Is it true that 1 - .99 repeating is zero?

Yep.

>>7985559
nope, since it still holds a value it cannot be zero. Zero has no value.

>>7985572
wrong

>>7985573
Please explain how it is wrong, isn't it just like 0.999.. will never be one?

>>7985582
But 0.999...= 1

>>7985582

Ever taken a limit?

>>7985599
9 repeating is not the same as 99 repeating. 99 is bigger than 9.

>>7985601
The limit is only a hypothetical point at infinity and never reached.

>>7985603
are you still in high school, kid?

>>7985603
>The limit is only a hypothetical point at infinity and never reached.
That's a real shame considering the real numbers are essentially defined as limits of Cauchy sequences.

>>7985599
Die in a fire uneducated ignorant cuck

>>7985559
If 1 - 0.999... were not 0 then it would have to be some real number greater than 0

>>7985669
>questioning the establishment equates to being immature.

>>7985909
It's 0.000...1 obviously.

>>7985603
>>7985690
1/3 = 0.333...
3/3 = 0.999... = 1

>get gut faggots

>>7986002
If it isn't 0 than what is 1/0.000...1 ?
What's 0.000...1 times 10 ?
What's 0.000...1 divided by 10 ?
What's (0.000...1)^2?

>>7986223
>[math]\infty - 0.000 ... 1[/math]
>0.000...10
>0.000...01
>0.000...000...1
Try harder.

1/3 = 0.3..
3/3 = 0.9..
3/3 = 1
0.9.. = 1
1-1 = 0

>>7985559
x=0.99999...
10x=9.99999...
10x-x=9.9999..-0.9999..=9=9x
9x=9
x=1

0.999../3=0.3333..
0.3333..=1/3
1/3*3=1=0.9999..
0.9999..=1

x=0.000...1
10x=00.000...1
10x-x=0.000...1-0.000...1
9x=0
x=0

>>7986289
I can't - you've convinced me that 1 != 0.999...

>>7986354

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

problem with rounding, computers cant store more than x amount of decimals for calculations.

it's a 0.0, followed by an infinite string of zeroes, except that on the end of that infinite string of zeroes, there's a fucking zero
it's fucking nothing
i fucking hate this fucking meme
fuck

File: 1424557007846.jpg (35KB, 500x330px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x330px

yesss these threads never get old

File: 0.999 = 1.jpg (106KB, 953x613px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 953x613px

[math]x = 0.99\bar{9}[/math]
[math]10x = 9.99\bar{9}[/math]
[math]10x - x = 9.99\bar{9} - 0.99\bar{9}[/math]
[math]9x = 9[/math]
[math]x=1[/math]
but earlier we said that
[math]x = 0.99\bar{9}[/math]
therefore,
[math]0.99\bar{9}=1[/math]

end of proof

>>7986884
>.333... * 3 ~= 1
false.
0.333... = 1/3 therefore 0.333...*3 =1

>>7986884
No 0.333.... is actually perfectly equal to 1/3

>>7986953
Point 1 in yellow is right. Point two shouldn't even come into discussion because 1 - 0.333... isn't the same as "0.666...7". Pic needs the trick for getting fractions out of repeating decimals.

Infinity doesn't exist, it is an abstract concept. So the 9's can not repeat for ever, there must be a limit.

>>7986988
Math =/= reality

File: wp_ss_20160324_0002.png (160KB, 480x800px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 480x800px

>>7986988
Jumping off what this guy said, I always thought infinite numbers didn't exist in reality? .999... does not occur in the universe

>>7987009
Well it does, because its the same thing as 1

>>7986953
Slight error there.

9.(999...) - 0.(999...9) = 9
9.(999...) - 0.(999...) =/= 9

0.(999...) = 1 for other reason.
Its is because (999..) = | 1 | of a higher cycle, as "9" is the highest possible digit of the base-10

>>7986289
if 0.000...1 * 10 = 0.000...10
then 0.000...1 * 10 = 0.000...1
divide by 0.000...1 on both sides and we get 10 = 1
which doesnt make sense
also 0.000...1^2 = 0.000...000...1
so 0.000...1^2 = 0.000...1
and for x^2=x. the solutions are x = 0 and x = 1
so 0.000...1 is either equal to 0 or 1

>>7987009
But .999... is rational so its alright

>>7986953

Literally all of these and every single proof for this relies on approximation fallacies.

All this argument does is highlight the fact that our system of math doesn't quite represent reality, as well as the failures of approximation in the realm of theory.

>>7987009
It does though. It's 1.

>>7985582
It's wrong because 0 is a value.

If I have a set which contains only 0 and another set which is empty (the empty set), these sets are not equal. Thus 0 is a value. You are wrong.

>>7986988
You don't fucking understand what you're saying.

1, 2, 3, none of these numbers exist. Literally every number is an abstract concept because that's all numbers are.

Math is not physics. Stop conflating the two.

How can the limit as x approaches 1 of 1/(1-x) be infinity

IF

The limit as x approaches 0 of 1/(1-x) = 1?

>>7988125

To clarify, I don't get this because in the first one, you're basically saying that x will never become 1, otherwise it will be undefined.

So, how can x become 0 in the bottom one to give the limit = 1? If you follow the same rule as the first one, that it never reaches 0, then the answer must be greater than 1?

>>7987096
No. Don't confuse what you see written with what is expressed.

0.999... and 1 ARE the same because these symbols MEAN the same. Just like 'horse' and 'paard' mean the same.