is 9 recurring (in base 10) the largest possible number?

>>7992504
>x is the largest possible number

The only x that can make that meme statement kinda true is the infinity symbol, but even that is just mathematical representation of the existence infinitely larger numbers.

So no. Even if you went 99999... to infinity, infinity would still be larger.

Please, it's useless to ask these questions once you understand what "infinite" means

>>7992504
Anon the only largest possible number is when you get bored of counting or run out of words to describe you numbers with

>>7992504

the largest number is n + 1

>>7992811

lim (1/3*10^x)*3, x-> infinity = infinity

>>7992504
9 recurring is identical to 4 recurring or 7 recurring or whatever you like, they all equal the same infinity

>>7992504
>...99999. = -1
>...99999.999... = 0

>>7992828
what about n + 2

>>7992850
As n -> infinity, n+1 is kinda the same as n+2

n+1 just means that there will always be a value greater that n given any n

>discrete math

>>7992504
the largest number is infinity recurring in base infinity

>>7992811
Well, let's make our universe the hyperreals so life is good. Infinity is the largest element now.

no the largest number is 1 and then zeroes recurring

>>7992811
first post is always the worst.

Or, no, wait, in the this thread's case every post is the worst. Weird.

File: 1454315130742.png (5KB, 666x666px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 666x666px

>thinking infinity is possible
>being this blue-pilled

>>7993411
>le pill meme
fuck off

>>7992858
Actually, infinity in base infinity would just be 1.

is 1 repeating the largest possible number in binary?

>>7992504

9 recurring is just 1 with recurring 0s

>>7992504
There is no largest number.

>>7992811
Infinity is not a number

>>7992828
That's fucking retarded. Even if you had a defined n to be some natural number, (which is what you intended to do), n would still be some finite number, and so there would be a number larger than it

>>7992848
No, just saying "9 recurring" is not a well-defined number.

>>7992853
Sounds like you failed discrete math

>>7992858
Bases can only be numbers

>>7993073
But there are larger infinities

>>7993109
agreed

>>7994559
>There is no largest number.
Surely 9 recurring would be the upper-bound though, being that you can't write or specify any number larger than it (in base 10). Similar to how you can't specify any number < 1 which is greater than .9recurring - there's just no number you can cram in there.

It isn't the least upper bound. The real counterpart would be larger and is uncountable. Also there are large cardinals.

>>7993693
This is literally how we construct numbers. Even zero is undefined without a 1 to undo.