^{1} = 0/0 = undefined

The above three posts are correct, but x^{0}=1 is too.

If .999... != 1, then what is 1  0.999... ?

If .999... != 1, then what is 1  0.999... ?
0

If .999... != 1, then what is 1  0.999... ?
Infinite != finite, so it's 0.

I think people who disagree that 0.(9) = 1 on the grounds that infinity does not exist make the same logical fallacy as the ancient philosopher Zenon who described the so called Zenon's paradox:
"Achilles is much faster than a tortoise. He can travel a certain distance x in 9/10’s of a minute. The tortoise can cover the same distance in 9 minutes, meaning that the tortoise is 10 times slower than Achilles or Achilles is 10 times faster than the tortoise, whichever you prefer.
Now, suppose that the tortoise is that particular distance x in front of Achilles. If someone was to ask when Achilles would gain upon the tortoise, we would say:
If the time it takes Achilles to overtake the tortoise is t, then he would travel a distance which is t/(9/10 min) compared to the distance x in the problem. The tortoise would cover a distance which is only t/(9 min) compared to the distance x given in the problem. But, if Achilles overtook the tortoise, this would mean that
t*x/(9/10 min) = x + t*x/(9 min)
10*t*x/(9 min) = x + t*x/(9 min) / * (9 min) < Least common multiple of all the denominators
10*t*x = (9 min)*x + t*x / : x < common multple
10*t = 9 min + x
9*t = 9 min / : 9
t = 1 min
Piece of cake! But, not quite. What if the guy who was solving the problem was ‘narcberry’? He would reason in the following manner:
 If Achilles is to gain on the tortoise he would first have to cross the distance that was initially between them. We know that he can cross this distance in 9/10 minute. However, during this time the tortoise would move a small distance, actually 1/10 (because it would cover 10 times smaller distance than Achilles did) of the initial distance, so Achilles still did not gain upon the tortoise. In order to gain upon the tortoise, Achilles needs 1/10*(9/10) = 9/10^{2} minute to cross this distance. But, the tortoise would move an even smaller distance during this time, actually, (1/10)^{2} of the initial distance. This is enough for him to “prove” that, since in every step the tortoise moves away by an ever decreasing, but still nonzero distance, Achilles would never gain upon the tortoise. Never meaning it would take him an infinite amount of time! But, little does ‘narcberry’ know that:
9/10 min + 9/10^{2} min + 9/10^{3} min + … + 9/10^{n} min + … =
= (9/10)/(1 – 1/10) min = 1 min
The sum of infinite terms on the left is called an infinite series. The Ancient Greeks, just as ‘narcberry’ had trouble acknowledging the fact that a sum of infinite terms can itself be finite. Notice that I intentionally chose the numbers so that the infinite series on the left exactly represents the number 0.(9) = 0.99….

The tortoise wins cos it is similar to a turtle and the turtle has a flat earth on him back and flat earth always win, so tortoise win!

For the record, it was Zeno, not Zenon.

Thus, since 0.999... has infinite 9s, the error becomes so small that it literally becomes negligible. Thus, they are equal.
Negligible does not erase that the error still exists, no matter how small it ends up being. Regardless if it is approximately one, if you were dealing with extreme accuracy, it does not equate to 1. "Just as good as," or "the only sensible option" are phrases that are used on purpose because they are not 100% equal.

Thus, since 0.999... has infinite 9s, the error becomes so small that it literally becomes negligible. Thus, they are equal.
Negligible does not erase that the error still exists, no matter how small it ends up being. Regardless if it is approximately one, if you were dealing with extreme accuracy, it does not equate to 1. "Just as good as," or "the only sensible option" are phrases that are used on purpose because they are not 100% equal.
Well if you can back that statement up with an outside source, as I have done with several that say that .999... does equate 1 and this is a fact agreed upon by mathematicians, let us all know.

Shh, go away for now, us adults are talking.

Thus, since 0.999... has infinite 9s, the error becomes so small that it literally becomes negligible. Thus, they are equal.
Negligible does not erase that the error still exists, no matter how small it ends up being. Regardless if it is approximately one, if you were dealing with extreme accuracy, it does not equate to 1. "Just as good as," or "the only sensible option" are phrases that are used on purpose because they are not 100% equal.
It's not 'negligible' like 'insignificant', it's negligible because it doesn't exist.

Mrs. Peach’s take on .99999 does not equal 1:
It would all depend. 8)

SINCE YOU GUYS DIDNT READ ME POST, ILL DO IT AGAIN!!!!!!
Here's how this works; I will count to ten, and by the time I am done, you will fuck off.

If there were a finite series of 9's, then the number would be close to 1. However, since there are and infinite number of nines, the number 0.999... is infinitely close to 1. Therefore it is 1. If it were just "close", then there would have to a finite number of nines, which there are not. We're talking about an infinite series of nines.
0.9 ≠ 1
0.999 ≠ 1
0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 ≠ 1
0.999... = 1

If there were a finite series of 9's, then the number would be close to 1. However, since there are and infinite number of nines, the number 0.999... is infinitely close to 1. Therefore it is 1. If it were just "close", then there would have to a finite number of nines, which there are not. We're talking about an infinite series of nines.
0.9 ≠ 1
0.999 ≠ 1
0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 ≠ 1
0.999... = 1
Wouldn't your example simply mean the infinte number of 9's is infintesmally less than 1? A negligible difference that ig generally negated and rounded to 1, but still...it's not 1, otherwise it would be called 1, not 0.999...

It's because of things like this that Roundy should be a mod. ::)

It's because of things like this that Roundy should be a mod. ::)
QFT

SINCE YOU GUYS DIDNT READ ME POST, ILL DO IT AGAIN!!!!!!
Since you didn't read my post and kindly GTFO, I'll say it again.
I will count to ten, and by the time I am done, you will fuck off.

Please, consult your scientific calculator's, and perform the following keystrokes:
(1/3)= < This result should display 0.33333333333333333
(([result])*3)= < This result should equal 1.
Then, perform the following:
(1/3)=
(([result])+(1/3))= < This result should display 0.6666666666666666
(([result])+(1/3))= < This result should equal 1.
If you performed this, you just proved that .999999999...=1
So, knowing that (1/3)=0.3333333333333..., then it is easy to conclude that(0.3333333333...)*3 = (0.999999999999...) = 1, which is the same as (0.3333333333...) + (0.3333333333...) + (0.3333333333...) = (0.999999999999...) = 1.

Thus, since 0.999... has infinite 9s, the error becomes so small that it literally becomes negligible. Thus, they are equal.
Negligible does not erase that the error still exists, no matter how small it ends up being. Regardless if it is approximately one, if you were dealing with extreme accuracy, it does not equate to 1. "Just as good as," or "the only sensible option" are phrases that are used on purpose because they are not 100% equal.
However, as the article says, the error becomes 10X smaller for each 9s. Since 0.999... has infinite 9s, the probability of getting the error also becomes infinite. The error is not just small; it is infinitely small so that it literally becomes nonexistent. Thus, we can safely say the error is negligible, because we can't possibly "reach" it (the infinite "finish line"). If 0.999... is finite, then we could say it is close to 1 or, using your terms, "just as good as" 1. Of course, we are not talking about finite 0.999s.

Students of mathematics often reject the equality of 0.999… and 1, for reasons ranging from their disparate appearance to deep misgivings over the limit concept and disagreements over the nature of infinitesimals. There are many common contributing factors to the confusion:
* Students are often "mentally committed to the notion that a number can be represented in one and only one way by a decimal." Seeing two manifestly different decimals representing the same number appears to be a paradox, which is amplified by the appearance of the seemingly wellunderstood number 1.
* Some students interpret "0.999…" (or similar notation) as a large but finite string of 9s, possibly with a variable, unspecified length. If they accept an infinite string of nines, they may still expect a last 9 "at infinity".
* Intuition and ambiguous teaching lead students to think of the limit of a sequence as a kind of infinite process rather than a fixed value, since a sequence need not reach its limit. Where students accept the difference between a sequence of numbers and its limit, they might read "0.999…" as meaning the sequence rather than its limit.
* Some students regard 0.999… as having a fixed value which is less than 1 by an infinitesimal but nonzero amount.
* Some students believe that the value of a convergent series is at best an approximation, that 0.999... approx 1.
These ideas are mistaken in the context of the standard real numbers, although some may be valid in other number systems, either invented for their general mathematical utility or as instructive counterexamples to better understand 0.999….

lol, thick students.

1  0.9 = 0.1
1  0.99 = 0.01
1  0.999... = 0.000... = 0
1  0.999... = 0
1 = 0.999...

I feel like the smiley at the bottom of your sig in this thread, Trekky.

:D

I refuse to accept that this dead horse has been sufficiantly kicked yet, and therefore, I switch sides. Infinite amounts of numbers are impossible, therefore this is wrong.

(([result])+(1/3))= < This result should display 0.6666666666666667
Fixed.

(([result])+(1/3))= < This result should display 0.6666666666666667
Fixed.
Wrong. That's if the calculator rounded it off. But it doesn't so the display is correct.

(([result])+(1/3))= < This result should display 0.6666666666666667
Fixed.
Wrong. That's if the calculator rounded it off. But it doesn't so the display is correct.
The rounding on the entire equation cancels itself out. Calculators have to round, infinite ram is hard to come by.

(([result])+(1/3))= < This result should display 0.6666666666666667
Fixed.
Wrong. That's if the calculator rounded it off. But it doesn't so the display is correct.
(http://i33.tinypic.com/2m3jtl1.png)

That's not very scientific, is it?

That's not very scientific, is it?
It kicks Windows' calculator's ass.

I just meant the fact that it rounds up, when it could just say "0.666..." ::)

I just meant the fact that it rounds up, when it could just say "0.666..." ::)
It still kicks Windows' calculator's ass.

It has a couple of features that aren't in the windows calculator, yes. But that's not the point, is it? I just said it's not very scientific. ::)

In my opinion, the problem with mathematics is that it's all the product of the imagination. It may be beautiful, it may relate to things in the real world, but it has no tangible existence in and of itself; it's all in the mind. It does however allow us to have protracted meaningless discussions whilst believing they are not meaningless. :)

Google Calculator rules. What other scientific calculator does this?!
(http://img26.picoodle.com/img/img26/3/8/14/f_tempm_23efa4d.png)

what the hell. that is awesome. Check to see if it's a prime number.

More to the point:
(http://i35.tinypic.com/1z6xu01.png)

That is fucking sweet.

m / kg s isn't even logical... I think. O_o

mass is equivalent to energy. So it could be useful with a couple substitutions....

More to the point:
(http://i35.tinypic.com/1z6xu01.png)
Boobies?

mass is equivalent to energy. So it could be useful with a couple substitutions....
I guess you're right. It's just rather weird that time isn't on it's own.

"Some students regard 0.999… as having a fixed value which is less than 1 by an infinitesimal but nonzero amount."
This would be me.

m / kg s isn't even logical... I think. O_o
What if you had an expanding rod? You could measure the mass distribution across the dimension of expansion in metres per kilogram, and thus measure the rate of expansion in metres per kilogram per second.

Or you could just have a rod, and it would be measured in meters per kilogram.

"Some students regard 0.999… as having a fixed value which is less than 1 by an infinitesimal but nonzero amount."
This would be me.
Yes, but it doesn't work when you consider that you need an infinitesimal of 0.000... and then a "1" at the end of infinity. Infinity doesn't work that way.

This thread = pointless. Although, with the small amount of math I understand, (can't believe I'm saying this...) I agree with narc.

If you agree with the title of the thread, you are correct. If you agree with narc's original post, or any post for that matter, you are wrong.

I agree with the title of this thread.

Do you agree with the OP?

My sister is an idiot.
Allie. 0.999... = 1. Shut the fuck up.
If you disagree that 0.999... = 1, or are in an argument with someone who disagrees, go to the Wikipedia article on it. There are plenty of proofs and explanations there. If you or the person you're arguing with still doubts it after that, it's a good sign of some sort of brain damage or, at best, a complete lack of good mathematical understanding, and there is nothing any of us here will be able to do.

My sister is an idiot.
Allie. 0.999... = 1. Shut the fuck up.
If you disagree that 0.999... = 1, or are in an argument with someone who disagrees, go to the Wikipedia article on it. There are plenty of proofs and explanations there. If you or the person you're arguing with still doubts it after that, it's a good sign of some sort of brain damage or, at best, a complete lack of good mathematical understanding, and there is nothing any of us here will be able to do.
I know that. I'm saying neither = 1.

...WTF are you talking about?
Neither? There's one issue at hand.
0.999... and... ?
And then I point out that 0.999... = 1
"I know. Neither = 1"
WTF?!

The title of this thread is correct. 0.99999, being a finite value, does not equal 1.
0.999... is a different case.
Infinitesimals have been used to express the idea of objects so small that there is no way to see them or to measure them. For everyday life, an infinitesimal object is an object which is smaller than any possible measure.

...WTF are you talking about?
Neither? There's one issue at hand.
0.999... and... ?
And then I point out that 0.999... = 1
"I know. Neither = 1"
WTF?!
lol
lrn2read. she said that she agreed to the title of the thread. That's correct.

Um...I'Z NOT GOOD AT TEH MATHZ SO STICK THAT IN UR JOOS BAWKS AND SUK IT!

Um...I'Z NOT GOOD AT TEH MATHZ SO STICK THAT IN UR JOOS BAWKS AND SUK IT!
You've just proved your signature wrong.

...WTF are you talking about?
Neither? There's one issue at hand.
0.999... and... ?
And then I point out that 0.999... = 1
"I know. Neither = 1"
WTF?!
lol
lrn2read. she said that she agreed to the title of the thread. That's correct.
Right, but she said neither. Which I take to mean neither 0.99999 or 0.999... = 1.
But then she said she agreed that 0.999... = 1.
So the only thing she doesn't agree with is 0.99999 = 1. Which is one thing and therefore does not require "neither".

Um...I'Z NOT GOOD AT TEH MATHZ SO STICK THAT IN UR JOOS BAWKS AND SUK IT!
You've just proved your signature wrong.
My signature is an opinion and therefore cannot be proven wrong. Plus, I was joking.
(this is the thread where I make less sense).

(http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/7403/temphc6.png)

That kitten is correct.

There are no
women cats on the internet.

If a person has one million dollars and gives a dollar to a homeless man, is the person still a millionaire?

If a person has one million dollars and gives a dollar to a homeless man, is the person still a millionaire?
You're analogy is incorrect, as there is no limitation present. Stop trying to be smart in areas you clearly are not.

If a person has one million dollars and gives a dollar to a homeless man, is the person still a millionaire?
Yep, because at the exact same time, his one share of Acme Explosives gained a 1/4 point.

If a person has one million dollars and gives a dollar to a homeless man, is the person still a millionaire?
You're analogy is incorrect, as there is no limitation present. Stop trying to be smart in areas you clearly are not.
I wouldn’t use a joke to try to act smart. There is nothing wrong with my question though.

If a person has one million dollars and gives a dollar to a homeless man, is the person still a millionaire?
Yep, because at the exact same time, his one share of Acme Explosives gained a 1/4 point.
What is the shares value though? I don't see Acme Explosives stock being worth more than a dollar. I mean, how many times have their products failed wily coyote? Acmes testing department is clearly run by Tom Bishop.

If a person has one million dollars and gives a dollar to a homeless man, is the person still a millionaire?
Yep, because at the exact same time, his one share of Acme Explosives gained a 1/4 point.
What is the shares value though? I don't see Acme Explosives stock being worth more than a dollar. I mean, how many times have their products failed wily coyote? Acmes testing department is clearly run by Tom Bishop.
Yet wiley continues to buy, their stocks soar as they sell shoddy merchandise at premium prices.

Very curious website...tell me, do most people here believe in dinosaurs? What about the moon, what is the consesus take on that?

I was hoping someone would remember poor Wiley! ;D

Very curious website...tell me, do most people here believe in dinosaurs? What about the moon, what is the consesus take on that?
Not only are your questions noncorrelational with a flat Earth belief, but you posted them in a thread about a mathematical curiosity. Double fail.

I was hoping someone would remember poor Wiley! ;D
Of course, I used to watch alot of cartoons.

Okay all you internet idiots.
If 0.9999999 = 1.00000000 then I guess
0.8888888 = 0.9999999 and
0.7777777 = 0.8888888 ...
Sounds like everything = 1. You guys could believe in a round earth.

Okay all you internet idiots.
If 0.9999999 = 1.00000000 then I guess
0.8888888 = 0.9999999 and
0.7777777 = 0.8888888 ...
Sounds like everything = 1. You guys could believe in a round earth.
Obviously 0.9999999 ≠ 1.

Okay all you internet idiots.
If 0.9999999 = 1.00000000 then I guess
0.8888888 = 0.9999999 and
0.7777777 = 0.8888888 ...
Sounds like everything = 1. You guys could believe in a round earth.
No.
0.111... = 1/9
0.222... = 2/9
0.333... = 1/3
0.444... = 4/9
0.555... = 5/9
0.666... = 2/3
0.777... = 7/9
0.888... = 8/9
0.999... = 9/9 = 1

As for the millionaire question:
Since 1 million is finite, a better question would be.
If God comes down with an unlimited (∞) amount of money, and he gives some away, how much does he have?
There is nothing subtracted from 1 to get 0.999... because it would have to be 0.000...1. An infinite number of 0's with a 1 on the end, which is of course impossible.

YA CUZ 1+1=2 GUYS, C'MON.

Irrelevant.

not if you say 1.999...= 2.

Umm  you don't need to go into calculus to prove .999999... = 1
Just go back to conversion of decimals to fraction in elementary school.
0.999999999999... * 10 = 9.999999999...
9.999999999999...  0.999999999... = 9 = 9* 0.999999999999999
9/9 = (9*0.99999999....)/9 = 1
You can do the same thing to convert any repeating decimal to it's fractional expression. Taking at random 0.12345 ...
0.12345... * 100,000 = 12345.12345...
12,345.12345...0.12345... = 12,345 = 0.12345.. * 99,999
thusly 0.12345... = 12,345/99,999 = 4,115/33,333.
CD. Or maybe in this case QED  <G>
CD

This is always true for any x:
A = 0.[x amount of 9's]
B = 0.4[x  1 amount of 9's]5
A / 2 = B
ie
0.99 / 2 = 0.495  x = 2
This means that for any A, there is a B with more digits. In order for A to = 1, x needs to be infinity, as in nothing bigger. Yet there is a B that shows there is another digit. This B is of finite value, which proves there cannot be an A where x = infinity.
QED 0.999999... != 1

0.999... = 3/3
(3/3) / 2 = 3/6
3/6 = 1/2
0.999... / 2 = 0.5

0.4999...5 != 0.5

0.4999...5 != 0.5
0.499... = .4 + 0.09999...
0.099999..*100 = 9.99999...
9.9999...0.0999..=9.9= 0.099999...*99
9.9/99 = 0.1
0.4+0.1=0.5
0.49999... = 0.5
Math still works, sorry
CD

What is up with narcberry and factorials?

0.4999...5 != 0.5
0.499... = .4 + 0.09999...
0.099999..*100 = 9.99999...
9.9999...0.0999..=9.9= 0.099999...*99
9.9/99 = 0.1
0.4+0.1=0.5
0.49999... = 0.5
Math still works, sorry
CD
Except you forget the 5 at the end, which disproves everything you just said.

get ready for my shitty MS paint proof that .49...5=5 (inf= infinity)
(http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w53/reddox/fdsdafasd.jpg)

lolwut?!

Except you forget the 5 at the end, which disproves everything you just said.
0.999... = 1. Period. There are numerous proofs on the matter.
(http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/1771/tempjj1.jpg)

except there arent.
There are a couple of high school teachers that think they've discovered something awesome, then a bunch of idiots in class pretend its been proven to them... BORING.

0.4999...5 != 0.5
0.499... = .4 + 0.09999...
0.099999..*100 = 9.99999...
9.9999...0.0999..=9.9= 0.099999...*99
9.9/99 = 0.1
0.4+0.1=0.5
0.49999... = 0.5
Math still works, sorry
CD
Except you forget the 5 at the end, which disproves everything you just said.
Ah  you're right  I assumed that you made a statement that was actually mathematically legal and that anything that made it look completely outside grammar was a typo, but since you wrote 0.4999...5, which is an undefined statement, and .5 *is* defined, you're quite right.
0.4999...5 = 1/0 = undefined  there, all better now.

get ready for my shitty MS paint proof that .49...5=5 (inf= infinity)
Does this meet your expectations?
(http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/138/tempxt2.png)

eveything but the (5/10)^(n+1), I meant it to be 5/(10^(n+1))

You guys are only proving you cant do math.
0.9999 != 1.

You guys are only proving you cant do math.
0.9999 != 1.
I agree.

Edited.

YA CUZ 1+1=2 GUYS, C'MON.
That avatar is annoying. I should finish making your spinning muffin just to get rid of it.

You guys are only proving you cant do math.
0.9999 != 1.
Only for retards.

Except you forget the 5 at the end, which disproves everything you just said.
0.999... = 1. Period. There are numerous proofs on the matter.
(http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/1771/tempjj1.jpg)
f(x)=1/(1x)
How many nines can I write before the equation becomes undefined?

It becomes undefined only when x=1.

YA CUZ 1+1=2 GUYS, C'MON.
That avatar is annoying. I should finish making your spinning muffin just to get rid of it.
What are you talking about? Spazzy seizure man from iconator is da bomb!

How many nines can I write before the equation becomes undefined?
42?

(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3246/temppp7.png)
In layman's terms: As you add more 9's to 0.999..., it approaches 1. When you have "added" an infinite amount of 9's, the number literally is 1. It's not close, it is 1.

f(x)=1/(1x)
How many nines can I write before the equation becomes undefined?
Within finite range. It will become undefined once 0.999... approaches infinity.

WHO ARE WE ARGUING AGAINST WITH? TREKKY NO GET IT!

I don't see why we have to go 13 pages for this. The title of this thread is correct.

I don't see why we have to go 13 pages for this. The title of this thread is correct.
Quite the astute observation, and it's correct.
But, the OP explains otherwise. Which is what was being argued.
I still stand by my proof, and it has yet to be proven incorrect. All the strawmen, derailments, etc wont hide the fact that no one has been able to defeat my proof.

I still stand by my proof, and it has yet to be proven incorrect. All the strawmen, derailments, etc wont hide the fact that no one has been able to defeat my proof.
I sometimes wonder if you've ever paid any attention to anything on this forum. And I'm not saying you're wrong. And I'm also shit at explaining stuff, especially nowadays, so don't expect any explaining.

(http://fc06.deviantart.com/fs14/i/2007/090/1/d/Earth_by_klen70.jpg)
I am insecure about my sexuality
Lol, fail with the pic.

Haven't been on here in a while, but this discussion is driving me crazy.
Real numbers are abstract objects. 0.9999... is a particular way we REPRESENT one of these objects. We can represent the same object as 1.000... or for that matter just 1
I just realized this when I found that IV = 4, even though they look quite different...
... well, Dedekind cuts helped too.

It becomes undefined only when x=1.
but if 0.99999..... will eventually equal 1 with enough nines how many can we put before it becomes one and makes the equation undefined since by the logic put forth here the answer is no longer just one

I sometimes wonder if you've ever paid any attention to anything on this forum.
Only what interests me.
And I'm not saying you're wrong. And I'm also shit at explaining stuff, especially nowadays, so don't expect any explaining.
I try and make it as simple as possible.It's just too much of a hassle to make it more complicated than it really needs to be.

It becomes undefined only when x=1.
but if 0.99999..... will eventually equal 1 with enough nines how many can we put before it becomes one and makes the equation undefined since by the logic put forth here the answer is no longer just one.
It becomes 1 when you stop adding nines and add a 0.(some number of 0's)1.
Such as 0.99999 + 0.00001 = 1
You can't add enough nines to equal one, since adding produces a finite number of them. 0.999... is just another way of writing 1.

I try and make it as simple as possible.It's just too much of a hassle to make it more complicated than it really needs to be.
You definitely keep it simple. But it's that simplicity that leaves me speechless with a face palm at times. You're still right in the end, though, so who cares anymore.

I try and make it as simple as possible.It's just too much of a hassle to make it more complicated than it really needs to be.
You definitely keep it simple. But it's that simplicity that leaves me speechless with a face palm at times. You're still right in the end, though, so who cares anymore.
To quote from The Joker in "The Dark Knight": "I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! You know, I just... do things."
I think that sums me up pretty well.

I try and make it as simple as possible.It's just too much of a hassle to make it more complicated than it really needs to be.
You definitely keep it simple. But it's that simplicity that leaves me speechless with a face palm at times. You're still right in the end, though, so who cares anymore.
To quote from The Joker in "The Dark Knight": "I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! You know, I just... do things."
I think that sums me up pretty well.
I'mma see Dark Knight tomorrow!

It becomes undefined only when x=1.
but if 0.99999..... will eventually equal 1 with enough nines how many can we put before it becomes one and makes the equation undefined since by the logic put forth here the answer is no longer just one.
It becomes 1 when you stop adding nines and add a 0.(some number of 0's)1.
Such as 0.99999 + 0.00001 = 1
You can't add enough nines to equal one, since adding produces a finite number of them. 0.999... is just another way of writing 1.
So infinity = 1... ::)

I'mma see Dark Knight tomorrow!
That shouldn't have been posted.

So infinity = 1... ::)
No. The number 0.999... with a finite number of nines approaches 1. When the nines never end, 0.999... = 1

It becomes undefined only when x=1.
but if 0.99999..... will eventually equal 1 with enough nines how many can we put before it becomes one and makes the equation undefined since by the logic put forth here the answer is no longer just one.
It becomes 1 when you stop adding nines and add a 0.(some number of 0's)1.
Such as 0.99999 + 0.00001 = 1
You can't add enough nines to equal one, since adding produces a finite number of them. 0.999... is just another way of writing 1.
So infinity = 1... ::)
Nope. 0.(9) = 0.9999... = 9/9 = 1
Infinity = Aleph nought = the domain of countable numbers, and operates under an entirely different set of rules.
CD

Right, 1 = infinity.

Right, 1 = infinity.
No.

1 = 0.999...
0.999 ≠ ∞
It's 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 + ...
Since the numbers grow increasingly smaller, they approach 1, not ∞.

GUYS, HE'S DOING IT TO BE A TROLL. COULD HE MAKE IT ANY MORE OBVIOUS AFTER HIS PAST HISTORY OF BEING A TROLL?

1 = 0.999...
0.999 ≠ ∞
It's 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 + ...
Since the numbers grow increasingly smaller, they approach 1, not ∞.
So it will never equal 1 gotcha

1 = 0.999...
0.999 ≠ ∞
It's 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 + ...
Since the numbers grow increasingly smaller, they approach 1, not ∞.
So it will never equal 1 gotcha
0.999...9 ≠ 1 because it has a finite number of nines.
0.999... = 1.
This can be expressed in the proof I posted before, where it showed that 0.999...9 approaches 1. When the nines stretch out forever (aka 0.999...), the number is 1.

but if 0.99999..... will eventually equal 1 with enough nines how many can we put before it becomes one and makes the equation undefined since by the logic put forth here the answer is no longer just one

but if 0.99999..... will eventually equal 1 with enough nines how many can we put before it becomes one and makes the equation undefined since by the logic put forth here the answer is no longer just one
You must put an infinite number of nines. Same thing if you want 0.333... = 1/3.

(http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2746/tempid9.gif)

but if 0.99999..... will eventually equal 1 with enough nines how many can we put before it becomes one and makes the equation undefined since by the logic put forth here the answer is no longer just one
You must put an infinite number of nines. Same thing if you want 0.333... = 1/3.
An infinite number of 9's is infinity.
9 + 9 + 9 + 9 ....
Surely you cold use your fancy "E" and figure that out.

An infinite number of 9's is infinity.
9 + 9 + 9 + 9 ....
Surely you cold use your fancy "E" and figure that out.
This is a complete ignorance with regeards to a positional number system. We don't use Roman numerals here.
1234 does not equal 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10, but 1*10^3 + 2*10^2*3*10^1 + 4*10^0
Uberphail.

Right.
So
(9 * 10^1) + (9 * 10^2) + (9 * 10^3) + ... (9 + 10^n) = 1

If we cannot use infinite number of decimals, how are we supposed to represent 1/7, for example?

So it will never equal 1 gotcha
Good job at being the most retarded person in this forum. I'm highly in doubt that you ever took calculus. For starters, please research on infinitesimals.

The point is, you need infinity 9's, there simply aren't that many 9's.
No matter how many times you write a 9, you will never get infinity 9's.
0.999... != 1
QED

If we cannot use infinite number of decimals, how are we supposed to represent 1/7, for example?

If we cannot use infinite number of decimals, how are we supposed to represent 1/7, for example?
By keeping it as 1/7.

Well, then, what keeps you from keeping 0.(9) as 1?

The point is, you need infinity 9's, there simply aren't that many 9's.
No matter how many times you write a 9, you will never get infinity 9's.
0.999... != 1
QED
You are correct, which is why this is a theoretical discussion. ::)

Repeating decimals. "There simply aren't that many 9's." ::)
1/9 = 0.(1)
1/3 = 0.(3)
1/7 = 0.(142857)
And, given a repeating decimal like those, you can find it's fraction. For example, 1/7:
0.(142857) = n
1000000n = 142857.(142857)
1000000n  n = 999999n
142857.(142857)  0.(142857) = 142857
999999n = 142857
n = (142857/999999) = 1/7
Now, we can do the same for 0.(9)
n = 0.(9)
10n = 9.(9)
10n  n = 9n
9.(9)  0.(9) = 9
9n = 9
n = 9/9 = 1

I like pancakes.

I like pancakes.
Seconded.

I like pancakes.
Lawl.

I like pancakes.
STFU
GTFO

I like pancakes.
Seconded.
Yay ;D
I like pancakes.
Lawl.
Double yay! ;D I'm feelin the love guys!
I like pancakes.
STFU
GTFO
NO U! GRUMPY!

I like waffles more.

Well, then, what keeps you from keeping 0.(9) as 1?
I don't know but
1/3 does not equal .333.....
1/3 approximately equals 0.333.... though

Well, then, what keeps you from keeping 0.(9) as 1?
I don't know but
1/3 does not equal .333.....
1/3 approximately equals 0.333.... though
It approximately equals 0.(3) if you put the proximity to 'right on'. :)

Well, then, what keeps you from keeping 0.(9) as 1?
I don't know but
1/3 does not equal .333.....
1/3 approximately equals 0.333.... though
It approximately equals 0.(3) if you put the proximity to 'right on'. :)
It doesn't though. Didn't you ever have a teacher that would tell you to not simplify to a decimal as to have the correct answer?

Well, then, what keeps you from keeping 0.(9) as 1?
I don't know but
1/3 does not equal .333.....
1/3 approximately equals 0.333.... though
Do the proof I laid out with a calculator and you will see just how terribly wrong you really are.

Well, then, what keeps you from keeping 0.(9) as 1?
I don't know but
1/3 does not equal .333.....
1/3 approximately equals 0.333.... though
Do the proof I laid out with a calculator and you will see just how terribly wrong you really are.
Funny, my ti89 will give answers in fractions.

Then you don't have the correct settings.
Well, then, what keeps you from keeping 0.(9) as 1?
I don't know but
1/3 does not equal .333.....
1/3 approximately equals 0.333.... though
It approximately equals 0.(3) if you put the proximity to 'right on'. :)
It doesn't though. Didn't you ever have a teacher that would tell you to not simplify to a decimal as to have the correct answer?
How do you mean? I am not simplifying it, there is just an infinite string of 3's behind the decimal.

Then you don't have the correct settings.
Well, then, what keeps you from keeping 0.(9) as 1?
I don't know but
1/3 does not equal .333.....
1/3 approximately equals 0.333.... though
It approximately equals 0.(3) if you put the proximity to 'right on'. :)
It doesn't though. Didn't you ever have a teacher that would tell you to not simplify to a decimal as to have the correct answer?
How do you mean? I am not simplifying it, there is just an infinite string of 3's behind the decimal.
Tell me, why is there infinite 3's?

Tell me, why is there infinite 3's?
Because you cannot divide one by three into a finite number of digits in base ten.

Tell me, why is there infinite 3's?
Because you cannot divide one by three into a finite number of digits in base ten.
yeah, a calculator keeps adding 3's to get the right answer but it can't.
Good calculators and computer algebra systems will report fractions if possible until you tell it to change it a decimal or hit the approximately = sign.

I like pancakes.
STFU
GTFO
If you want to yell at her, go down the hall and do it. Don't spam for sibling rivalries.

yeah, a calculator keeps adding 3's to get the right answer but it can't.
Good calculators and computer algebra systems will report fractions if possible until you tell it to change it a decimal or hit the approximately = sign.
That is because most computers don't have an infinite supply of bits to store the answer.

The proof is right there, you idiots. Defeat my proof with a mathematical and not technological proof, and I will admit defeat. Until then, I win.

3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1
This post?

The thing is that if you try to divide 1 by 3, you get .3, as if dividing .9 by 3, and .1 in memory. Now you have to divide that by 3, and get .03, as if dividing .09 by 3 and get .01 in memory. This repeats, forever, because you can never divide 10^n by 3 and get an even number. That's the proof that .(3) = 1/3.

3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1
This post?
Yep, and both calculator proof posts as well.

3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1
This post?
Yep, and both calculator proof posts as well.
Well the bold part is wrong. Now to look for the others.

3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1
This post?
Yep, and both calculator proof posts as well.
Well the bold part is wrong. Now to look for the others.
No it's not. Consult your calculator, as I show in the post with a video.

3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1
This post?
Yep, and both calculator proof posts as well.
Well the bold part is wrong. Now to look for the others.
No it's not. Consult your calculator, as I show in the post with a video.
wait I already did.
3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1
.3333 repeating is not a full 1/3.
As for the calculator. I also explained how decimals are approximations of fractions.

As for the calculator. I also explained how decimals are approximations of fractions.
You cannot use the fact that we can't create a computer with an infinite number of bits as proof of anything.

3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1
This post?
Yep, and both calculator proof posts as well.
Well the bold part is wrong. Now to look for the others.
No it's not. Consult your calculator, as I show in the post with a video.
wait I already did.
3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1
.3333 repeating is not a full 1/3.
As for the calculator. I also explained how decimals are approximations of fractions.
decimals like 0.(3) (1/3) and 0.(1) (1/9) are not approximations, but the actual number you get in theory when you calculate them.

3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1
This post?
Yep, and both calculator proof posts as well.
Well the bold part is wrong. Now to look for the others.
No it's not. Consult your calculator, as I show in the post with a video.
wait I already did.
3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1
.3333 repeating is not a full 1/3.
As for the calculator. I also explained how decimals are approximations of fractions.
decimals like 0.(3) (1/3) and 0.(1) (1/9) are not approximations, but the actual number you get in theory when you calculate them.
I could work it out for an infinite amount of time and never get the full answer. Or I could simply leave them as 1/3 and 1/9 and be done with it.

3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1
This post?
Yep, and both calculator proof posts as well.
Well the bold part is wrong. Now to look for the others.
No it's not. Consult your calculator, as I show in the post with a video.
wait I already did.
3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1
.3333 repeating is not a full 1/3.
As for the calculator. I also explained how decimals are approximations of fractions.
decimals like 0.(3) (1/3) and 0.(1) (1/9) are not approximations, but the actual number you get in theory when you calculate them.
I could work it out for an infinite amount of time and never get the full answer. Or I could simply leave them as 1/3 and 1/9 and be done with it.
See, that's the point of having them as infinitesimals, because we know what will happen if we just continue on the pattern into infinity.

If 0.(3) is approximately 1/3, then why does simple arithmetic prove otherwise?
n = 0.(3) [1/3]
10n = 3.(3) [3 1/3]
10n  n = 9n
3.(3) [3 1/3]  0.(3) [1/3] = 3
9n = 3
n = 3/9 = 1/3
0.(3) = 1/3
QED

The point is, you need infinity 9's, there simply aren't that many 9's.
No matter how many times you write a 9, you will never get infinity 9's.
0.999... != 1
QED
But.... 0.999... means 0.999 followed by an infinite series of 9's.
It. Is. What. It. Means!
If you don't like the convention, don't use it! Write as many numbers as you like. But don't use the convention to mean what you'd like it to mean!

If 0.(3) is approximately 1/3, then why does simple arithmetic prove otherwise?
n = 0.(3) [1/3]
10n = 3.(3) [3 1/3]
10n  n = 9n
3.(3) [3 1/3]  0.(3) [1/3] = 3
9n = 3
n = 3/9 = 1/3
0.(3) = 1/3
QED
It still assumes 1/3 = .3...

Well, then, what keeps you from keeping 0.(9) as 1?
I don't know but
1/3 does not equal .333.....
1/3 approximately equals 0.333.... though
Then STFU. Noone was asking you about 0.(3). But, if you want to pretend to be clever, even 0.3 is an approximate value for 1/3. For that matter, even 0.5 is, but the error is 50%

Well, then, what keeps you from keeping 0.(9) as 1?
I don't know but
1/3 does not equal .333.....
1/3 approximately equals 0.333.... though
Then STFU. Noone was asking you about 0.(3). But, if you want to pretend to be clever, even 0.3 is an approximate value for 1/3. For that matter, even 0.5 is, but the error is 50%
O look, it's the little kid.

If 0.(3) is approximately 1/3, then why does simple arithmetic prove otherwise?
n = 0.(3) [1/3]
10n = 3.(3) [3 1/3]
10n  n = 9n
3.(3) [3 1/3]  0.(3) [1/3] = 3
9n = 3
n = 3/9 = 1/3
0.(3) = 1/3
QED
It still assumes 1/3 = .3...
No it doesn't. lrn2math

If 0.(3) is approximately 1/3, then why does simple arithmetic prove otherwise?
n = 0.(3) [1/3]
10n = 3.(3) [3 1/3]
10n  n = 9n
3.(3) [3 1/3]  0.(3) [1/3] = 3
9n = 3
n = 3/9 = 1/3
0.(3) = 1/3
QED
It still assumes 1/3 = .3...
Again: look at this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_decimal).
It's not an assumption. It's a convention!
For example, the decimal representation of 1⁄3 = 0.3333333... (spoken as "0.3 repeating") becomes periodic just after the decimal point, repeating the singledigit sequence "3" indefinitely
In other words: if you want to talk in the same language, you don't have a choice but to have .3... = 1/3. If you don't accept that... well, you're Simply.Not.Speaking.The.Same.Language!

lol, troll'd. Anyway, it's not about speaking the same language, it's about knowing basic maths.

Well, then, what keeps you from keeping 0.(9) as 1?
I don't know but
1/3 does not equal .333.....
1/3 approximately equals 0.333.... though
Then STFU. Noone was asking you about 0.(3). But, if you want to pretend to be clever, even 0.3 is an approximate value for 1/3. For that matter, even 0.5 is, but the error is 50%
O look, it's the little kid.
Reported for retarted.

No one wants to argue the simple proof. Even my calculator proves all arguments against it wrong, and because of that, no one wants to attempt to refute it. I still fucking win.
People who are right tend to win, in my experience.

No one wants to argue the simple proof. Even my calculator proves all arguments against it wrong, and because of that, no one wants to attempt to refute it. I still fucking win.
People who are right tend to win, in my experience.
Have you ever argued with religion in america? That would change your experience a bit. ::)

No one wants to argue the simple proof. Even my calculator proves all arguments against it wrong, and because of that, no one wants to attempt to refute it. I still fucking win.
People who are right tend to win, in my experience.
Have you ever argued with religion in america? That would change your experience a bit. ::)
I lol'd.

You guys are so stupid.
First you start ridiculous claims like 0.999... = 1
What's next?
0.000...001 = 0?

The proof is right there, you idiots. Defeat my proof with a mathematical and not technological proof, and I will admit defeat. Until then, I win.
Now try doing it with a real calculator (A CAS based one) and see what answer you get if you tell it to give you an exact answer.
This is the problem with teaching kids math by only using calculators
Edit: This is from mathematica
Mathematica 6.0 for Microsoft Windows (32bit)
Copyright 19882008 Wolfram Research, Inc.
In[1]:= 1/3
1
Out[1]= 
3
In[2]:= 1/3 //N
Out[2]= 0.333333
In[3]:=
The First Calculation gives an exact result while in the second calculation I told it to give me an approximate result, see the difference?

You can only get an approximation when using digital computations as explained before: There is not enough memory to store the infinitely long sting of 3's. While 1/3 is an exact, it is mathematically equivalent to .3333333..., because even though 1/3 is more exact, it is a function, and it's result is an irrational number. You can express irrational numbers in visually rational way, but it doesn't negate the fact of their equivalence. 1/3=.333333... no matter how you try and deny it. The computer's software however are designed and coded correctly to understand this and not produce an error in the output, and thus, based on real mathematical rules, will continue to provide extremely accurate results, even correct one's when dealing with such irrational numbers.
When I perform (1/3)+(1/3), I get an approximation as well, when traversing the equation the long way on the calculator, but when I add the last (1/3) [so that my button sequence is (1/3[which =.3333333333...]+1/3[which then =.66666666667]+1/3)] I get 1.
When (1/3) = .3333..., and we know that (1/3)*3=1, then we must deduce that .9999... = 1. Basic arithmetic, and backed by a calculator. Learn the rules of simple math's and you should deduce the same instead of being a stubborn calculus nerd who want's to think different.
.99999...=1=(1/3)*3
Still not defeated, next.
To simplify:
(1/3) = .33333333...
(1/3)*3=1
(1/3)+(1/3)+(1/3)=1
(.3333333...)+(.3333333...)+(.3333333...)=1
(.3333333...)+(.3333333...)+(.3333333...)=(.999999...)
(.9999999...)=1
Remember, basic math's.

Please write out 0.99999... fully and I will be satisfied.
Since there is no such thing as infinity, and by extension infinite 9's, let's just save the effort and pretend you guys didn't make such asses out of yourselves.

Please write out 0.99999... fully and I will be satisfied.
Since there is no such thing as infinity, and by extension infinite 9's, let's just save the effort and pretend you guys didn't make such asses out of yourselves.
Watch my video narc. And learn. Instead of being stubborn and just posting the same bullshit. Provide some actual feedback on what you observed and then tell me the calculator is wrong.

Please write out 0.99999... fully and I will be satisfied.
0.(9)
phailure.

Please write out 0.99999... fully and I will be satisfied.
Since there is no such thing as infinity, and by extension infinite 9's, let's just save the effort and pretend you guys didn't make such asses out of yourselves.
Watch my video narc. And learn. Instead of being stubborn and just posting the same bullshit. Provide some actual feedback on what you observed and then tell me the calculator is wrong.
your calculator is wrong

Please write out 0.99999... fully and I will be satisfied.
Since there is no such thing as infinity, and by extension infinite 9's, let's just save the effort and pretend you guys didn't make such asses out of yourselves.
Dude. Look. At. My Link.
The decimal representation of a real number is called a repeating decimal (or recurring decimal) if at some point it becomes periodic: there is some finite sequence of digits that is repeated indefinitely.
It's not repeated infinitely, that's true. It's repeated indefinitely.
But your question is as absurd as asking us to write out an imaginary number (i, for instance). Do you know i^2 equals 1? It's a convention, necessitated by the behavior of certain numbers in mathematics. It. Is. A. Convention.
Any mathematician understands what it stands for. It doesn't matter that you can't write it out any other way. It's a useful concept. Nothing more, nothing less.
When you ask us to write it out, it's simply proof that you don't understand the underlying concept.

Please write out 0.99999... fully and I will be satisfied.
Since there is no such thing as infinity, and by extension infinite 9's, let's just save the effort and pretend you guys didn't make such asses out of yourselves.
Watch my video narc. And learn. Instead of being stubborn and just posting the same bullshit. Provide some actual feedback on what you observed and then tell me the calculator is wrong.
your calculator is wrong
http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=1f79qe&s=4
Watched it saw that it was not CAS based so it automatically rounds off digits and then I did it with a CAS based system and found the correct answer
Mathematica 6.0 for Microsoft Windows (32bit)
Copyright 19882008 Wolfram Research, Inc.
In[1]:= 1/3
1
Out[1]= 
3
In[2]:= 1/3 //N
Out[2]= 0.333333
In[3]:=
The First Calculation gives an exact result while in the second calculation I told it to give me an approximate result, see the difference?
Funny on how when you use a real calculator, if you enter a decimal it automatically assumes you are not looking for an exact answer

Please write out 0.99999... fully and I will be satisfied.
Since there is no such thing as infinity, and by extension infinite 9's, let's just save the effort and pretend you guys didn't make such asses out of yourselves.
Watch my video narc. And learn. Instead of being stubborn and just posting the same bullshit. Provide some actual feedback on what you observed and then tell me the calculator is wrong.
your calculator is wrong
http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=1f79qe&s=4
Full disclosure: I haven't watched your video yet. However:
1. Arguing that the behavior of a certain calculator shows something doesn't actually prove anything. You could hack your calculator's software, you could alter (photoshop) the images and that, in itself wouldn't show anything
2. Calculators, like all humancreated machines have internal representations of human concepts. And those, by themselves, could be wrong. Remember how certain Intel processors were shown to calculate certain formulas wrongly?
3. All other precepts being right (no alteration of the video, and no alteration of the software and the software itself being correct), it could still show the wrong outcome. If the premises of its creators were wrong (i.e., if one of them didn't know the concept of Repeating Decimals), it still could show results that wouldn't represent the "correct" mathematical outcome
It seems like your calculator works right. However, look at the "google code jam" that took place, recently. You were asked to give the result, if I remember it correctly, of a simple operation: ((3 + 2^(1/2))^n) mod 100 . (the mod operation gives us the remainder of an operation. 199 mod 100 = 99)
Simple, isn't it? Well, calculate the result using your machine, when n=1,000,000,000. Try doing the same by hand. The result of your machine is, quite probably 00. The correct result is completely different. A calculator, by itself, takes shortcuts. Even the best of machines tries to represent big numbers as best it can. And it still will err when the numbers are big/small enough.

This just in: no such thing as infinite 9's.

This just in: no such thing as infinite 9's.
This just in: mathematician, long, long ago, invented a notation to represent indefinitely repeating numbers.
This representation is 0.(n)
or
0.n...
There are other ways to write it. The concept is still the same.

So if I invented a notation that is defined to mean, "you are wrong" then you are wrong?
'e' I dub thee, "you are wrong"

So if I invented a notation that is defined to mean, "you are wrong" then you are wrong?
'e' I dub thee, "you are wrong"
e

So if I invented a notation that is defined to mean, "you are wrong" then you are wrong?
'e' I dub thee, "you are wrong"
Well... you would need to publish a peerreviewed paper, and use the concept somewhere to have it predict the behavior of something. But yes, in concept it could work.
However, the concept you are struggling against is ingrained in the concept of mathematics. It's necessary, believe it or not.
And it will be used, long after this thread (and you and I) have died. Regardless of your acceptance.
Sorry about that.

So if I invented a notation that is defined to mean, "you are wrong" then you are wrong?
'e' I dub thee, "you are wrong"
Well... you would need to publish a peerreviewed paper, and use the concept somewhere to have it predict the behavior of something. But yes, in concept it could work.
However, the concept you are struggling against is ingrained in the concept of mathematics. It's necessary, believe it or not.
And it will be used, long after this thread (and you and I) have died. Regardless of your acceptance.
Sorry about that.
Please italicize or boldify, don't underline. I hate clicking on things that aren't links.

God damn, 18 pages already! Nice job Narc, this reminds me of the Floating Oceans Thread. You even have a couple "mini trolls" arguing alongside (or they might just be clueless, who knows). You are a god among trolls.

Big difference is this is mathematically proveable.
You cannot write 9 enough times to make it 1.
If you could, you'd have infinite 9's, so you'd have infinity.

Big difference is this is mathematically proveable.
You cannot write 9 enough times to make it 1.
If you could, you'd have infinite 9's, so you'd have infinity.
Well, you can't without the creative use of a decimal point.

0.99.... does equal 1. click here (http://) for an MIT lecture.

Or just go back and look at what I said about how there has to be an infinite amount of numbers between 2 numbers for them to be different numbers. Or just read this post.

Or look at my vid. Or read my proof. Or understand basic math's.

Or get an action figure of Edgar Allen Poe and an infinite number of Oscar Wilde action figures and experience it first hand...

Or get an action figure of Edgar Allen Poe and an infinite number of Oscar Wilde action figures and experience it first hand...
It should be the other way around, one Oscar Wilde and an infinite set of Poe's, since Oscar is superior. Get the drift?

Poe represents the zero, whereas the Wildes are the nines (9 > 0).
Didn't you see my diagram on page seven?

Poe represents the zero, whereas the Wildes are the nines (9 > 0).
Didn't you see my diagram on page seven?
Oh, that's right. I forgot about that. I am tired, and not thinking clearly at random moments.

This is the problem with teaching kids math by only using calculators
Can anybody say "irony"?

Guys, I'm sorry you haven't convinced me yet. All you've shown is that 0.88888... = 0.9999...

Guys, I'm sorry you haven't convinced me yet. All you've shown is that 0.88888... = 0.9999...
Can you please explain how anything anyone has said in this thread has given that conclusion?

I can: narc is a troll.

I can sum this up in one post:
(1/3) = .33333333...
(1/3)*3=1
(1/3)+(1/3)+(1/3)=1
(.3333333...)+(.3333333...)+(.3333333...)=1
(.3333333...)+(.3333333...)+(.3333333...)=(.999999...)
(.9999999...)=1
LALALALALA
ICANTHEARYOU
LALALALALA

ORLY?
If
1/3 = 0.33333...
Why does
2/3 = 0.66666...6667
Please explain the 7.
Doesn't that mean that 3/3 = 1.000...0001 ?

ORLY?
If
1/3 = 0.33333...
Why does
2/3 = 0.66666...6667
Please explain the 7.
Doesn't that mean that 3/3 = 1.000...0001 ?
2/3 does not equal 0.666666666...666666666667. It equals 0.66666666... . It just so happens that when a calculator (which has a finite number of bits to store the result of the calculation, as well as a finite display) tries to approximate this decimal value, it needs to round off one of the sixes, and since six is greater than five, it rounds up to seven.

ORLY?
If
1/3 = 0.33333...
Why does
2/3 = 0.66666...6667
Please explain the 7.
Doesn't that mean that 3/3 = 1.000...0001 ?
2/3 does not equal 0.666666666...666666666667. It equals 0.66666666... . It just so happens that when a calculator (which has a finite number of bits to store the result of the calculation, as well as a finite display) tries to approximate this decimal value, it needs to round off one of the sixes, and since six is greater than five, it rounds up to seven.
Exactly. I pointed this out to Raist myself on YIM earlier tonight.

Big difference is this is mathematically proveable.
You cannot write 9 enough times to make it 1.
If you could, you'd have infinite 9's, so you'd have infinity.
0.(9) does not equal infinity.
0.(9) is not 9 + 9 + 9 + 9. That's stupid.
0.(9) = 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 + ..., which does not equal infinity. It equals one. This can be shown via basic arithmetic and limits. 0.(9) = 1. Period. If you don't accept it, you must throw repeating decimals out the window. Which is again, stupid. 0.(3) = 1/3. Period. It's not an approximation. With a finite stream of decimals, then it would be an approximation. But it has an infinite stream of decimals. This DOES NOT mean that it is infinite, it's still a finite number. It just can't be shown without repeating decimals. It can't be divide evenly. An infinite stream of numbers is not always an infinite number.

Than you must agree that 2/3 = 0.666...6667 something that the previous two posters said is absurd!

Than you must agree that 2/3 = 0.666...6667 something that the previous two posters said is absurd!
No strawmen allowed, Cpt. Douchebag.

Than you must agree that 2/3 = 0.666...6667 something that the previous two posters said is absurd!
Did you read my post? 0.(6) = 2/3

Do you or don't you believe that:
2/3 = 0.666...667?

There's no such than as 0.666...7. You can't put a seven on the "end" of an infinite string of sixes.
0.666... = 2/3

If you can't answer a yes/no question, how am I supposed to believe your witchdoctor math that NO OTHER MATHEMATICIAN AGREES WITH?!

If you can't answer a yes/no question, how am I supposed to believe your witchdoctor math that NO OTHER MATHEMATICIAN AGREES WITH?!
Because you're a thickskulled douchebag who can't fucking read? Stick to your D&D forum game.

If you can't answer a yes/no question, how am I supposed to believe your witchdoctor math that NO OTHER MATHEMATICIAN AGREES WITH?!
Because you're a thickskulled douchebag who can't fucking read? Stick to your D&D forum game.
Yeah, can we find out how our actions went?

My spell can cast nao?

If you can't answer a yes/no question, how am I supposed to believe your witchdoctor math that NO OTHER MATHEMATICIAN AGREES WITH?!
Because you're a thickskulled douchebag who can't fucking read? Stick to your D&D forum game.
Are you saying his calculator is wrong?

ITT: crybabies whine over stupid people who don't know how basic mathematics work.

hi there guys, was just wondering if anyone has a copy of donkey kong counrty for the snes for sale?

You guys are so stupid.
First you start ridiculous claims like 0.999... = 1
What's next?
0.000...001 = 0?
Obviously you are incapable of watching a video.
http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=1f79qe&s=4
lol are you retarded? where is the mathematical rigour in this? ::)

No strawmen allowed, Cpt. Douchebag.

You guys are so stupid.
First you start ridiculous claims like 0.999... = 1
What's next?
0.000...001 = 0?
Obviously you are incapable of watching a video.
http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=1f79qe&s=4
lol are you retarded? where is the mathematical rigour in this? ::)
You are the one who is refuting a well known mathematical fact. Who is really the retard, retard?

Than you must agree that 2/3 = 0.666...6667 something that the previous two posters said is absurd!
Your grasp of common mathematical notation is truly appalling. Where have you seen anyone write a number like "0.666...6667"? What would that even mean? An indefinite amount of sixes after the point, followed by four sixes and a seven?
You're not making any sense, at all. Look at my last post, by the way. There I explain why, for bigger numbers, and for very small ones a common calculator cannot be trusted to give you the correct result. And that applies to repeating decimals, as well. More than once, in this very thread, people have told you that a calculator will make mistakes in these cases simply because it can't hold an indefinite number of bytes.

Theorem: 1=0.999...
Proof: Set x=0.999...
10x=9.999...
Subtracting x from both sides of the equation
9x=9.000...
Divide by 9
x=1.000....
QED

Someone take Real analysis, it will help in your understanding that there is no such number called 0.0000000000...01 because that number would be infinitely small in magnitude. Thus it would have no multiplicative inverse in the real numbers and thus is not a real number, QED by contradiction. Also, the geometric series proof is spot on and the 1/3+1/3+1/3 are is a great number theory proof.

Someone take Real analysis, it will help in your understanding that there is no such number called 0.0000000000...01 because that number would be infinitely small in magnitude. Thus it would have no multiplicative inverse in the real numbers and thus is not a real number, QED by contradiction. Also, the geometric series proof is spot on and the 1/3+1/3+1/3 are is a great number theory proof.
So, 0 does not have a multiplicative inverse (just a fancy way of saying 1/0 does not exist). Does this mean that 0 is not a real number?

this thread has brained my damage

Your damage has threaded my brain.

0.000...1 does not exist because, basically, you cannot put something at the end of infinity. That's like trying to find a dead end in a circle. It doesn't happen.

This just in: no such thing as infinite 9's.
Really  Question for you Narcberry.
If I write 1 as 1.0...
How many zeroes can I put after the one?
By all means, I think we need to know the maximum precision of the number system according to narcberry.
CD

Than you must agree that 2/3 = 0.666...6667 something that the previous two posters said is absurd!
No, I would agree that 2/3 = 0.666... = 0.(6).
0.666...6667 is syntactically meaningless in mathematics, just like "grub the woods red ball" means nothing in English despite the fact that all the individual words are English words.
Well, I suppose it does mean something  repeated attempts to use a meaningless syntax indicate that narcberry is fundamentally illiterate (Innumerate?) in mathematics  since any proof that 0.(9) = 1 is going to require that the reader be mathematically competent, it's rather foolish to keep trying to do so.
narcberry is not, so let's move on.
CD

Than you must agree that 2/3 = 0.666...6667 something that the previous two posters said is absurd!
No, I would agree that 2/3 = 0.666... = 0.(6).
0.666...6667 is syntactically meaningless in mathematics, just like "grub the woods red ball" means nothing in English despite the fact that all the individual words are English words.
Well, I suppose it does mean something  repeated attempts to use a meaningless syntax indicate that narcberry is fundamentally illiterate (Innumerate?) in mathematics  since any proof that 0.(9) = 1 is going to require that the reader be mathematically competent, it's rather foolish to keep trying to do so.
narcberry is not, so let's move on.
CD
Seconded.

So now you guys are saying that 0.8888.. does equal 0.9999..
You guys should take math 101.

(http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/725/tempaj9.png)
So now you guys are saying that 0.8888.. does equal 0.9999..
You guys should take math 101.
0.888... = 8/9

0.888... = 8/9
You mean, 0.888 = 0.999 = 1.
You and your mathematical paradoxes...

lolwut?

I know, it's retarded.

I was referring to your retardation.

You guys might've had a point, up until the moment that Muffz took your side.
I can't wait to see Al Gore's new 0.999 = 1 campaign.

You guys might've had a point, up until the moment that Muffz took your side.
I can't wait to see Al Gore's new 0.999 = 1 campaign.
"This is the biggest danger facing the world today, thank god I invented the internet so we can discuss it"  Al Gore, 22Jan2009

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... = 9/9 = 1
1.111... = 1 1/9
etc...

So now you guys are saying that 0.8888.. does equal 0.9999..
You guys should take math 101.
Where. Tell me where anyone besides you got that impression, and we'll walk you through it using small words.
CD

Don't sign your posts unless you're Diego.

(http://holaarkansas.com/uploaded_pictures/423_1.jpg)
I am Diego.

(http://holaarkansas.com/uploaded_pictures/423_1.jpg)
I am Prego.
And children, with the changing of the 2 letters, the truth is out.

Ha ha! A Mexican, Muffz? How desperate were you? :D

They tend to knock white women up. It's part of nature. Like ducks being strangled by those plastic pop can connectors. Nature.

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... = 9/9 = 1
1.111... = 1 1/9
etc...
Except you skip 1.0000... ::)

Did y'all not read the proof I gave you? I'M NOT PREGO!
EDIT: Also, twodimensional figures cannot knock threedimensional figures up.

I just noticed the sloth in that picture...
Hmmmmm...maybe my initial assumption was incorrect...

Seriously muffz, just go watch Dr. Phil and let him speak sweet nothings to your empty soul.
You should've recognized the math in this thread as the familiar, "no girls allowed" sign.

Actual the lack of reference to cooking, cleaning or sewing is the no girls allowed sign.

Actual the lack of reference to cooking, cleaning or sewing is the no girls allowed sign.
I lol'd.

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... = 9/9 = 1
1.111... = 1 1/9
etc...
Except you skip 1.0000... ::)
1.000... EQUALS ONE YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE.
sorry. maths is serious business.

No, your pattern skips one.

his pattern skips an infinite amount of numbers between each number. As does every pattern on earth.

A pattern that skips an obvious step is not a pattern.
Ie a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, k is not the pattern implied.
Trekky is trying to imply a decaredundo pattern, ie 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0 but instead delivers a disrupted pattern, otherwise known as an anomaly, something that should raise questions and desire an explanation. So I raise the question, please explain why you skip 1.000000.

A pattern that skips an obvious step is not a pattern.
Ie a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, k is not the pattern implied.
Trekky is trying to imply a decaredundo pattern, ie 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0 but instead delivers a disrupted pattern, otherwise known as an anomaly, something that should raise questions and desire an explanation. So I raise the question, please explain why you skip 1.000000.
The pattern is that one is added to each digit each time. Adding one to nine gives ten.

Exactly, it should go
...
0.9999
1.0000
1.1111
...

Exactly, it should go
...
0.9999
1.0000
1.1111
...
No.
0.999... = lim_{n→∞} (9 * 10^{1}) + (9 * 10^{2}) + (9 * 10^{3}) + ... + (9 * 10^{n})
Adding one to each digit gives:
= lim_{n→∞} (10 * 10^{1}) + (10 * 10^{2}) + (10 * 10^{3}) + ... + (10 * 10^{n})
= lim_{n→∞} 10^{0} + 10^{1} + 10^{2} + ... + 10^{n+1}
Now, if we let m = n1, then:
lim_{n→∞} m = lim_{n→∞} (n1) = ∞
Such that the equation above becomes:
= lim_{m→∞} 10^{0} + 10^{1} + 10^{2} + ... + 10^{m}
= 1.111...

Sounds like a straightforward pattern ::) ::) ::)
Occam clearly sides with me, I do not need an absurd amount of contradictory math to define the correct pattern:
...
.999
1.000
1.111
...
Only an idiot would think 0.999... = 1, are you an idiot?

Sounds like a straightforward pattern ::) ::) ::)
Occam clearly sides with me, I do not need an absurd amount of contradictory math to define the correct pattern:
...
.999
1.000
1.111
...
Only an idiot would think 0.999... = 1, are you an idiot?
Your pattern is redundant.

If you mean it repeats itself over and over, I would agree, it is a pattern.
lol@trekky's, it skips 1!!!

First, I would like to thank all involved with the thread/ site as I have not been so entertained for some time. To all of the flat earth opponents: Having read alot of the posts, I think that #1. most, if not all, have a great grasp on the fundamentals of the Calculus, as this particular posting got my attention. And #2 I think that we may be being duped here. Call me a conspiracy theorist but me thinks that this may be a prank executed at the highest levels of physics/ mathematics undergraduate professorship. I mean seriously... with whom are you doing intelectual battle? Think for a second how devious the plan would be for a group of elder acedemics to start such a ridiculous
page and watch their students systematically destroying such insane stupidity as 0.999... doesn't equal one. As if people with the ability to start and maintain a website had the inability to understand limits, the fundamental basis of Calculus. C'mon guys... whats next? If I might suggest, from a fan's standpoint, I would personally love to a see a website that proffers the existence of the "Creationist / 5000 year old earth" and sit back to watch the sparks fly. Of course we wouldn't get as many math students, but please, offer the idea up to your particular university's geology professors. Their students will also surely have a field day. To those feeling like they are out of place and should be doing something useful with their precious time on the net, I am just as guilty as having far too much free time as you for having visited a "Flat Earth" webpage. Having said that, I also haven't been as entertained in many a moon. So thank you to all of the contributors. And while the "Flat earth faithful" will surely lambast this post... I would like to give a slight wink and nod to you guys, as alot of these posters have had a chance to truly question what they have been taught and why it may, or may not make logical sense to them. Long live the flat earth! For at least another five thousand!!!

Sounds like a straightforward pattern ::) ::) ::)
Occam clearly sides with me, I do not need an absurd amount of contradictory math to define the correct pattern:
...
.999
1.000
1.111
...
Only an idiot would think 0.999... = 1, are you an idiot?
Now I have seen it all. Occam's Razor has nothing to with Mathematics! Theories and hypothesis are the center of Occam's Razor, but have no part in Mathematics! If two theorems have the same predicting power (whatever that may be in maths) then the two theorems are true! In fact, every theorem is true.

First, I would like to thank all involved with the thread/ site as I have not been so entertained for some time. To all of the flat earth opponents: Having read alot of the posts, I think that #1. most, if not all, have a great grasp on the fundamentals of the Calculus, as this particular posting got my attention. And #2 I think that we may be being duped here. Call me a conspiracy theorist but me thinks that this may be a prank executed at the highest levels of physics/ mathematics undergraduate professorship. I mean seriously... with whom are you doing intelectual battle? Think for a second how devious the plan would be for a group of elder acedemics to start such a ridiculous
page and watch their students systematically destroying such insane stupidity as 0.999... doesn't equal one. As if people with the ability to start and maintain a website had the inability to understand limits, the fundamental basis of Calculus. C'mon guys... whats next? If I might suggest, from a fan's standpoint, I would personally love to a see a website that proffers the existence of the "Creationist / 5000 year old earth" and sit back to watch the sparks fly. Of course we wouldn't get as many math students, but please, offer the idea up to your particular university's geology professors. Their students will also surely have a field day. To those feeling like they are out of place and should be doing something useful with their precious time on the net, I am just as guilty as having far too much free time as you for having visited a "Flat Earth" webpage. Having said that, I also haven't been as entertained in many a moon. So thank you to all of the contributors. And while the "Flat earth faithful" will surely lambast this post... I would like to give a slight wink and nod to you guys, as alot of these posters have had a chance to truly question what they have been taught and why it may, or may not make logical sense to them. Long live the flat earth! For at least another five thousand!!!
It's 6000 dolt.
LURK MOAR!!1!!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21424.0

First, I would like to thank all involved with the thread/ site as I have not been so entertained for some time. To all of the flat earth opponents: Having read alot of the posts, I think that #1. most, if not all, have a great grasp on the fundamentals of the Calculus, as this particular posting got my attention. And #2 I think that we may be being duped here. Call me a conspiracy theorist but me thinks that this may be a prank executed at the highest levels of physics/ mathematics undergraduate professorship. I mean seriously... with whom are you doing intelectual battle? Think for a second how devious the plan would be for a group of elder acedemics to start such a ridiculous
page and watch their students systematically destroying such insane stupidity as 0.999... doesn't equal one. As if people with the ability to start and maintain a website had the inability to understand limits, the fundamental basis of Calculus. C'mon guys... whats next? If I might suggest, from a fan's standpoint, I would personally love to a see a website that proffers the existence of the "Creationist / 5000 year old earth" and sit back to watch the sparks fly. Of course we wouldn't get as many math students, but please, offer the idea up to your particular university's geology professors. Their students will also surely have a field day. To those feeling like they are out of place and should be doing something useful with their precious time on the net, I am just as guilty as having far too much free time as you for having visited a "Flat Earth" webpage. Having said that, I also haven't been as entertained in many a moon. So thank you to all of the contributors. And while the "Flat earth faithful" will surely lambast this post... I would like to give a slight wink and nod to you guys, as alot of these posters have had a chance to truly question what they have been taught and why it may, or may not make logical sense to them. Long live the flat earth! For at least another five thousand!!!
I read your book. Very nice. :)

First, I would like to thank all involved with the thread/ site as I have not been so entertained for some time. To all of the flat earth opponents: Having read alot of the posts, I think that #1. most, if not all, have a great grasp on the fundamentals of the Calculus, as this particular posting got my attention. And #2 I think that we may be being duped here. Call me a conspiracy theorist but me thinks that this may be a prank executed at the highest levels of physics/ mathematics undergraduate professorship. I mean seriously... with whom are you doing intelectual battle? Think for a second how devious the plan would be for a group of elder acedemics to start such a ridiculous
page and watch their students systematically destroying such insane stupidity as 0.999... doesn't equal one. As if people with the ability to start and maintain a website had the inability to understand limits, the fundamental basis of Calculus. C'mon guys... whats next? If I might suggest, from a fan's standpoint, I would personally love to a see a website that proffers the existence of the "Creationist / 5000 year old earth" and sit back to watch the sparks fly. Of course we wouldn't get as many math students, but please, offer the idea up to your particular university's geology professors. Their students will also surely have a field day. To those feeling like they are out of place and should be doing something useful with their precious time on the net, I am just as guilty as having far too much free time as you for having visited a "Flat Earth" webpage. Having said that, I also haven't been as entertained in many a moon. So thank you to all of the contributors. And while the "Flat earth faithful" will surely lambast this post... I would like to give a slight wink and nod to you guys, as alot of these posters have had a chance to truly question what they have been taught and why it may, or may not make logical sense to them. Long live the flat earth! For at least another five thousand!!!
Oh, I am aware that Narcberry is trolling. I just have nothing better to do than to play along.

18 pages...
0.99999 != 1
0.999... = 1
[NOTE: THIS POST WILL BE SPAMMABLE SHOULD STUPIDITY CONTINUES BEYOND PAGE 18]

ITT: crybabies whine over stupid people who don't know how basic mathematics work.

First, I would like to thank all involved with the thread/ site as I have not been so entertained for some time. To all of the flat earth opponents: Having read alot of the posts, I think that #1. most, if not all, have a great grasp on the fundamentals of the Calculus, as this particular posting got my attention. And #2 I think that we may be being duped here. Call me a conspiracy theorist but me thinks that this may be a prank executed at the highest levels of physics/ mathematics undergraduate professorship. I mean seriously... with whom are you doing intelectual battle? Think for a second how devious the plan would be for a group of elder acedemics to start such a ridiculous
page and watch their students systematically destroying such insane stupidity as 0.999... doesn't equal one. As if people with the ability to start and maintain a website had the inability to understand limits, the fundamental basis of Calculus. C'mon guys... whats next? If I might suggest, from a fan's standpoint, I would personally love to a see a website that proffers the existence of the "Creationist / 5000 year old earth" and sit back to watch the sparks fly. Of course we wouldn't get as many math students, but please, offer the idea up to your particular university's geology professors. Their students will also surely have a field day. To those feeling like they are out of place and should be doing something useful with their precious time on the net, I am just as guilty as having far too much free time as you for having visited a "Flat Earth" webpage. Having said that, I also haven't been as entertained in many a moon. So thank you to all of the contributors. And while the "Flat earth faithful" will surely lambast this post... I would like to give a slight wink and nod to you guys, as alot of these posters have had a chance to truly question what they have been taught and why it may, or may not make logical sense to them. Long live the flat earth! For at least another five thousand!!!
A wall of text is something that is frowned upon in most, actually virtually all Internet societies, including forums, chat boards, and Uncyclopedia. You should not make walls of text because it can get you banned anywhere unless it is a place that encourages walls of text. I highly doubt any place does support something so irritating and annoying, but anything can exist, but not really because unless you are in heaven then that can happen. But no one actually knows that was just a hypothesis, a lame one that is. Actually not really lame. You can create a wall of text supporting site, but you would be hated if you do that, so do not. But you can if you like, but I discourage that. Now on to the actual information of walls of texts. The wall of text was invented when the Internet was invented, but actually it was slow at that time. So whenever it became fast. But there would need to be some free or not free community for people, and that community would be able to have walls of text. But that community probably wouldn't have actually invented the wall of text. So basically, no one except God knows when or where or how the wall of text existed/was invented. Noobs probably invented, but probably not. Who knows. Walls of texts are usually filled with a lot of useless information and junk. Information and junk can be the same, but only if the information is junk or the junk is information. But who cares. The information/junk inside a wall of text are usually related to whatever the wall of text is located, but the best walls of text, which are actually the most irritating, most eyebleeding ones, are completely random. Walls of text usually make the reader asplode or have their eyes bleed and fall out of their sockets. A number of people can stand it, but not read them. Actually some people can stand and read them. Those people do not have short attention spans. These are boring and patient people who have no life or have all the time in their hands, which are the same, but not really. The punishment of what making walls of text varies of the strictness of the community. But it doesn't really matter. Nobody cares. Walls of texts should be free of links, different font colors, strange characters, which are those other symbols used in society, and capital letters because it ruins the whole purpose of the infamy of walls of texts. It makes them look fucking dumb and weird and dumb. Walls of texts are obviously free of huge spaces and outstanding things like capital letters. Of course, paragraphs should never be in a wall of text. Walls of text are known to create nausea, confusion, head explosion, and others. The others being something I can not think of either because I am lazy or if I do not feel like it or I can not actually think of anything. Like what the fuck? That was a rhetorical question right there. What the fuck? You are actually not requesting a satisfactory answer, you just say that because you try to be funny or you feel like it or if you are pissed off. You must get a proper bitchslapping to stop making walls of text, but if you are weird then that doesn't apply to you. Walls of text are defeated by deleting them or splitting them into paragraphs. Or some other things that would work but will take hours to think of. People are considered a nuisance if they create walls of text. This might be the end. If you hope this is the end, I am not sure. But if I was not sure then I wouldn't be talking. I should know. Or should I? The best way to make a better and good wall of text is to copy and paste what you previously typed or write. Hey, that reminds me. Walls of text aren't always on the internet! They could be anywhere that is able to produce symbols. D'oh. A wall of text is something that is frowned upon in most, actually virtually all Internet societies, including forums, chat boards, and Uncyclopedia. You should not make walls of text because it can get you banned anywhere unless it is a place that encourages walls of text. I highly doubt any place does support something so irritating and annoying, but anything can exist, but not really because unless you are in heaven then that can happen. But no one actually knows that was just a hypothesis, a lame one that is. Actually not really lame. You can created a wall of text supporting site, but you would be hated if you do that, so do not. But you can if you like, but I discourage that. Now on to the actual information of walls of texts. The wall of text was invented when the Internet was invented, but actually it was slow at that time. So whenever it became fast. But there would need to be some free or not free community for people, and that community would be able to have walls of text. But that community probably wouldn't have actually invented the wall of text. So basically, no one except God knows when or where or how the wall of text existed/was invented. Noobs probably invented, but probably not. Who knows. Walls of texts are usually filled with a lot of useless information and junk. Information and junk can be the same, but only if the information is junk or the junk is information. But who cares. The information/junk inside a wall of text are usually related to whatever the wall of text is located, but the best walls of text, which are actually the most irritating, most eyebleeding ones, are completely random. Walls of text usually make the reader asplode or have their eyes bleed and fall out of their sockets. A number of people can stand it, but not read them. Actually some people can stand and read them. Those people do not have short attention spans. These are boring and patient people who have no life or have all the time in their hands, which are the same, but not really. The punishment of what making walls of text varies of the strictness of the community. But it doesn't really matter. Nobody cares. Walls of texts should be free of links, different font colors, strange characters, which are those other symbols used in society, and capital letters because it ruins the whole purpose of the infamy of walls of texts. It makes them look fucking dumb and weird and dumb. Walls of texts are obviously free of huge spaces and outstanding things like capital letters. Of course, paragraphs should never be in a wall of text. Walls of text are known to create nausea, confusion, head explosion, and others. The others being something I can not think of either because I am lazy or if I do not feel like it or I can not actually think of anything. Like what the fuck? That was a rhetorical question right there. What the fuck? You are actually not requesting a satisfactory answer, you just say that because you try to be funny or you feel like it or if you are pissed off. Now I just copied and pasted part of this huge wall of text, which is actually not. Wait what? Nice right? Ba boom a rhetorical question right there. Is this the end for the sanity of your eyes? What the fuck did you actually read up to here? Or did you skip to near the end and read this? Either way, you fail in life. Just kidding. Or was I? Oh well. Congratualtions, or not, actually not. Get a life right now. I found a cheap life on eBay, but cheap lives are rare. Well, good luck in finding one. Not! Okay go have fun, but I wasn't meaning that. So go sit in the corner in your house. I do not care which, just stay there and rot. If you are not in a place with a corner, then lucky you. Find one if you can. There is no other option because I said so. Now if you pity yourself for reading this like most do, then do something productive and useful to the environment. My goodness.So SAD SO SADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!

Occam's Razor has nothing to with Mathematics!
Which is exactly why he'd use it in mathematics.

18 pages...
0.99999 != 1
0.999... = 1
[NOTE: THIS POST WILL BE SPAMMABLE SHOULD STUPIDITY CONTINUES BEYOND PAGE 18]

I thought about it and my first answer was incomplete and based on an assumption.
There is not enough information present in the statement to say clearly that 0.9999... <> 1
We are all assuming that both numbers are real. But if they are in *R (hyperreals), then 1.000...  0.999... would be an infinitesimal but not equal to zero. I'm going to abuse notation here to avoid Dedekind cut type construction, but 1.000...1 and 1.0000...2 would be perfectly good hyperreals which are distinct in *R but which would not be differentiated in R since they lie in the hyperreal "cloud" around 1.
I'm not an expert in nonstandard analysis, any math geeks here please feel free to chime in or shoot me down.

It's true, there is an infinitesimally small number between 0.999... and 1.
If you take the position that infinities cannot exist (this includes the infinitesimals), then you are simply mistaken.
Put another way:
Given a line of finite size, how many times can it be divided? If you say an infinite amount of times, then you are assuming infinitesimally small line segments are possible. You cannot divide the line an infinite amount of times without creating at least one segment with a size of (1  0.999...).
Furthermore an infinite amount of line segments of length (1  0.999...), assuming 0.999... = 1, would be of 0 length. This means if 0.999... = 1 then dividing a line into an infinite amount of equal segments would yield an infinite amount of segments of length 0. Since the total line length is the sum of its parts, you would have infinity * 0 = a finite number.
In other words
0.999... = 1 > infinity * 0 = x  x is some finite number.

It's true, there is an infinitesimally small number between 0.999... and 1.
No it's not.

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... = 9/9 = 1
1.111... = 1 1/9
etc...
Except you skip 1.0000... ::)
And thus you descend into the realm of stupidity.
You clearly don't accept that 0.111...=1/9
so, our pattern
0.111...
0.222...
0.333...
0.444...
0.555...
0.666...
0.777...
0.888...
0.999...
shows an increase of 0.111... between each step. Which value should come next? Since you don't accept that 0.111...=1/9, let's try it with definite numbers:
0.111111111
0.222222222
0.333333333
0.444444444
0.555555555
0.666666666
0.777777777
0.888888888
0.999999999
Between each step, we have an increase of 0.111111111
Therefore, 0.999999999 + 0.111111111 = 1.11111111 and this number is the next one in the sequence.
Since you (obviously) don't know anything about mathematics, you thought instinctively that the next number in the sequence was 1.00000000. Naturally you were wrong. Like you have been wrong in this thread. Over and over.

This thread is full of troll food.

(http://pics.bikerag.com/Uploads/data/500/258Troll_spray.jpg)

Why isn't that hand connected to a wrist?

Just noticed that...idk.

It's true, there is an infinitesimally small number between 0.999... and 1.
If you take the position that infinities cannot exist (this includes the infinitesimals), then you are simply mistaken.
Again, ONLY if you are talking about hyperreal numbers here. If 0.999... and 1 are reals then they are exactly the same. If 0.999... is a hyperreal (and obviously a member of R  *R ) then we're cool. We've basically picked a point in the hyperreal cloud around 1.
Put another way:
Given a line of finite size, how many times can it be divided? If you say an infinite amount of times, then you are assuming infinitesimally small line segments are possible. You cannot divide the line an infinite amount of times without creating at least one segment with a size of (1  0.999...).
Nope  this doesn't work. There will be a bijective correspondence between R and the length of any finite line segment. Consider the division of the line by first breaking it at 1/2, then 1/4, then 1/8 and so on. Our resulting line segments will be [1,1/2], [1/2, 1/4], [1/4,1/8], and so on. For EVERY line segment [1/2^n, 1/2^(n+1)] we have some real distance. No way to bring an infinitesimal into the mix.
Furthermore an infinite amount of line segments of length (1  0.999...), assuming 0.999... = 1, would be of 0 length. This means if 0.999... = 1 then dividing a line into an infinite amount of equal segments would yield an infinite amount of segments of length 0. Since the total line length is the sum of its parts, you would have infinity * 0 = a finite number.
This doesn't prove anything at all. Assume that 1=0.999... and therefore 10.999...=0
Consider the infinite set of line segments [x,x] where 0 < x < 1, then each segment has length 0.
Then their union is (0,1) and has length 1. So this holds anyway and is irrelevant to the discussion.

This thread is full of troll food.
Well, maybe you're not getting anything out of it, but it's given me an excuse to review my books on analysis so I'm happy as a clam.

(snip)
Put another way:
Given a line of finite size, how many times can it be divided? If you say an infinite amount of times, then you are assuming infinitesimally small line segments are possible. You cannot divide the line an infinite amount of times without creating at least one segment with a size of (1  0.999...).
Furthermore an infinite amount of line segments of length (1  0.999...), assuming 0.999... = 1, would be of 0 length. This means if 0.999... = 1 then dividing a line into an infinite amount of equal segments would yield an infinite amount of segments of length 0. Since the total line length is the sum of its parts, you would have infinity * 0 = a finite number.
In other words
0.999... = 1 > infinity * 0 = x  x is some finite number.
You don't understand infinity at all, do you? Hint: there are all kinds of infinities. None of them prove what you want them to prove.
Between the numbers 0 and 0.1 there's an infinite amount of real numbers (not even using repeating decimals, or hyperreality or anything else). And none of them equal the supposed difference between 0.999... and 1.
And your supposed "proof"? Is as contradictory as hell. In one sentence you say, by creating an infinite number of segments from your line you'd create at "least one segment with a size of (1  0.999...).". That sentence means that you are assuming that 1<>0.999... Two sentence later you contradict your own assumption by saying "(...) this means if 0.999... = 1 (...)".
You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If 0.999... is a hyperreal (and obviously a member of R  *R ) then we're cool.
Sorry, this should be *R  R

Well, maybe you're not getting anything out of it, but it's given me an excuse to review my books on analysis so I'm happy as a clam.
Me too. It's just that DigCamara doesn't seem to realise that Narcberry is a troll.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Why? That's the only way I like to have my cake. Doesn't do me a damn bit of good just sitting there in front of me.

of course it doesn't equal one.
but why does it matter?
you'll never have .99999 of anything.
the world, flat and round, works in whole numbers.

let me break this down
1/3=~.33333333
3/3=~.99999999
1=~.999999999
that is the correct answer, not 1=.9999999, that is impossible
1=~.9999999999 (one equals approximately point nine repeating)
in wich case 1 does not equil .9999999

of course it doesn't equal one.
but why does it matter?
you'll never have .99999 of anything.
the world, flat and round, works in whole numbers.
So pi is equal to 3, is it? And I take it that we feel g as exactly 10 m s^{2}?

let me break this down
1/3=~.33333333
3/3=~.99999999
1=~.999999999
that is the correct answer, not 1=.9999999, that is impossible
1=~.9999999999 (one equals approximately point nine repeating)
in wich case 1 does not equil .9999999
1 does not equal 0.9999999, you are correct. However, it does equal 0.999..., where the ellipsis indicates an infinite sequence of 9s.

let me break this down
1/3=~.33333333
3/3=~.99999999
1=~.999999999
that is the correct answer, not 1=.9999999, that is impossible
1=~.9999999999 (one equals approximately point nine repeating)
in which case 1 does not equal .9999999
1 does not equal 0.9999999, you are correct. However, it does equal 0.999..., where the ellipsis indicates an infinite sequence of 9s.
i never said 1=.9999999 i said 1=~.999999999 please note the approximately sign

when do you use pi outside of mathematics and theory?
gravity is relative.

gravity is relative.
(http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/2281/loltrekke3.jpg)

18 pages...
0.99999 != 1
0.999... = 1
[NOTE: THIS POST WILL BE SPAMMABLE SHOULD STUPIDITY CONTINUES BEYOND PAGE 18]

nice whut picture!
but to explain
gravity is relative to where you are.
it changes if i'm here, in space, on mars, on the other side of this flat earth ::), or anywhere else in the universe.
so you can't use that as a constant.

1 does not equal 0.9999999, you are correct. However, it does equal 0.999..., where the ellipsis indicates an infinite sequence of 9s.
i never said 1=.9999999 i said 1=~.999999999 please note the approximately sign
I am well aware of what you said, please note the bolded and enlarged text.
when do you use pi outside of mathematics and theory?
gravity is relative.
You are stupid, please leave and never come back. Thank you.

gravity is relative to where you are.
Sadly, gravity doesn't exist. GTFO and debate in the sticky "gravity".
He's right, you know. The force of gravity you feel is a linear function of your position in the Universe, since there are real numbers a, b, c and d such that:
F_{g} = ax + by + cz + dt

Robosteve is the one who brought up the idea of gravity in this debate, not me.
and Robosteve also dodged the question.

He's right, you know. The force of gravity you feel is a linear function of your position in the Universe, since there are real numbers a, b, c and d such that:
F_{g} = ax + by + cz + dt
I never said he was wrong.

Think of it this way:
the difference between 0.99 and 1 is 0.01
the difference between 0.9999999999 is 0.0000000001
the more 9's there are, the closer to zero the difference becomes
if there are an infinite number of 9's, the difference is infinitely close to zero.
now, ladies and gentlemen, how big is a number infinitely close to zero?
hint: it's fucking zero!
In other words, there is zero difference between 1, and 0.9999999999..........

Robosteve is the one who brought up the idea of gravity in this debate, not me.
I don't believe I did.
and Robosteve also dodged the question.
You don't deserve an answer.

i like this ambiguous guy.
you can't deny that he has a solid point.

of course it doesn't equal one.
but why does it matter?
you'll never have .99999 of anything.
the world, flat and round, works in whole numbers.
So pi is equal to 3, is it? And I take it that we feel g as exactly 10 m s^{2}?
my first post and your reply.
is g not supposed to be gravity?
and 'when do you use pi outside of mathematics and theory' is still left unanswered...

my first post and your reply.
is g not supposed to be gravity?
and 'when do you use pi outside of mathematics and theory' is still left unanswered...
g is the measured value commonly mistakenly referred to as "acceleration due to gravity". Gravity, in actuality, does not exist.
Pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Anywhere that a circle occurs in nature, so does pi.

g is the measured value commonly mistakenly referred to as "acceleration due to gravity". Gravity, in actuality, does not exist.
Evidence?

g is the measured value commonly mistakenly referred to as "acceleration due to gravity". Gravity, in actuality, does not exist.
Evidence?
Yes, yes there is. Ever read up on the theory of relativity?

g is the measured value commonly mistakenly referred to as "acceleration due to gravity". Gravity, in actuality, does not exist.
Evidence?
Yes, yes there is. Ever read up on the theory of relativity?
yep. It doesn't prove that gravity doesn't exist.

Yes it does. It proves that gravity is an imaginary force, cause by the "curvature" in spacetime that is caused by mass. Gravitation, though, is an entirely different thing.

Yes it does. It proves that gravity is an imaginary force, cause by the "curvature" in spacetime that is caused by mass. Gravitation, though, is an entirely different thing.
I guess at this stage we would just be arguing on arbitrary definitions. I'm not sure imaginary is the right word.
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aimaginary&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
# fanciful: not based on fact; unreal;

Well, that's the thing. Gravity is not based in reality. There is no difference between gravity and acceleration.

Well, that's the thing. Gravity is not based in reality. There is no difference between gravity and acceleration.
Gravity is a force that causes acceleration.
It's based on reality because through experimentation, we have verified that it occurs.

We have verified that gravitation does occur, but also that gravity is an imaginary force.

We have verified that gravitation does occur, but also that gravity is an imaginary force.
I still don't agree imaginary is the right word.
It exists; it's just not composed of energy or matter (quantum particles) in the conventional sense, at least according to relativity.

Listen, do you even know the difference between gravitation and gravity? I'm sure there is a thread over here somewhere... I wish narcberry was here, he's a lot better at explaining things like this than me.

Listen, do you even know the difference between gravitation and gravity?
I understand what you're saying. I just don't think "imaginary" is technically the right word. It's close, but not 100%

Well, it doesn't technically exist, so it should be deemed imaginary.

Well, it doesn't technically exist, so it should be deemed imaginary.
define 'exist'
it might not be a physical form, but it has attributes.

Seriously, what we think of as gravity doesn't exist, but is a product of the forces of gravitation. It does have properties, but those are not ascribable to the force of gravity, since it doesn't exist. They are, however, ascribable to gravitation.

Seriously
(http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/301/1219136433564ph9.jpg)
what we think of as gravity doesn't exist, but is a product of the forces of gravitation. It does have properties, but those are not ascribable to the force of gravity, since it doesn't exist.
I still think that depends how you define 'exist'

mmkay. So, how do you define exist?

mmkay. So, how do you define exist?
It's a hard word to define. But I'll have a go: What is.

mmkay. So, how do you define exist?
It's a hard word to define. But I'll have a go: What is.
No, that is a definition of existence.

This thread is a bucket of fail.

mmkay. So, how do you define exist?
It's a hard word to define. But I'll have a go: What is.
No, that is a definition of existence.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.....

This thread is a bucket of fail.
(http://i37.tinypic.com/30acold.jpg)

(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/2607/ouchfailpo0.jpg)

Somebody's in shit.

(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s16/r3v3r3nd_album/fail1.jpg)
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s16/r3v3r3nd_album/fail1.jpg)
Oh, I see why that's a fail! It's because everyone is driving on the wrong side of the road!

(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s16/r3v3r3nd_album/fail1.jpg)
Oh, I see why that's a fail! It's because everyone is driving on the wrong side of the road!
indeed

Wait what...

Wait what...
(Normal people drive on the left. ;))

Wait what...
(Normal people drive on the left. ;))
I know that, but I thought the fail was the stuff on the road...?

Wait what...
(Normal people drive on the left. ;))
I know that, but I thought the fail was the stuff on the road...?
what, you prefer a different kind of beer?

Wait what...
(Normal people RIDE THEIR HORSES WHEN THEY TAKE THEIR TIME MACHINE BACK TO THE FEUDAL AGES on the left. ;))

I think it is a highway, both lanes go in the same direction...

Think of it this way:
the difference between 0.99 and 1 is 0.01
the difference between 0.9999999999 is 0.0000000001
the more 9's there are, the closer to zero the difference becomes
if there are an infinite number of 9's, the difference is infinitely close to zero.
now, ladies and gentlemen, how big is a number infinitely close to zero?
hint: it's fucking zero!
In other words, there is zero difference between 1, and 0.9999999999..........
Then there is no such thing as infinity.

Wait what...
(Normal people drive on the left. ;))
I know that, but I thought the fail was the stuff on the road...?
what, you prefer a different kind of beer?
No, if I drank, I would prefer my beer not scattered on the road.
Wait what...
(Normal people RIDE THEIR HORSES WHEN THEY TAKE THEIR TIME MACHINE BACK TO THE FEUDAL AGES on the left. ;))
I DON'T GET IT.

Wait what...
(Normal people drive on the left. ;))
I know that, but I thought the fail was the stuff on the road...?
what, you prefer a different kind of beer?
No, if I drank, I would prefer my beer not scattered on the road.
But there are unbroken ones...

Well I've given you folk plenty of time to come up with a good argument.
Case closed, 0.9999... != 1
The end.

Think of it this way:
the difference between 0.99 and 1 is 0.01
the difference between 0.9999999999 is 0.0000000001
the more 9's there are, the closer to zero the difference becomes
if there are an infinite number of 9's, the difference is infinitely close to zero.
now, ladies and gentlemen, how big is a number infinitely close to zero?
hint: it's fucking zero!
In other words, there is zero difference between 1, and 0.9999999999..........
Then there is no such thing as infinity.
Are you being serious or are you just trolling and being an ass and watching people clamber to give you all of the evidence of something that's obvious anyways? If you're not kidding, I thought you were smarter than that. If you are trolling, then I commend you, because this thread has gone through twentyfive pages of (presumably) people trying to prove this mathematical fact...
~DDraw

Are you being serious or are you just trolling and being an ass and watching people clamber to give you all of the evidence of something that's obvious anyways? If you're not kidding, I thought you were smarter than that. If you are trolling, then I commend you, because this thread has gone through twentyfive pages of (presumably) people trying to prove this mathematical fact...
~DDraw
It's Narcberry. He's trolling.

People are still posting Here?

People are still posting Here?
What is most amusing about that is that you had to post here to say that.

Think of it this way:
the difference between 0.99 and 1 is 0.01
the difference between 0.9999999999 is 0.0000000001
the more 9's there are, the closer to zero the difference becomes
if there are an infinite number of 9's, the difference is infinitely close to zero.
now, ladies and gentlemen, how big is a number infinitely close to zero?
hint: it's fucking zero!
In other words, there is zero difference between 1, and 0.9999999999..........
Then there is no such thing as infinity.
Are you being serious or are you just trolling and being an ass and watching people clamber to give you all of the evidence of something that's obvious anyways? If you're not kidding, I thought you were smarter than that. If you are trolling, then I commend you, because this thread has gone through twentyfive pages of (presumably) people trying to prove this mathematical fact...
~DDraw
Of course I'm serious. And the only reason there are 25 pages is because it isn't a fact, and no one has been able to show otherwise!

Of course I'm serious. And the only reason there are 25 pages is because it isn't a fact, and no one has been able to show otherwise!
Well, your question is too ambiguous. You haven't said what type of numbers 0.999.. and 1 are. The square root of infinity might make no sense to someone who works with real numbers, but it's perfectly welldefined if you're working with surreals.
IF you cobbled together a definition based on decimal expansions, for example based as a sequence (a,b1,b2,b3,...) of integers, and worked from there, sure, you could get to where (1,0,0,0,..) != (0,9,9,9,...) But you wouldn't have many of the useful properties of the reals, such as bijective correspondence to the number line. Almost every undergrad analysis student thinks of this as an alternative to the cumbersome buildup of the reals from Peano axioms through Dedekind cuts or Cauchy sequences.

All you can do is define what you would do within a finite space. So for any finite x, you would know the digit, and it would be 9. You cannot know that this goes on forever, as that is now combining to uncombinable spaces. Ie, x cannot be infinity, something that is required for 0.999... = 1.

All you can do is define what you would do within a finite space.
You cannot know that this goes on forever, as that is now combining to uncombinable spaces.
Ie, x cannot be infinity, something that is required for 0.999... = 1.
simply stating there can't be infinite 9's doesn't make it so.
So for any finite x, you would know the digit, and it would be 9.
but it's not finite.
Infinite is a valid mathematical idea.
If you don't agree, then what's down the biggest number? write it down.
Now, multiply that number by two.
See where I'm going?

Okay idiot.
In context of zeroply's post, whom I was speaking to, please tell me what the infinity digit of pi is.

It's impossible to know the infinity digit of pi; it doesn't really have an answer. But the infinity digit of .999... is selfevident.

It's impossible to know the infinity digit of pi; it doesn't really have an answer. But the infinity digit of .999... is selfevident.
It seems self evident, but it actually is not. You can only say a finite digit of .999 is 9.

It seems self evident, but it actually is not. You can only say a finite digit of .999 is 9.
But if there is no limit on how high n can be (where n is the number of digits after the radix point) while the digit corresponding to n is still 9, then surely we're just arguing semantics?

(1/3) = .33333333...
(1/3)*3=1
(1/3)+(1/3)+(1/3)=1
(.3333333...)+(.3333333...)+(.3333333...)=1
(.3333333...)+(.3333333...)+(.3333333...)=(.999999...)
(.9999999...)=1

But if there is no limit on how high n can be (where n is the number of digits after the radix point) while the digit corresponding to n is still 9, then surely we're just arguing semantics?
I'm glad you asked, as you are likely to actually read my response:
Consider a line as a set of n segments of equal size. The following formula calculates the length of the line based on n:
Length = n * segmentlength
For any finite n, you will get the exact length of the line, but once you try to use infinity, you will get 0. This is because you cannot use a an infinity in such contexts, as also demonstrated by the "give me the infinity digit of pi". You cannot know the infinity digit or 0.999... but require it to be 9 for 0.999... to equal 1.

But if there is no limit on how high n can be (where n is the number of digits after the radix point) while the digit corresponding to n is still 9, then surely we're just arguing semantics?
I'm glad you asked, as you are likely to actually read my response:
Consider a line as a set of n segments of equal size. The following formula calculates the length of the line based on n:
Length = n * segmentlength
For any finite n, you will get the exact length of the line, but once you try to use infinity, you will get 0. This is because you cannot use a an infinity in such contexts, as also demonstrated by the "give me the infinity digit of pi". You cannot know the infinity digit or 0.999... but require it to be 9 for 0.999... to equal 1.
This isn't practical math, it's number theory, and the number .999... is defined as an infinite number of 9s after the decimal point. Therefore, the infinity digit must be 9, because it's defined to be 9.

Whats the infinity digit of pi?

lol

(1/3) = .33333333...
(1/3)*3=1
(1/3)+(1/3)+(1/3)=1
(.3333333...)+(.3333333...)+(.3333333...)=1
(.3333333...)+(.3333333...)+(.3333333...)=(.999999...)
(.9999999...)=1

lol
Doesn't pi go on forever?

The infinity digit of pi is not defined in the number itself.

The infinity digit of 0.9999... is not defined either, it actually doesn't exist.

You cannot know the infinity digit or 0.999... but require it to be 9 for 0.999... to equal 1.
I don't see why knowing the infinity digit is necessary. Consider this:
Take A_{n} to be the nth element in the sequence 9 * 10^{1} + 9 * 10^{2} + ... + 9 * 10^{n}, where n is a finite positive integer.
Then there is some number B such that A_{n} < B < 1.
But because lim_{n→∞} A_{n} = 1, then there will be some finite positive integer k such that A_{n+k} > B.
Therefore, every number that is less than 1 can be exceeded by A_{n} simply by making n a large enough, but finite, positive integer.
Since to have an infinite number of 9s simply means that no matter how large the number of finite 9s you count, there will always be at least one more, 0.999... = 1.
QED

The infinity digit of 0.9999... is not defined either, it actually doesn't exist.
It doesn't exist in reality, but it is defined. Number theory, narc. Try to keep up.

Couldn't we at least feed narcberry on a more entertaining subject? Another Floating Oceans thread, perhaps?
Besides, I want to expand on my seamill theory...

You cannot know the infinity digit or 0.999... but require it to be 9 for 0.999... to equal 1.
I don't see why knowing the infinity digit is necessary. Consider this:
Take A_{n} to be the nth element in the sequence 9 * 10^{1} + 9 * 10^{2} + ... + 9 * 10^{n}, where n is a finite positive integer.
Then there is some number B such that A_{n} < B < 1.
But because lim_{n→∞} A_{n} = 1, then there will be some finite positive integer k such that A_{n+k} > B.
Therefore, every number that is less than 1 can be exceeded by A_{n} simply by making n a large enough, but finite, positive integer.
Since to have an infinite number of 9s simply means that no matter how large the number of finite 9s you count, there will always be at least one more, 0.999... = 1.
QED
The problem is assuming the limit tells you anything about n = infinity. I've given a simple example where the limit of n as it approaches infinity is completely different than when n actually is infinity. Your limit implies 0.999... = 1 but it does not follow that 0.999... = 1.

The limit says approaching infinity, because at infinity, the answer is undefined.

The limit says approaching infinity, because at infinity, the answer is undefined.
Exactly, a paradox. Your formulae require that n(infinity) = 1, yet n(infinity) = undefined.
This is because the idea of 0.999... is mathematically stupid.

The problem is assuming the limit tells you anything about n = infinity. I've given a simple example where the limit of n as it approaches infinity is completely different than when n actually is infinity. Your limit implies 0.999... = 1 but it does not follow that 0.999... = 1.
I made no such assumption. All I did was state that since A_{n+1} > A_{n} (because A_{n+1} = A_{n} + 9 * 10^{(n+1)}), and since lim_{n→∞} A_{n} = 1, there is always some value k such that if A_{n} < B < 1, then A_{n+k} > B. Therefore, any number less than 1 can be exceeded by increasing n enough, while keeping it finite. Since putting an infinite number of 9s onto the end of A_{n} cannot decrease its value, 0.999... is greater than every number that is less than 1.

Since putting an infinite number of 9s onto the end of A_{n} cannot decrease its value, 0.999... is greater than every number that is less than 1.
Actually, if I'm reading it correctly you've shown that 0.999... is greater than or equal to every number less than 1. You are assuming that you're working in a group which is topologically continuous, but not showing it.
So suppose we defined a real number as a sequence (n,d1,d2,d3,...) where n is an integer and d1,d2,d3,... are integers such that 0<=d_{i}<=9. You can work out operations to define a+b, a*b, etc. and the zero of the group would be (0,0,0,...)
Define (a,n1,n2,n3,...)=(b,m1,m2,m3,...) iff a=b, n1=m1, n2=m2, etc.
In that case we have (0,9,9,9,...) and (1,0,0,0,...) as distinct elements.

Exactly.
0.999... != 1

I have no clue why I still look at this thread.

Actually, if I'm reading it correctly you've shown that 0.999... is greater than or equal to every number less than 1. You are assuming that you're working in a group which is topologically continuous, but not showing it.
So suppose we defined a real number as a sequence (n,d1,d2,d3,...) where n is an integer and d1,d2,d3,... are integers such that 0<=d_{i}<=9. You can work out operations to define a+b, a*b, etc. and the zero of the group would be (0,0,0,...)
Define (a,n1,n2,n3,...)=(b,m1,m2,m3,...) iff a=b, n1=m1, n2=m2, etc.
In that case we have (0,9,9,9,...) and (1,0,0,0,...) as distinct elements.
But in that case, you would need to know the infinity digit of 0.999... to comment on its equality to 1. That system doesn't work with infinite series.

Actually, if I'm reading it correctly you've shown that 0.999... is greater than or equal to every number less than 1. You are assuming that you're working in a group which is topologically continuous, but not showing it.
So suppose we defined a real number as a sequence (n,d1,d2,d3,...) where n is an integer and d1,d2,d3,... are integers such that 0<=d_{i}<=9. You can work out operations to define a+b, a*b, etc. and the zero of the group would be (0,0,0,...)
Define (a,n1,n2,n3,...)=(b,m1,m2,m3,...) iff a=b, n1=m1, n2=m2, etc.
In that case we have (0,9,9,9,...) and (1,0,0,0,...) as distinct elements.
But in that case, you would need to know the infinity digit of 0.999... to comment on its equality to 1. That system doesn't work with infinite series.
You wouldn't need to any more than you would working with regular arithmetic sequences. The sequence (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,...) is welldefined but doesn't have any terminal digit. You don't even need a repeating pattern, consider (1,2,1,1,2,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,2,...) which is perfectly well defined.
Since I already know that the first few terms are different, I can immediately say that 1 != 0.999... since we have that iff in there. If you know that the 44th terms don't match, you don't need to compare any further.
Addition and subtraction would be easy to implement, and multiplication shouldn't be too difficult either if you want to write out the rules involved.
Obviously I realize that the resulting structure wouldn't actually match the real numbers and eventually you'd run into all sorts of problems with the topology. Still, it would be fun to work out how far you could go based on that construction. I believe that's the naive view that Narc has of the reals  and it's what would seem obvious to someone who hasn't taken elementary analysis.

So if you agree that 0.999... != 1, what are you guys debating?

I have no clue why I still look at this thread.

I have no clue why I still look at this thread.
Then please, for the love of God, stop posting in it.

Coming back from the raist/hara/mod derailment....
We left off at:
So if you agree that 0.999... != 1, what are you guys debating?

What's up with the factorial at the end?
0.999...! does equal one, but that's not what we're discussing.
...is it?

You misread
0.999... != 1
!= is used to say not equal.

No, hun, that's what this is for: ≠.

!=
≠
<>
Most of us are multilingual in mathematics and science, sorry Muffz, you're just an idiot.

Never seen that before... weird.
But, 0.(9) = 1

HA even someone as genius as Trekky didn't know, so I am not an idiot!

HA even someone as genius as Trekky didn't know, so I am not an idiot!
I must be even "more genius" than Trekky, since I knew about it.

Why the fuck is this thread still going?
0.9999 (recurring) =1
end of.

It is still going because people cant just give in to the mathematical facts.
0.999... requires an infinite amount of 9's
whereas 1 requires none
How are these identical?

Why the fuck is this thread still going?

Why the fuck is this thread still going?
0.9999 (recurring) =1
end of.
We're defining "Narcberry numbers" as sequences (a,d1,d2,d3,...) where a is an integer and d1,d2,d3,... are integers such that 0 <= d_{i }<= 9
Then we have (a,n1,n2,n3,...) = (b,m1,m2,m3,...) iff a=b, n1=m1, n2=m2, etc.
Arithmetic operations are based on carrying digits etc.
Since (0,9,9,9,...) != (1,0,0,0,...) the challenge is to prove that Narcberry numbers are fundamentally different from the reals and show how. Extra credit points if you can identify a number system that bijectively maps to Narcberry numbers.

It is still going because people cant just give in to the mathematical facts.
0.999... requires an infinite amount of 9's
whereas 1 requires none
How are these identical?
f(x)=1/(1x)
if i start at 0.9 and then I keep adding nines to the end of it at what point does the function become undefined?

HA even someone as genius as Trekky didn't know, so I am not an idiot!
I must be even "more genius" than Trekky, since I knew about it.
As did I. It's used in pretty much all decent programming languages. The ones that suck use <>, which just looks ugly.

f(x)=1/(1x)
if i start at 0.9 and then I keep adding nines to the end of it at what point does the function become undefined?
Well, f(x) is going to be in the reals no matter how many 9s you add. But f(1) is not a real.
So are you arguing that f(0.999...) != f(1)? Whose side are you on anyways?

f(x)=1/(1x)
if i start at 0.9 and then I keep adding nines to the end of it at what point does the function become undefined?
Well, f(x) is going to be in the reals no matter how many 9s you add. But f(1) is not a real.
So are you arguing that f(0.999...) != f(1)? Whose side are you on anyways?
The wrong one, as usual.

f(x) = 1 / (x^{0}  1)
If I start at f(0.9) and keep adding nines to the end at what point does the function become undefined?

f(x) = 1 / (x^{0}  1)
If I start at f(0.9) and keep adding nines to the end at what point does the function become undefined?
I am going to say 1 nine

f(x)=1/(1x)
if i start at 0.9 and then I keep adding nines to the end of it at what point does the function become undefined?
Well, f(x) is going to be in the reals no matter how many 9s you add. But f(1) is not a real.
So are you arguing that f(0.999...) != f(1)? Whose side are you on anyways?
just looking for clarification

When there's a whole lot of them! ;D

f(x)=1/(1x)
if i start at 0.9 and then I keep adding nines to the end of it at what point does the function become undefined?
Well, f(x) is going to be in the reals no matter how many 9s you add. But f(1) is not a real.
So are you arguing that f(0.999...) != f(1)? Whose side are you on anyways?
just looking for clarification
f(1) is approaching zero.

f(1) is approaching zero.
Huh??

As x nears one,
F(x) approaches zero.
F(1) is zero.

As x nears one,
F(x) approaches zero.
F(1) is zero.
f(x) = 1/(1x)
then f(1) = 1/(11) = 1/0
So now in addition to 0.999... = 1 you're also claiming that 1/0 = 0??
This thread just keeps getting weirder and weirder...

As x nears one,
F(x) approaches zero.
F(1) is zero.
f(x) = 1/(1x)
then f(1) = 1/(11) = 1/0
So now in addition to 0.999... = 1 you're also claiming that 1/0 = 0??
This thread just keeps getting weirder and weirder...
I said that?
No I didn't. Google what limits are.
Take calculus.

As x nears one,
F(x) approaches zero.
F(1) is zero.
f(x) = 1/(1x)
then f(1) = 1/(11) = 1/0
So now in addition to 0.999... = 1 you're also claiming that 1/0 = 0??
This thread just keeps getting weirder and weirder...
I said that?
No I didn't. Google what limits are.
Take calculus.
I think he was referring to your answer to f(1)

(http://i28.tinypic.com/2wdrgjp.jpg)

As x nears one,
F(x) approaches zero.
F(1) is zero.
No, lim_{x→1} f(x) = ∞.

As x nears one,
F(x) approaches zero.
F(1) is zero.
but doesnt that equal 1
No, lim_{x→1} f(x) = ∞.

So now in addition to 0.999... = 1 you're also claiming that 1/0 = 0??
This thread just keeps getting weirder and weirder...
I said that?
No I didn't. Google what limits are.
Take calculus.
Well, Robosteve is using all the shiny calculus a few posts up, and he doesn't seem to be getting f(1) = 0
Why can't you REers just admit when you're wrong? Instead of clinging onto hopelessly indefensible positions such as 1/0=0?

If 1/0 = 0, then 0^{2} = 1. WTF?! ???

If 1/0 = 0, then 0^{2} = 1. WTF?! ???
1/0 equals undefined. we don't know what it equals.

If 1/0 = 0, then 0^{2} = 1. WTF?! ???
1/0 equals undefined. we don't know what it equals.
Then how can f(1) equal zero?

If 1/0 = 0, then 0^{2} = 1. WTF?! ???
1/0 equals undefined. we don't know what it equals.
Then how can f(1) equal zero?
It's because as x gets close to 0+, f(x) gets larger and larger. So we can write it as ...999999.0 which is the same as 0 when you have an infinite number of nines.
This thread has become the highlight of my day. I wish it had been around when I was in grad school.

As x nears one,
F(x) approaches zero.
F(1) is zero.
No, lim_{x→1} f(x) = ∞.
Ok, lol i checked this thread while not drunk finally. Lol. It is (infinity symbol). My bad. I didn't realize it was approaching infinity.

(1/3)+((1/3)/3)=10
So to me 9.9999.. does not equal 10
ps I <3 brackets

(1/3) / 3 = (1/9)
(1/3) + (1/9) = (4/9)
You fail.

sadly not i tried it on a calculater and it worked, please explain to me that?

Enter this into any calculator
(1/3) + ((1/3)/3)
You will get 0.444...
Google Calculator Result (http://www.google.com/search?q=%281%2F3%29+%2B+%28%281%2F3%29%2F3%29&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:enUS:official&client=firefoxa)

(1/3)+((1/3)/3)=10
This is some fucking epic win.
Also, ogeitla won't be responding to you for the next two days, Trekky.

What was the reason for the ban? Bad math.

What was the reason for the ban? Bad math.
This. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22853.msg475573#msg475573)

At TFES we lay them on the table and measure. :D

At TFES we lay them on the table and measure. :D
It was declared, let there be sig! And it was good.

:o

So who wins?

So who wins?
Another win for FE.

So who wins?
Another win for FE.
I will write up the theory of Narcberry numbers and submit to the Banach Journal of Mathematical Analysis. Now that we know that there are systems where 0.999... != 1.000..., I am sure there will be emerging applications in engineering and so forth.

I think narcberry is the obvious winner of this thread.

So who wins?
Another win for FE.
I will write up the theory of Narcberry numbers and submit to the Banach Journal of Mathematical Analysis. Now that we know that there are systems where 0.999... != 1.000..., I am sure there will be emerging applications in engineering and so forth.
Since engineering uses only certain amounts of significant figures, any nonterminating decimal is simply rounded.

I think narcberry is the obvious winner of every thread
Fix'd.

I think narcberry is the obvious winner of every thread
Fix'd.
Seconded.

Whether you agree with narc or not, you must admit, he kept this thread going for thirty pages just by posting "No, 1 is still more than 0.9999999..." at intervals and getting other people to argue over it indefinitely. These weren't even noobs he was trolling either; the majority were regulars who know how big of a troll he is and yet fed him anyway.
This is why narc wins and will always win.

This is why narc wins and will always win.
Two words: Floating oceans.

Exactly.

This is why narc wins and will always win.
Two words: Floating oceans.
Epic thread.

Trekky i believe we are the only two in this thread that could have actually seen it while it was being written in.
I loved the 1 rain drop + 1 rain drop = 1 rain drop.

I agree with the topic title.
.99999 =! 1.
but.
.999... = 1.
That's all.

I agree with the topic title.
.99999 =! 1.
but.
.999... = 1.
That's all.
Yep.

Trekky i believe we are the only two in this thread that could have actually seen it while it was being written in.
I loved the 1 rain drop + 1 rain drop = 1 rain drop.
I remember making diagrams for that thread. ;D

the 1 cup + 1 cup = 2 cup diagram? I remember reading it.

Could we perhaps attain light speed if we travelled at 2.999...x10^8 m.s?

Could we perhaps attain light speed if we travelled at 2.999...x10^8 m.s?
Ahah, winner!

Could we perhaps attain light speed if we travelled at 2.999...x10^8 m.s?
No, but you would surpass it....

Could we perhaps attain light speed if we travelled at 2.999...x10^8 m.s?
No, but you would surpass it....
What he said.

Could we perhaps attain light speed if we travelled at 299792457.999...m/s?
Is this better?

Could we perhaps attain light speed if we travelled at 2.999...x10^8 m.s?
You mean 299,792,457m/s?

Lol. I love when a smart comment goes wrong.

Indeed, 0.9999 does not equal 1 so we have to wonder what this thread is all about. ;)
If we consider the real question  does 0.999... equal 1 then I have just one thing to say:
If it doesn't, give me the number in between. :P
Of course, there are 31 pages in this thread and someone may have said this already.

Indeed, 0.9999 does not equal 1 so we have to wonder what this thread is all about. ;)
If we consider the real question  does 0.999... equal 1 then I have just one thing to say:
If it doesn't, give me the number in between. :P
Of course, there are 31 pages in this thread and someone may have said this already.
I put it slightly more formally a few pages back. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21984.msg463708#msg463708)

Indeed, 0.9999 does not equal 1 so we have to wonder what this thread is all about. ;)
If we consider the real question  does 0.999... equal 1 then I have just one thing to say:
If it doesn't, give me the number in between. :P
Of course, there are 31 pages in this thread and someone may have said this already.
Well, there's no integer in between 5 and 6  so are you claiming 5=6?
Why does there have to be a number in between 0.999... and 1? Maybe 1 is right above 0.999...

Indeed, 0.9999 does not equal 1 so we have to wonder what this thread is all about. ;)
If we consider the real question  does 0.999... equal 1 then I have just one thing to say:
If it doesn't, give me the number in between. :P
Of course, there are 31 pages in this thread and someone may have said this already.
Well, there's no integer in between 5 and 6  so are you claiming 5=6?
Why does there have to be a number in between 0.999... and 1? Maybe 1 is right above 0.999...
I did not say integer, I said number. However, I take your point and should have been more specific and used the term real number.

Indeed, 0.9999 does not equal 1 so we have to wonder what this thread is all about. ;)
If we consider the real question  does 0.999... equal 1 then I have just one thing to say:
If it doesn't, give me the number in between. :P
Of course, there are 31 pages in this thread and someone may have said this already.
Well, there's no integer in between 5 and 6  so are you claiming 5=6?
Why does there have to be a number in between 0.999... and 1? Maybe 1 is right above 0.999...
I did not say integer, I said number. However, I take your point and should have been more specific and used the term real number.
Well, then you need to prove that between any two real numbers there's a third and distinct one. Obviously your claim works for some types of number systems and not for others, so you need to show it works for the reals in particular. For all I know the reals work just like the integers.
Tread carefully  in the hyperreal numbers for instance the smallest number greater than zero is quite well defined. There is no number between it and 0.

The real number system, to the best of my knowledge, consists of all points that make up the number line. Since a line is continuous and infinite, the interval joining any two distinct points on it must be able to be bisected to give a number in between, and therefore any two distinct real numbers must have another real number between them.

Indeed, 0.9999 does not equal 1 so we have to wonder what this thread is all about. ;)
If we consider the real question  does 0.999... equal 1 then I have just one thing to say:
If it doesn't, give me the number in between. :P
Of course, there are 31 pages in this thread and someone may have said this already.
Well, there's no integer in between 5 and 6  so are you claiming 5=6?
Why does there have to be a number in between 0.999... and 1? Maybe 1 is right above 0.999...
I did not say integer, I said number. However, I take your point and should have been more specific and used the term real number.
Well, then you need to prove that between any two real numbers there's a third and distinct one. Obviously your claim works for some types of number systems and not for others, so you need to show it works for the reals in particular. For all I know the reals work just like the integers.
Tread carefully  in the hyperreal numbers for instance the smallest number greater than zero is quite well defined. There is no number between it and 0.
There are infinite real numbers between any two numbers.

There are infinite real numbers between any two numbers.
What about between i and √2[cos(π/4) + i sin(π/4)]?

There are infinite real numbers between any two numbers.
What about between i and √2[cos(π/4) + i sin(π/4)]?
I is imaginary. I said real numbers.

I is imaginary. I said real numbers.
You said:
There are infinite real numbers between any two numbers.
Both of the numbers I gave were indeed numbers, and according to you should therefore have infinite real numbers between them.

The real number system, to the best of my knowledge, consists of all points that make up the number line. Since a line is continuous and infinite, the interval joining any two distinct points on it must be able to be bisected to give a number in between, and therefore any two distinct real numbers must have another real number between them.
Proof please. Not being facetious  ancients thought any point on the number line could be represented by a fraction. Obviously that doesn't work. Why are reals the magic number system that matches up with the number line?
There are infinite real numbers between any two numbers.
Proof please. I'll assume you mean real numbers. Again, this is not obvious. It certainly doesn't hold for hyperreals as I mentioned earlier.

I is imaginary. I said real numbers.
You said:
There are infinite real numbers between any two numbers.
Both of the numbers I gave were indeed numbers, and according to you should therefore have infinite real numbers between them.
You did get me there. I meant infinite real numbers between and two real numbers. Thanks for catching that. 9 am classes after drinking the night before.... Raist is not all the way here today.

Imaginary numbers are assholes.

Proof please. Not being facetious  ancients thought any point on the number line could be represented by a fraction. Obviously that doesn't work. Why are reals the magic number system that matches up with the number line?
Isn't that how real numbers are defined?

Proof please. Not being facetious  ancients thought any point on the number line could be represented by a fraction. Obviously that doesn't work. Why are reals the magic number system that matches up with the number line?
Isn't that how real numbers are defined?
I've never seen a definition based on a number line. How would you go about labeling the points anyway? To the uninformed it might look like the rational numbers would be the logical outcome of labeling every point on the line, since I can generate as fine a ruler as I want just using fractions.

Proof please. Not being facetious  ancients thought any point on the number line could be represented by a fraction. Obviously that doesn't work. Why are reals the magic number system that matches up with the number line?
Isn't that how real numbers are defined?
I've never seen a definition based on a number line. How would you go about labeling the points anyway? To the uninformed it might look like the rational numbers would be the logical outcome of labeling every point on the line, since I can generate as fine a ruler as I want just using fractions.
Really? So you couldn't graph the point where Pi is located? You couldn't graph the point 1/3? Also you can label every single real number. And between every single real number is an infinite set of real numbers.

Really? So you couldn't graph the point where Pi is located? You couldn't graph the point 1/3? Also you can label every single real number. And between every single real number is an infinite set of real numbers.
1/3 is rational. Also, he does have a point: between any two rational numbers is an infinite set of rational numbers. That doesn't change the fact that 0.999... = 1, though, because the rationals are just a subset of the reals.

Really? So you couldn't graph the point where Pi is located? You couldn't graph the point 1/3? Also you can label every single real number. And between every single real number is an infinite set of real numbers.
1/3 is rational. Also, he does have a point: between any two rational numbers is an infinite set of rational numbers. That doesn't change the fact that 0.999... = 1, though, because the rationals are just a subset of the reals.
Easy rebuttal in so many other ways too  e.g. show me how you're going to graph the point 0.999... Remember, you can't have an infinite construction since it never ends. Otherwise I can show you how to graph infinity, which you would admit is not a real number.
How are you going to plot pi? Remember, you can't use analysis since that depends on having the foundation in place. I can see doing algebraic numbers, but transcendentals will be quite difficult. How about 1.12345678910111213141516...? If you can't plot that then I can claim it's not a real number.
Construction is everything. Under the Narcberry numbers construction (based on decimal expansions), 0.999... != 1

Easy rebuttal in so many other ways too  e.g. show me how you're going to graph the point 0.999... Remember, you can't have an infinite construction since it never ends. Otherwise I can show you how to graph infinity, which you would admit is not a real number.
It is not possible to graph infinity on an infinite number line.
How are you going to plot pi?
By rolling a unit circle exactly once to the right starting from zero.
How about 1.12345678910111213141516...? If you can't plot that then I can claim it's not a real number.
There's probably a way to plot it. I don't know what it is, though.

Easy rebuttal in so many other ways too  e.g. show me how you're going to graph the point 0.999... Remember, you can't have an infinite construction since it never ends. Otherwise I can show you how to graph infinity, which you would admit is not a real number.
It is not possible to graph infinity on an infinite number line.
That's my point. How are you going to graph 0.999... in a finite number of steps?
How are you going to plot pi?
By rolling a unit circle exactly once to the right starting from zero.
Doesn't work. You need to prove that a unit circle has the same number of points as a line. For all I know the unit circle only includes rational points. You need to do a compass and straightedge construction and I can tell you right now you won't be able to do it.
How about 1.12345678910111213141516...? If you can't plot that then I can claim it's not a real number.
There's probably a way to plot it. I don't know what it is, though.
You have to come up with a universal plotting system whereby if I give you any decimal expansion n1.d1d2d3... you can translate that into a point on the number line. Otherwise I can just say that some numbers can't be plotted, that 0.999... is one of those numbers, and therefore doesn't work the way you think it does as far as the rest of your claims based on the number line.

So you can graph 1/3 right?
can you graph .333333..... ?

You have to come up with a universal plotting system whereby if I give you any decimal expansion n1.d1d2d3... you can translate that into a point on the number line. Otherwise I can just say that some numbers can't be plotted, that 0.999... is one of those numbers, and therefore doesn't work the way you think it does as far as the rest of your claims based on the number line.
Hmm... that would be easy in binary, but I'm not sure if there's a way to quintisect an interval.

You have to come up with a universal plotting system whereby if I give you any decimal expansion n1.d1d2d3... you can translate that into a point on the number line. Otherwise I can just say that some numbers can't be plotted, that 0.999... is one of those numbers, and therefore doesn't work the way you think it does as far as the rest of your claims based on the number line.
Hmm... that would be easy in binary, but I'm not sure if there's a way to quintisect an interval.
You can convert the decimal sequence into a binary one without a foul since it's a clear bijective correspondence between the two sequences. I don't think that will help you any, because the construction sequence still has to be finite. Otherwise I can plot all sorts of interesting things that are not real numbers, such as positive infinity.
The best test case for your algorithm would be 0.12345678910111213141516... I didn't think that up though  it's called Champernowne's number if you want to look it up. It's a perfectly well defined real number so you should be able to plot it.

As an aside, when you convert Champernowne's number into binary, you get a number that has every possible finite binary string embedded within it somewhere. If you digitized a picture of your grandmother and looked at the sequences of 1's and 0's, it is guaranteed to appear somewhere in the expansion. So does every poem, phone number, and work of Shakespeare.
Before anyone brings up the fact that pi behaves the same way, let me point out that no one has actually proved that yet.

You can convert the decimal sequence into a binary one without a foul since it's a clear bijective correspondence between the two sequences. I don't think that will help you any, because the construction sequence still has to be finite. Otherwise I can plot all sorts of interesting things that are not real numbers, such as positive infinity.
Ah, oops. The method I had in mind for binary would only work for nonrepeating rational binary numbers.

18 pages...
0.99999 != 1
0.999... = 1
[NOTE: THIS POST WILL BE SPAMMABLE SHOULD STUPIDITY CONTINUES BEYOND PAGE 18]

18 pages...
0.99999 != 1
0.999... = 1
[NOTE: THIS POST WILL BE SPAMMABLE SHOULD STUPIDITY CONTINUES BEYOND PAGE 18]
This is a legitimate argument. Unless you have some serious cred in analysis you're just trolling.
99% of the people out there who've taken calculus don't have a good grasp of the real numbers. I'm still waiting on a response as to how 0.999... = 1 if both are Narcberry numbers based on a decimal expansion definition.

You can convert the decimal sequence into a binary one without a foul since it's a clear bijective correspondence between the two sequences. I don't think that will help you any, because the construction sequence still has to be finite. Otherwise I can plot all sorts of interesting things that are not real numbers, such as positive infinity.
Ah, oops. The method I had in mind for binary would only work for nonrepeating rational binary numbers.
I think we can actually cover all algebraic numbers easily since we can deal with square roots and sums. The problem is when you hit the transcendentals  especially for nonnormal numbers such as Champernowne's.

(1/3) / 3 = (1/9)
(1/3) + (1/9) = (4/9)
You fail.
it was in base 0.4 in a world in which 10 =1. I am winner

Sorry folks, the longer you talk about it, the more obvious 0.999... cannot equal 1.

you can if you live in on flat earth, because pixies will let you. If you live in the real world then no

Seriously RE'ers, when you start talking about pixies, you should probably leave the debate quietly.

why are we lumped together? we are all different, unless you are saying that all fes are the same..hmmm

Maybe I shouldn't generalize. I meant:
When you start talking about pixies, you should probably leave the debate quietly.
This still means you.

why are we lumped together? we are all different, unless you are saying that all fes are the same..hmmm
Hey, we call them pixies, you call them gravitons...potato potatto...

fair enough. seems reasonable to me

Are we going to break a floating oceans record?

Are we going to break a floating oceans record?
I'm still waiting for a response to my previous stuff. Narcberry numbers work great for day to day operations. For all we know they may be the same as the reals.

Umm, why the big debate about something as pointless as this??

Umm, why the big debate about something as pointless as this??
Why post here if you think it's so pointless?

Umm, why the big debate about something as pointless as this??
Why post here if you think it's so pointless?
*shrug* Well, this whole site is kinda pointless, but we all post here anyway cuz it's slightly addicting in an odd way.

3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1
Nope. Its just a flaw in the notation.

Nope. Its just a flaw in the notation.
33 pages, Narc banned, and still people are saying this.

3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1
Nope. Its just a flaw in the notation.
Wrong. Use a calculator and do (1/3). Then do (1/3)*3.

Nope. Its just a flaw in the notation.
33 pages, Narc banned, and still people are saying this.
Narc's banned? Fer serious?

Yup.

Narc's banned? Fer serious?
Yeah, for thirty days. He derailed a thread in D&D.

Narc's banned? Fer serious?
Yeah, for thirty days. He derailed a thread in D&D.
It wasn't for the derail. It was for telling someone to have retard babies and die. Let's keep the story straight.

It wasn't for the derail. It was for telling someone to have retard babies and die. Let's keep the story straight.
More specifically, for doing so while derailing a thread in D&D. Nobody would have cared if he'd said it in Complete Nonsense or Angry Ranting, or possibly even General Discussion.

All .9999...=1 means is that the limit, as the number of 9's increases without bound, equals 1.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/f/a/6fa510b44742046a167b4b8515162825.png)
LOL, we did that proof in university... I love that one...

All .9999...=1 means is that the limit, as the number of 9's increases without bound, equals 1.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/f/a/6fa510b44742046a167b4b8515162825.png)
LOL, we did that proof in university... I love that one...
You're just using circular logic here anyway. You haven't proved that lim _{n>inf} 1 / 10^{n} is 0. What if it's a really really small number that's immediately above 0?

You're just using circular logic here anyway. You haven't proved that lim n>inf 1 / 10n is 0. What if it's a really really small number that's immediately above 0?
Deltaepsilon proof, if you really need it.

You're just using circular logic here anyway. You haven't proved that lim n>inf 1 / 10n is 0. What if it's a really really small number that's immediately above 0?
Deltaepsilon proof, if you really need it.
Sure, throw it my way. I want to see how you get the above result without assuming exactly what we are in the middle of debating.
If we define real numbers as any decimal expansion, then this wouldn't hold.

You're just using circular logic here anyway. You haven't proved that lim n>inf 1 / 10n is 0. What if it's a really really small number that's immediately above 0?
Deltaepsilon proof, if you really need it.
Sure, throw it my way. I want to see how you get the above result without assuming exactly what we are in the middle of debating.
If we define real numbers as any decimal expansion, then this wouldn't hold.
You aren't considering that numbers only exist in the outside world. Inside, however, no one can possibly penetrate my arsenal, which is not at all equal to zero, as you suggest.

If we define real numbers as any decimal expansion, then this wouldn't hold.
And then π wouldn't be a real number.

Can we please let this die?

You're just using circular logic here anyway. You haven't proved that lim n>inf 1 / 10n is 0. What if it's a really really small number that's immediately above 0?
Deltaepsilon proof, if you really need it.
Sure, throw it my way. I want to see how you get the above result without assuming exactly what we are in the middle of debating.
If we define real numbers as any decimal expansion, then this wouldn't hold.
OK, if this really is a problem for you.
A limit of a sequence is defined as follows. L is the limit of a sequence, x_{n}, if and only if for every ε > 0, there exists an N such that for any positive integer n greater than N x_{n}L< ε. Setting L = 0 and x_{n} = 1/10^{n}, we obtain the following statement to that we need to prove.
Proposition: For any ε > 0, there exists an N such that for any positive integer n greater than N 1/10^{n}< ε.
Proof: Let N = log_{10} ε. This defines an N for any ε > 0. It can be shown that 1/10^{n}< ε for all n > N.
It is given that n > N. Subtituting N = log_{10} ε, we have
n > log_{10} ε.
We can solve for ε, to find
1/10^{n} < ε.
Taking the absolute value, we have
1/10^{n} < ε
since ε=ε because ε > 0.
Thus, we have shown for any ε > 0 there exists an N such that for any n > N, 1/10^{n} < ε namely N = log_{10} ε. The proposition is proven and the limit is 0.
Can we please let this die?
No.

.99999999...... does not equal 1. No matter how infinitely small the gap between .999999..... and 1 gets, it will never get there due to its infinite nature.

.99999999...... does not equal 1. No matter how infinitely small the gap between .999999..... and 1 gets, it will never get there due to its infinite nature.
Wrong.
Take A_{n} to be the nth element in the sequence 9 * 10^{1} + 9 * 10^{2} + ... + 9 * 10^{n}, where n is a finite positive integer.
Then there is some number B such that A_{n} < B < 1.
But because lim_{n→∞} A_{n} = 1, then there will be some finite positive integer k such that A_{n+k} > B.
Therefore, every number that is less than 1 can be exceeded by A_{n} simply by making n a large enough, but finite, positive integer.
Since to have an infinite number of 9s simply means that no matter how large the number of finite 9s you count, there will always be at least one more, 0.999... = 1.
QED

Since to have an infinite number of 9s simply means that no matter how large the number of finite 9s you count, there will always be at least one more,
Thank you for proving my point. There will always be one more 9.

Thank you for proving my point. There will always be one more 9.
I don't think you realise the implications of that. It doesn't support your point at all.

Yes it does.

Yes it does.
How?

When narcberry gets back, he's going to be fapping over how you guys have kept his shit going...

Yes it does.
How?
Does .9 equal 1.0?

Does .9 equal 1.0?
It doesn't.

Does .9 equal 1.0?
It doesn't.
Does .99 equal 1.0?

Does .99 equal 1.0?
No.

Does .99 equal 1.0?
No.
Does .999 equal 1.0?

Does .999 equal 1.0?
No.

More floating ocean threads, pleaze.

Does .999 equal 1.0?
No.
Does .99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999 equal 1.0?

Does .99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999 equal 1.0?
No.

Keep adding a 9 to that number and tell me when the answer becomes yes.

Keep adding a 9 to that number and tell me when the answer becomes yes.
Never.

Since to have an infinite number of 9s simply means that no matter how large the number of finite 9s you count, there will always be at least one more,
Thank you for proving my point. There will always be one more 9.

You don't seem to understand what the notation "0.999..." means.

Why don't you just ask yourself what your limit of accuracy needs to be?
0.9 with 10^99 nines isn't = 1 but would it be accurate enough for your purpose? Whatever that is?
Even if something is not equal, you may be able to consider it equal depending on your problem.

More floating ocean threads, pleaze.

Why don't you just ask yourself what your limit of accuracy needs to be?
0.9 with 10^99 nines isn't = 1 but would it be accurate enough for your purpose? Whatever that is?
Even if something is not equal, you may be able to consider it equal depending on your problem.
For the purposes of this discussion, I am speaking of absolute equality.

Keep adding a 9 to that number and tell me when the answer becomes yes.
Never.
You don't seem to understand what the notation "0.999..." means.
Since to have an infinite number of 9s simply means that no matter how large the number of finite 9s you count, there will always be at least one more,
Thank you for proving my point. There will always be one more 9.

0.999... does not belong in the sequence to which this post referred:
Keep adding a 9 to that number and tell me when the answer becomes yes.
Never.

0.999... does not belong in the sequence to which this post referred:
Keep adding a 9 to that number and tell me when the answer becomes yes.
Never.
.999... does not equal an infinite number of 9s?

.999... does not equal an infinite number of 9s?
It does. That is why it does not belong in a sequence of numbers which all contain finite numbers of 9s.

Keep adding a 9 to that number and tell me when the answer becomes yes.

Keep adding a 9 to that number and tell me when the answer becomes yes.
No matter how many 9s are added, there is still a finite number of them, and it does not equal 1.

Wardogg, Osama is actually correct on this one, sorry... Wiki even has an article specifically on this problem.
In other words, the notations "0.999…" and "1" represent the same real number.

Does 0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 equal 1?
Keep adding a 9 to that number and tell me when the answer becomes yes.
9.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
nope
18.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
nope
27.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
nope
36.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
nope
45.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
nope
54.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
nope
63.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
nope
81.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
...shit, I add two 9s at the same time. My bad.

Fail

Then why did you post this?
.99999999...... does not equal 1. No matter how infinitely small the gap between .999999..... and 1 gets, it will never get there due to its infinite nature.
Wrong.

Then why did you post this?
.99999999...... does not equal 1. No matter how infinitely small the gap between .999999..... and 1 gets, it will never get there due to its infinite nature.
Wrong.
Because zero point a finite number of nines does not equal zerio point an infinite number of nines. It's not that hard to understand.

Then why did you post this?
.99999999...... does not equal 1. No matter how infinitely small the gap between .999999..... and 1 gets, it will never get there due to its infinite nature.
Wrong.
Because zero point a finite number of nines does not equal zerio point an infinite number of nines. It's not that hard to understand.
I agree.
.999.... does not equal 1 there is ALWAYS one more 9.

Learn the definition of infinite.

Learn the definition of infinite.
It goes on forever without stopping.

Wardogg, Osama is actually correct on this one, sorry... Wiki even has an article specifically on this problem.
In other words, the notations "0.999…" and "1" represent the same real number.
Also:
Skepticism in education
Students of mathematics often reject the equality of 0.999… and 1, for reasons ranging from their disparate appearance to deep misgivings over the limit concept and disagreements over the nature of infinitesimals. There are many common contributing factors to the confusion:
* Students are often "mentally committed to the notion that a number can be represented in one and only one way by a decimal." Seeing two manifestly different decimals representing the same number appears to be a paradox, which is amplified by the appearance of the seemingly wellunderstood number 1.[33]
* Some students interpret "0.999…" (or similar notation) as a large but finite string of 9s, possibly with a variable, unspecified length. If they accept an infinite string of nines, they may still expect a last 9 "at infinity".[34]
* Intuition and ambiguous teaching lead students to think of the limit of a sequence as a kind of infinite process rather than a fixed value, since a sequence need not reach its limit. Where students accept the difference between a sequence of numbers and its limit, they might read "0.999…" as meaning the sequence rather than its limit.[35]
* Some students regard 0.999… as having a fixed value which is less than 1 by an infinitesimal but nonzero amount.
* Some students believe that the value of a convergent series is at best an approximation, that 0.999... \approx 1.
You're not the only one that has this conceptual difficulty wardogg, but you have to accept that you are wrong.

It goes on forever without stopping.
Thus, you can correct your mistake here,
.999.... does not equal 1 there is ALWAYS one more 9.

There is a distance of 8 feet. And to cover that distance an object traveled half its distance remaining to the destination in one jump. IE jumps 4ft then 2ft then 1 ft then .5ft... when would that object finally reach its destination?

That's a finite range with an infinite number of scenarios through division. We are talking about infinite range.
Oh, and you ignored this part,
It goes on forever without stopping.
Thus, you can correct your mistake here,
.999.... does not equal 1 there is ALWAYS one more 9.

Assuming a constant rate of jumping, never.
You're aware that the same arguments can be used to allow fractal shapes to have a finite area but infinite perimeter, right? Infinite series allow all sorts of weird things to happen, but that doesn't make them untrue.

That's a finite range with an infinite number of scenarios through division. We are talking about infinite range.
Oh, and you ignored this part,
NO we are not talking about an infinite range. 1.0 is not infinite and by putting a bunch of 9s behind a decimal point trying to reach 1.0 is the same thing as my scenario i just posted. I didn't ignore it. There was nothing to be corrected.

NO we are not talking about an infinite range.
Yes, we are.
1.0 is not infinite and by putting a bunch of 9s behind a decimal point trying to reach 1.0 is the same thing as my scenario i just posted.
How much is "a bunch"?
I didn't ignore it. There was nothing to be corrected.
Yes, you did. The correction is: there will never be an end. Your "always one more 9" assumes there is an end.

NO we are not talking about an infinite range.
Yes, we are.
1.0 is not infinite and by putting a bunch of 9s behind a decimal point trying to reach 1.0 is the same thing as my scenario i just posted.
How much is "a bunch"?
I didn't ignore it. There was nothing to be corrected.
Yes, you did. The correction is: there will never be an end. Your "always one more 9" assumes there is an end.
No we are not. 1.0 is not infinite
Bunch = infinite
What does always mean? If there will always be one more that would suggest, never ending, IE infinite.

No we are not. 1.0 is not infinite
No, we are saying 0.(9).
Bunch = infinite
Thus, the error between 0.999... and 1 is infinitely small.
0.(9) = 1
What does always mean? If there will always be one more that would suggest, never ending, IE infinite.
Then word your sentence better next time. As I've said in my previous post, I assumed your "always one more 9" meant there will always be a 9 in the end. It should be "there is an infinite number of 9s after 0.9".

That's a finite range with an infinite number of scenarios through division. We are talking about infinite range.
Speaking of ignoring you forgot to answer my question.
Here let me put it a different way.
An object has a distance of 1ftto a destination. The object covers that distance by jumping .9ft then .09ft then .009ft...always adding another 0 and 9 to that when does it reach the destination?

That's a finite range with an infinite number of scenarios through division. We are talking about infinite range.
Speaking of ignoring you forgot to answer my question.
Here let me put it a different way.
An object has a distance of 1ftto a destination. The object covers that distance by jumping .9ft then .09ft then .009ft...always adding another 0 and 9 to that when does it reach the destination?
You just quoted my answer.

So the answer is never?

Was my quote too hard for your to understand?
Please do not ignore the bold part.
That's a finite range with an infinite number of scenarios through division. We are talking about infinite range.
You whole point is that there is this little finite 1 and it takes infinite 9s after 0.9 to reach it, thus 0.(9) != 1. That is wrong, because, which you also ignored, the error between 0.(9) and 1 is infinitely small; this way, we can't measure it, so it is neglected.

You whole point is that there is this little finite 1 and it takes infinite 9s after 0.9 to reach it, thus 0.(9) != 1. That is wrong, because, which you also ignored, the error between 0.(9) and 1 is infinitely small; this way, we can't measure it, so it is neglected.
Oh now I get it. Because you can't measure it, it is insignificant and has to be thrown out. The fact that you say there is an error proves, regardless of its size, .999... does not equal 1.0.

Because you can't measure it, it is insignificant and has to be thrown out. The fact that you say there is an error proves, regardless of its size, .999... does not equal 1.0.
If you can measure it, then prove to the world 0.(9) != 1.

Because you can't measure it, it is insignificant and has to be thrown out. The fact that you say there is an error proves, regardless of its size, .999... does not equal 1.0.
If you can measure it, then prove to the world 0.(9) != 1.
You just proved it. There is an error. Infinitely small.

0.(9) = 1 because the error cannot be measured. Do I have to make it simpler?

0.(9) = 1 because the error cannot be measured. Do I have to make it simpler?
There is an error.

cannot be measured.

It still exists.

3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1

3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1
This remains the best demonstration of the problem in the whole 37 page thread.
Another win for Hara!

Hello people, heres my worthless two cents. ;D
1 does IN FACT = 0.9 (recurring).
BUT
1/3 does NOT = 0.3 (recurring)
I'm sorry, It just doesn't. Go read a further maths text book.
ACTUAL PROOF would be something like this:

lets say x=0.9 recurring.
therefore 10x = 9.9 recurring.
and if we do 10x  x = 9,
therefore x = 1

There is absolutely no flaw in that.

The Percy solution lacks elegance. 8)

3/3 = 1
1/3= .33333...
Therefore, (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) + (.33333333....) = (.99999999...) = 1
This remains the best demonstration of the problem in the whole 37 page thread.
Another win for Hara!
Wheeee!

My solution is still the best one.
Take A_{n} to be the nth element in the sequence 9 * 10^{1} + 9 * 10^{2} + ... + 9 * 10^{n}, where n is a finite positive integer.
Then there is some number B such that A_{n} < B < 1.
But because lim_{n→∞} A_{n} = 1, then there will be some finite positive integer k such that A_{n+k} > B.
Therefore, every number that is less than 1 can be exceeded by A_{n} simply by making n a large enough, but finite, positive integer.
Since to have an infinite number of 9s simply means that no matter how large the number of finite 9s you count, there will always be at least one more, 0.999... = 1.
QED
Also, Wardogg, if 0.(9) != 1, then what is a number between 0.(9) and 1?

My solution is still the best one.
Take A_{n} to be the nth element in the sequence 9 * 10^{1} + 9 * 10^{2} + ... + 9 * 10^{n}, where n is a finite positive integer.
Then there is some number B such that A_{n} < B < 1.
But because lim_{n→∞} A_{n} = 1, then there will be some finite positive integer k such that A_{n+k} > B.
Therefore, every number that is less than 1 can be exceeded by A_{n} simply by making n a large enough, but finite, positive integer.
Since to have an infinite number of 9s simply means that no matter how large the number of finite 9s you count, there will always be at least one more, 0.999... = 1.
QED
Also, Wardogg, if 0.(9) != 1, then what is a number between 0.(9) and 1?
0.999....

0.999....
0.(9) is a different notation for 0.999... . They mean the same thing. Again, what is a number between 0.(9) and 1, or between 0.999... and 1, if you will?

0.999....
0.(9) is a different notation for 0.999... . They mean the same thing. Again, what is a number between 0.(9) and 1, or between 0.999... and 1, if you will?
It's a nonsense question. You admit that if there was a finite number of 9s after the decimal then it wouldn't equal 1.0 no matter HOW many 9s where after that decimal, yet then you say that .999... equals 1.0. You can have the cake and eat it too. If it doesn't matter how many 9s I have after the decimal then it doesn't matter if I say it's an infinite amount.

And since you cannot add onto an infinitely long number another digit (that's the definition of infinite), there is no number you can put between 0.(9) and 1, so the two are mutually inclusive. 0.(9)=1.

It's a nonsense question. You admit that if there was a finite number of 9s after the decimal then it wouldn't equal 1.0 no matter HOW many 9s where after that decimal, yet then you say that .999... equals 1.0. You can have the cake and eat it too. If it doesn't matter how many 9s I have after the decimal then it doesn't matter if I say it's an infinite amount.
0.999... does not fit into the category of numbers with a finite number of 9s after the decimal point.

It still exists.
so it is neglected.

It's a nonsense question. You admit that if there was a finite number of 9s after the decimal then it wouldn't equal 1.0 no matter HOW many 9s where after that decimal, yet then you say that .999... equals 1.0. You can have the cake and eat it too. If it doesn't matter how many 9s I have after the decimal then it doesn't matter if I say it's an infinite amount.

You admit that if there was a finite number of 9s after the decimal then it wouldn't equal 1.0 no matter HOW many 9s where after that decimal, yet then you say that .999... equals 1.0.
What the hell are you talking about?

Do we have to start all over?

Sure, if you still need me to educate you on the difference between finite and infinite.
This quote you just wrote proved that you did not know the difference between finite and infinite.
You admit that if there was a finite number of 9s after the decimal then it wouldn't equal 1.0 no matter HOW many 9s where after that decimal [IN A FINITE RANGE], yet then you say that .999... [IN AN INFINITE RANGE] equals 1.0.

Whats the largest written number?

In a finite or infinite range?

Finite.

Googolplex + 1

What's that number plus itself?

2x(Googolplex + 1)
Now, I ask you. What is the number between 0.999... and 1?

If I put 2x(Googolplex+1) 9s after a decimal would it equal 1.0?

Nope, because it is still finite.
You still have not answered my question.

Yes I did.
It's a nonsense question. You admit that if there was a finite number of 9s after the decimal then it wouldn't equal 1.0 no matter HOW many 9s where after that decimal, yet then you say that .999... equals 1.0. You can have the cake and eat it too. If it doesn't matter how many 9s I have after the decimal then it doesn't matter if I say it's an infinite amount.

So what is the number?

An infinite amount of 9s after a decimal.

Thus, 0.(9) = 1. Glad that we finally agree.

(http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/9291/1150035393040hi6.jpg)

Let x and y be two real numbers. Then any number between them may be written in the form ax+by, where a+b=1, a > 0, b > 0.
Now let x = 0.(9) and y = 1. According to you, 0.(9) is between these two numbers, such that ax+by = 0.(9) = x.
Rearranging this equation, we get:
ax + (1a)y = x [substitute (1a) for b]
ax + y  ay = x [expand (1a)y]
y  ay = x  ax [subtract ax]
y(1a) = x(1a) [factorise]
y = x [divide by (1a)]
But x = 0.(9) and y = 1. Therefore:
1 = 0.(9)
So you do agree that 0.(9) = 1. Glad you've finally seen the light.

Wardogg = ultimate fail. Please give it up, I can't take much more wrongness.

Let x and y be two real numbers. Then any number between them may be written in the form ax+by, where a+b=1, a > 0, b > 0.
Now let x = 0.(9) and y = 1. According to you, 0.(9) is between these two numbers, such that ax+by = 0.(9) = x.
Rearranging this equation, we get:
ax + (1a)y = x [substitute (1a) for b]
ax + y  ay = x [expand (1a)y]
y  ay = x  ax [subtract ax]
y(1a) = x(1a) [factorise]
y = x [divide by (1a)]
But x = 0.(9) and y = 1. Therefore:
1 = 0.(9)
So you do agree that 0.(9) = 1. Glad you've finally seen the light.
I will take no response to this as an acknowledgement that I am correct. Pity, that; I was hoping for you to challenge my assertion that any number between x and y can be written in the form ax+by where a+b = 1, a,b > 0 so that I would have the opportunity to prove you wrong once more.

You can't do math with letters idiot.

You can't do math with letters idiot.
Sig'd

You can't do math with letters idiot.
:\

Oh god it's floating oceans all over again.

18 pages...
0.99999 != 1
0.999... = 1
[NOTE: THIS POST WILL BE SPAMMABLE SHOULD STUPIDITY CONTINUES BEYOND PAGE 18]

You can't do math with letters idiot.
...

You can't do math with letters idiot.
I just noticed that, lol. I was gonna sig it til I noticed Matrix beat me to it again.

Math:
The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols.
1(number) +(symbol) 1(number) =(symbol) 2(number)

Letters are symbols.

No they are letters.
a+b=z Is this a true statement?

VARIABLES OMG LRNMOARMATHS

Then answer the question.

Wardogg, seriously, this is what facepalming is made of... :\

Answer the question then.

a+b=z is true if a=3, b=4, and z=7. a+b=z could also be true if a=1, b= 4, and z=5. Or a=72, b=59, and z=131. The possibilities are endless. Did you ever learn math?

a+b=z is true if a=3, b=4, and z=7. a+b=z could also be true if a=1, b= 4, and z=5. Or a=72, b=59, and z=131. The possibilities are endless. Did you ever learn math?
Reported for being irrelevant.

a+b=z is true if a=3, b=4, and z=7. a+b=z could also be true if a=1, b= 4, and z=5. Or a=72, b=59, and z=131. The possibilities are endless. Did you ever learn math?
Wait, wait, ZOMFG!!!! You have to have numbers to do math?!? Why do you think the rest of them didn't respond? They knew this was coming.
You can't do math with letters idiot.

I didn't respond because I wasn't sure whether you were trolling or not...
I'm now convinced you are.

Variables, tard, they're called variables, meaning they are able to vary, which is why the numbers are substituted by these letters. God, either you're extremely retarded or a humongous troll. Algebra 1 is my worst subject, and I still know more than you. I'm a fucking freshman in High School, for Pete's sake! How old are you, Wardogg?

Variables, tard, they're called variables, meaning they are able to vary, which is why the numbers are substituted by these letters. God, either you're extremely retarded or a humongous troll. Algebra 1 is my worst subject, and I still know more than you. I'm a fucking freshman in High School, for Pete's sake! How old are you, Wardogg?
I am xyz years old.

Variables, tard, they're called variables, meaning they are able to vary, which is why the numbers are substituted by these letters. God, either you're extremely retarded or a humongous troll. Algebra 1 is my worst subject, and I still know more than you. I'm a fucking freshman in High School, for Pete's sake! How old are you, Wardogg?
I am xyz years old.
Are x,y,z integers and does this mean that you mulitply them?

Its good to know that I'm not the worst person at maths on this site

Variables, tard, they're called variables, meaning they are able to vary, which is why the numbers are substituted by these letters. God, either you're extremely retarded or a humongous troll. Algebra 1 is my worst subject, and I still know more than you. I'm a fucking freshman in High School, for Pete's sake! How old are you, Wardogg?
I am xyz years old.
Are x,y,z integers and does this mean that you mulitply them?
You can't do math with letters.

Its good to know that I'm not the worst person at maths on this site
Who is?

Its good to know that I'm not the worst person at maths on this site
Who is?
Get a mirror and you'll find out

Variables, tard, they're called variables, meaning they are able to vary, which is why the numbers are substituted by these letters. God, either you're extremely retarded or a humongous troll. Algebra 1 is my worst subject, and I still know more than you. I'm a fucking freshman in High School, for Pete's sake! How old are you, Wardogg?
I am xyz years old.
Wardogg is Narcberry. We've all been had.

Variables, tard, they're called variables, meaning they are able to vary, which is why the numbers are substituted by these letters. God, either you're extremely retarded or a humongous troll. Algebra 1 is my worst subject, and I still know more than you. I'm a fucking freshman in High School, for Pete's sake! How old are you, Wardogg?
I am xyz years old.
Are x,y,z integers and does this mean that you mulitply them?
You can't do math with letters.
Sure I can:
one + one = two

Variables, tard, they're called variables, meaning they are able to vary, which is why the numbers are substituted by these letters. God, either you're extremely retarded or a humongous troll. Algebra 1 is my worst subject, and I still know more than you. I'm a fucking freshman in High School, for Pete's sake! How old are you, Wardogg?
I am xyz years old.
Are x,y,z integers and does this mean that you mulitply them?
You can't do math with letters.
Sure I can:
one + one = two
you win!

Its good to know that I'm not the worst person at maths on this site
Who is?
Get a mirror and you'll find out
I'mma sig that, lol, nice one Gayer.
Also, Oscar, I don't think Wardogg is Narc. I wish that was the explanation.
XYZ
X=1
Y=2
Z=3
1(2)(3) = 6 = Wardogg's age! Voila :).
Also also, nice win, JohnJack (can I call you the new jj?)!

Variables, tard, they're called variables, meaning they are able to vary, which is why the numbers are substituted by these letters. God, either you're extremely retarded or a humongous troll. Algebra 1 is my worst subject, and I still know more than you. I'm a fucking freshman in High School, for Pete's sake! How old are you, Wardogg?
I am xyz years old.
Are x,y,z integers and does this mean that you mulitply them?
You can't do math with letters.
Sure I can:
one + one = two
Dammit. I admit you are correct.

FES is fun ;D

I'mma sig that, lol, nice one Gayer.
Also, Oscar, I don't think Wardogg is Narc :/. I wish that was the explanation.
XYZ
X=1
Y=2
Z=3
1(2)(3) = 6 = Wardogg's age! Voila :).
Also also, nice win, JohnJack (can I call you the new jj?)!
Your still using numbers, for the math part of it.

Also also, nice win, JohnJack (can I call you the new jj?)!
Please refrain from using these two letters adjacent to each other.

Also also, nice win, JohnJack (can I call you the new jj?)!
Please refrain from using these two letters adjacent to each other.
Yes, they may add up to something unintended, and offend everyone on the board.

Hmm, how about J, the new J?
Also, grr, the quote won't fit! Someone else say something clever for me to sig.
Wardogg, the whole equation is "the math part of it", and it begins with XYZ. Look up the word "variable" a math textbook, or maybe even a dictionary. Please use your intelligence if you have any.

Hmm, how about J, the new J?
Also, grr, the quote won't fit! Someone else say something clever for me to sig.
Wardogg, the whole equation is "the math part of it", and it begins with XYZ. Look up the word "variable" a math textbook, or maybe even a dictionary. Please use your intelligence if you have any.
No the numbers are the math part of it.
a+b=z
a+b=y
a+b=x
Which statement is correct without putting numbers in?

No the numbers are the math part of it.
Wrong.
mathematics, n.
1. Originally: (a collective term for) geometry, arithmetic, and certain physical sciences involving geometrical reasoning, such as astronomy and optics; spec. the disciplines of the quadrivium collectively. In later use: the science of space, number, quantity, and arrangement, whose methods involve logical reasoning and usually the use of symbolic notation, and which includes geometry, arithmetic, algebra, and analysis; mathematical operations or calculations. Colloq. abbreviated maths, (N. Amer.) math.
Maths can be purely symbolic, therefore without knowledge of the nature of the variables it is entirely reasonable to say that all or none of the options you provided could be correct.

Hmm, how about J, the new J?
Also, grr, the quote won't fit! Someone else say something clever for me to sig.
Wardogg, the whole equation is "the math part of it", and it begins with XYZ. Look up the word "variable" a math textbook, or maybe even a dictionary. Please use your intelligence if you have any.
No the numbers are the math part of it.
a+b=z
a+b=y
a+b=x
Which statement is correct without putting numbers in?
Depends on the equation.

Math:
The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols.
1(number) +(symbol) 1(number) =(symbol) 2(number)
No the numbers are the math part of it.
a+b=z
a+b=y
a+b=x
Which statement is correct without putting numbers in?
You can't do math with letters.

You fucking ignorant, stubborn troll.

You fucking ignorant, stubborn troll.
NO U!
Dumbass.

You can't do math with letters.
x^{2}+1=5

You can't do math with letters.
x^{2}+1=5
That statement is false.

You can't do math with letters.
x^{2}+1=5
That statement is false.
Wrong.

You can't do math with letters.
x^{2}+1=5
That statement is false.
Wrong.
Right.
x=12
Yet again we had to use numbers to prove the mathematical equation.
You can't do math with letters.

x = 2 not 12. 2x2=4 4+1=5. It's algebra.

x = 2 not 12. 2x2=4 4+1=5. It's algebra.
Exactly
More numbers.
You can't do math with letters.

The math problem is solving for x.
I have no idea what you are arguing about or how it got started, but you seem to be acting a little silly about it. Algebra is math.

You can't do math with letters.
x^{2}+1=5
That statement is false.
Wrong.
Right.
x=12
Yet again we had to use numbers to prove the mathematical equation.
You can't do math with letters.
Firstly, x=2. Secondly, you just did math with letters.
Face it and embrace it.

You can't do math with letters idiot.
Okay, maybe not math, but you can do algebra with letters, and algebra is a branch of math.

Firstly, x=2. Secondly, you just did math with letters.
Face it and embrace it.
No I replaced a letter with a number and then did the math.

Looks like someone took business math in HS.

Ok, this is going to look strange, but there's no way to show the actual work from by homework, so deal with it.
4x7=49
(add 7 to each side and you get...)
4x=56
(divide each side by 4 and you get...)
x=14
(check if this is correct [it is]; i just did math with letters)

Who attempted to do math without any numbers anyway? ???

No the numbers are the math part of it.
Wrong.
mathematics, n.
1. Originally: (a collective term for) geometry, arithmetic, and certain physical sciences involving geometrical reasoning, such as astronomy and optics; spec. the disciplines of the quadrivium collectively. In later use: the science of space, number, quantity, and arrangement, whose methods involve logical reasoning and usually the use of symbolic notation, and which includes geometry, arithmetic, algebra, and analysis; mathematical operations or calculations. Colloq. abbreviated maths, (N. Amer.) math.
Maths can be purely symbolic, therefore without knowledge of the nature of the variables it is entirely reasonable to say that all or none of the options you provided could be correct.

Firstly, x=2. Secondly, you just did math with letters.
Face it and embrace it.
No I replaced a letter with a number and then did the math.
But it's symbolic notation.
What do you call this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/Pisymbol.svg/600pxPisymbol.svg.png)
We use it in maths, though.

There's a bunch of symbols used in math that aren't numbers.

I can't believe we're even having this debate

Ikr?
Also, 2x+2=8. Wardogg, solve this; It's simple.

I can't believe we're even having this debate
idk my bff jill?

I can't believe we're even having this debate
Wardogg is fulfilling Narc's greatness, or it's just stupidity. I'm not sure.

Jill must have many BFFs...

How fun.

Seriously? I just spent an entire week in math, doing it without any numbers, you need to understand the algebra in order to do math, and algebra is math with letters.

x = 2 not 12. 2x2=4 4+1=5. It's algebra.
Firstly, x=2. Secondly, you just did math with letters.
Face it and embrace it.
Actually, given that no other constraints have been placed on x, the solution is x = 2 or 2.
Also:
(http://i33.tinypic.com/34ikzde.jpg)

Ok, this is going to look strange, but there's no way to show the actual work from by homework, so deal with it.
4x7=49
(add 7 to each side and you get...)
4x=56
(divide each side by 4 and you get...)
x=14
(check if this is correct [it is]; i just did math with letters)
No you did math with numbers in place of letters. Try again.
Who attempted to do math without any numbers anyway? ???
Reread the last 6 pages you will see.
Firstly, x=2. Secondly, you just did math with letters.
Face it and embrace it.
No I replaced a letter with a number and then did the math.
But it's symbolic notation.
What do you call this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/Pisymbol.svg/600pxPisymbol.svg.png)
We use it in maths, though.
It's called pie. It stands for a number 3.14... with a bunch of numbers after the .14, and with out the number value you wouldn't be able to use it in a math problem.
There's a bunch of symbols used in math that aren't numbers.
Prove it.
I can't believe we're even having this debate
Honestly, neither can I.
Ikr?
Also, 2x+2=8. Wardogg, solve this; It's simple.
I'm not doing your fucking homework for you. I don't have to do homework anymore. Also I guarantee that "x" in the equation stands for a number.
I can't believe we're even having this debate
idk my bff jill?
Quit trolling the teenage chat rooms. It starts to effect your speech after a while.
Jill must have many BFFs...
Too bad your not one of them. I bet that makes you feel sad and depressed. See your razor blade for help.
How fun.
Actually I'm bored.
Seriously? I just spent an entire week in math, doing it without any numbers, you need to understand the algebra in order to do math, and algebra is math with letters.
No Algebra is math with letters that stand for numbers. Therefore you can't do math with letters.
x = 2 not 12. 2x2=4 4+1=5. It's algebra.
Firstly, x=2. Secondly, you just did math with letters.
Face it and embrace it.
Actually, given that no other constraints have been placed on x, the solution is x = 2 or 2.
Also:
(http://i33.tinypic.com/34ikzde.jpg)
And yet again we prove that math with letters doesn't work. You have to replace them with numbers to do the math.
BTW I got As in Algebra and Trig. It was Geometry that kicked my ass every year. Theorems and postulates, WTF is that shit.

Also I guarantee that "x" in the equation stands for a number.
So did a, b, x and y in my calculation that you took exception to.

Also I guarantee that "x" in the equation stands for a number.
So did a, b, x and y in my calculation that you took exception to.
Thank you, I am glad we finally agree that you cannot do math with letters.

Thank you, I am glad we finally agree that you cannot do math with letters.
So we agree that 0.(9) = 1?

Thank you, I am glad we finally agree that you cannot do math with letters.
So we agree that 0.(9) = 1?
Do you agree we can't do math with letters?

Thank you, I am glad we finally agree that you cannot do math with letters.
So we agree that 0.(9) = 1?
Do you agree we can't do math with letters?
Yet letters are functioning abreviators, you cannot accurately display matematics without them ;)

Do you agree we can't do math with letters?
Only in the sense that any letters used in mathematics must represent numbers, operations, sets, matrices or other mathematical constructs.

Do you agree we can't do math with letters?
Only in the sense that any letters used in mathematics must represent numbers, operations, sets, matrices or other mathematical constructs.
Thank you, I am glad we finally agree that you cannot do math with letters.
So we agree that 0.(9) = 1?
Very well, only in the sense that there is an error between 0.999... and 1.0 but it is infinitely small.

Very well, only in the sense that there is an error between 0.999... and 1.0 but it is infinitely small.
Then I ask you again; what is a number that is between 0.999... and 1?

Very well, only in the sense that there is an error between 0.999... and 1.0 but it is infinitely small.
Then I ask you again; what is a number that is between 0.999... and 1?
There isn't one. .999... is the last number before 1.0

Very well, only in the sense that there is an error between 0.999... and 1.0 but it is infinitely small.
If the difference between 0.999... and 1 is infinitely small, it is 0.
1  0.999... = 0
Thus, 1 = 0.999...

There isn't one. .999... is the last number before 1.0
What is (0.5 * 0.999...) + (0.5 * 1.0), that is to say, the mean of 0.999... and 1.0?

I have already conceded on this point.
The real win here was my entire win against everyone on the board, in the letters and math debate.

And what win was that?

1/3rd of 1 cannot be properly represented in numerical form much like π (pi) so recoupling a numerical representation of 1/3rd of 1 (0.33333 X 3) will never be 1 due to the loss in rounding down upon the initial division.

Seriously? I just spent an entire week in math, doing it without any numbers, you need to understand the algebra in order to do math, and algebra is math with letters.
No Algebra is math with letters that stand for numbers. Therefore you can't do math with letters.
And as I said, I just spent an entire week doing math with nothing but letters. You can do math with letters.

Seriously? I just spent an entire week in math, doing it without any numbers, you need to understand the algebra in order to do math, and algebra is math with letters.
No Algebra is math with letters that stand for numbers. Therefore you can't do math with letters.
And as I said, I just spent an entire week doing math with nothing but letters. You can do math with letters.
No you can't. Show a math problem that can be solved without having to replace the letters with numbers.

ax=h, solve for x.

ax=h, solve for x.
No you can't. Show a math problem that can be solved without having to replace the letters with numbers.

It's simple enough, x=h/a. See, no numbers needed.

It's simple enough, x=a/h. See, no numbers needed.
That doesn't solve the actual equation. I say that x cannot equal a divided by h. Prove me wrong.

It's basic math that provides a basic knowledge, if you learn this way first, it makes solving it when the numbers come in much easier, just a few quick calculations. In a way though, I guess I can see where you coming from, or maybe I'm just that tired, I don't know anymore. :'(

It's simple enough, x=a/h. See, no numbers needed.
What if h=0?

well since originally ax=h
either a or x =h.

It's simple enough, x=a/h. See, no numbers needed.
What if h=0?
Then the solution DNE, but you still solved for x, the answer was just unreal.

Then the solution DNE, but you still solved for x, the answer was just unreal.
No, because in order to solve for x (which you did wrong, by the way, it should be h/a, not a/h, so instead suppose that a=0), you would need to divide both sides of the equation by zero, which violates the laws of mathematics. The equation x = h/a would be valid only when a>0.

I can agree with that, and good catch on the original equation, I'll edit it eventually. I should probably get some sleep too.

It's simple enough, x=a/h. See, no numbers needed.
That doesn't solve the actual equation. I say that x cannot equal a divided by h. Prove me wrong.
So when you said you'd disproved my sig in this thread, what you actually meant was you'd decided you'd completely failed and just thought you'd drag me back in to tell you again? Well, ok, if that's what floats your boat...
x = a/h was defined. If you don't believe that it's the correct definition, then fine, you can do what you were talking about and test it with numbers. If the relationship was arrived at through pure theoretical derivation, however, that doesn't make it invalid. Maybe x = a/h is the result of a proof that cannot be refuted theoretically. It's still maths. You're confusing pure maths with applied maths, or maths with physics. You're also confusing proving me wrong with being an utter failure.

Another fail, you cannot prove the equation without the numbers. IE the math part.

??? mmkay then. seems you still need to add a one or a .00000000000001 to make a one. ;D good to know things havent changed in math in the last 20 years.

??? mmkay then. seems you still need to add a one or a .00000000000001 to make a one. ;D good to know things havent changed in math in the last 20 years.
0.999... != 0.99999999999999

Another fail, you cannot prove the equation without the numbers. IE the math part.
a = a
Mathematical proof with no numbers.

??? mmkay then. seems you still need to add a one or a .00000000000001 to make a one. ;D good to know things havent changed in math in the last 20 years.
:'(

Another fail, you cannot prove the equation without the numbers. IE the math part.
a = a
Mathematical proof with no numbers.
Fail.

Fail.
NO U!!

;)

:*

Narcberry threads are like a train, where instead of a speedy stop at a conclusion, it just goes:
SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECHAAAAAAHHH...

Narcberry threads are like a train, where instead of a speedy stop at a conclusion, it just goes:
SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECHAAAAAAHHH...
One of those light speed trains in Einstein's thought experiments. It takes an infinite change in momentum (and, therefore, an infinite time if applying a finite force) to stop it.

And the infinite force is a lock.

And the infinite force is a lock.
Obviously.

Holy crap, this thread is long.

Holy crap, this thread is long.
I say we keep going until we have enough pages to write that many 9s after a decimal point to make it equal 1.

In before the inevitable lock.

It's true, there is an infinitesimally small number between 0.999... and 1.
If you take the position that infinities cannot exist (this includes the infinitesimals), then you are simply mistaken.
there is no such thing as infinity.
lul.

laughsmiley. Narcberry isn't the brightest pencil in the shed.

laughsmiley. Narcberry isn't the brightest pencil in the shed.
I'm not Narcberry. Does that make me the brightest pencil in the shed?

laughsmiley. Narcberry isn't the brightest pencil in the shed.
I'm not Narcberry. Does that make me the brightest pencil in the shed?
No. By that logic, everyone who is not Narcberry must also be the brightest pencil in the shed.
EDIT: Unless we were to understand the "Not" in your nick as a logical NOT, therefore implying that you are the exact opposite of narcberry. That would make you the antiNarcberry.

Is it a new record, yet?

44 pages? Wtf?

No. By that logic, everyone who is not Narcberry must also be the brightest pencil in the shed.
EDIT: Unless we were to understand the "Not" in your nick as a logical NOT, therefore implying that you are the exact opposite of narcberry. That would make you the antiNarcberry.
I'm not the antiNarcberry. I think he's tied up over on 4chan.

Trying to debate that the earth is round, while refraining from using circular logic?