Please, please tell me no one on /sci/ actually fell for the

>>8109416
Well, prove that it isn't.

Show that if you assume 0.9999... = 1 then that leads to a contradiction somewhere.

pro tip: Make sure your argument does not have contradictions itself.

>>8109440
>hurr you have to prove a negative so that I dont have to prove a positive durrrr
Fuck you. You support the claim, burden of proof is on you.

>>8109446
>burden of proof is on you.

It used to be. Then people came up with a billion proofs for the proposition.

Now that we have a proof that works, the burden of proof is on you as you are now trying to dismiss a well established claim.

Faggot.

Go ahead, this should be easy. Just type up one single number that is between 0.999... and 1.

If there is even one then that would immediately imply that 0.999... is not 1 so go on.

Type it up faggot.

>>8109451
There is none. At the scale of one-infinitieth, numbers are discrete; there is no real number between 0.999... and 1 for the same reason there is no integer between 0 and 1.

LITERALLY YOU:
>You want to prove 0 and 1 are not the same integer? Well, go on then, this should be easy - all you need to do is type up one single integer that is between 0 and 1. If there is one, it would immediately imply that 0 =/= 1. Go on. Do it faggot.

1/9 = 0.1111111111111111111111111111...
0.1111111111111111111111111... * 9 = 0.999999999999999999... = 9/9 = 1

>>8109416
its true bruh. the maths checks out. .9999... = 1 is true by definition. Mathematicians could have assumed it isn't true, but that would lead to algebra breaking down.

>>8109454
>there is no real number between 0.999... and 1

and that implies that 0.999... = 1

if you have 2 real numbers, a and b and

(a + b)/2 = a then that implies a = b

but if you have

(a+b)/2 = c then a is not equal to b as now it has a midpoint which tne implies an infinity of intermediate points.

It is my pleasure to teach you pre kinder math. Keep studying and one day you may stop being a faggot.

>>8109416
0.99999....=1 when taking account significant figures.

>>8109451
No, fuck you. You can't just equate two completely different, distinct, and defined numbers because "well, they're close enough lol." Is 1.111... equal to 1.2? Would you get the same answer for an equation if you were to swap out .999... for 1, or vice versa? No, you wouldn't. One would give you a hard number, the other would give you an asymptote. Those are not the same thing.

I bet faggots like you also think morality is relative.

>>8109416
here's the definitive proof op. unless you think the meme spread to wikipedia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

>>8109463
>he thinks Wikipedia is an objective source
>he thinks Wikipedia isn't pushing an agenda
How fucking stupid can one person get?

>>8109461
>is 1.111... equal to 1.2

no, because 1.12 comes between the two. there are an infinite number of numbers between 1.1111... and 2.

Assume .9999... and 1 are two different numbers op. what's 1 - .9999... ?

>>8109461
>Is 1.111... equal to 1.2?

No because 1.1112 is between those two numbers. And infinitely many more are aswell.

>>8109466
0.000...001

You're comparing two universes
>an inifinite number of paper slips with 0 written on them plus one paper slip with 1 written on it
>an inifitine number of paper slips with 9 written on then plus one paper slip with 0 written on it
They are not the same because they're written differently.

>>8109416
[math]\mathbb{R}-{0}[/math] is a group under multiplication.

[math]0.999... \times 1 = 0.999...[/math]

[math]0.999... \times 0.999... = 0.999...[/math]

Substituting,

[math]0.999... \times 1 = 0.999... \times 0.999...[/math]

Left cancelling,

[math]0.999... = 1[/math]

>>8109466
>no, because 1.12 comes between the two. there are an infinite number of numbers between 1.1111... and 2.
Yeah, I just noticed I made a typo--meant 1.12.
>Assume .9999... and 1 are two different numbers op. what's 1 - .9999... ?
0.00000...1? Is that supposed to be a trick question? Because the answer is very clear. It's certainly not 0, it's an asymptote forever approaching 0. Nowhere near the same thing.

What is the pentium bug for $100, Alex.

>.99999....≠1

i'm wondering if anyone has actually argued this or seen someone argue this in a university math class. if you guys have any stories, please share.

1 - 0.999... = 0.00...1
1 - 1 = 0
0.00...1 != 0

>>8109479
>Yeah, I just noticed I made a typo--meant 1.12.

no i made the typo. there are an infinite number of numbers between 1.1111... and 1.12. there are no numbers between .9999... and 1.

>0.00000...1? Is that supposed to be a trick question? Because the answer is very clear. It's certainly not 0, it's an asymptote forever approaching 0. Nowhere near the same thing.

asymptotes DO hit 0 after an infinite amount of time. That's an extremely important thing. calculus wouldn't work otherwise.

the answer to the question is 1 - .9999... = 0. you can't have .00000...1. how can there be an infinite number of 0s and THEN 1? if you're putting a 1 at the end of your 0s then you don't have infinite 0s.

here's a cambridge mathematician explaining it. has the meme spread to research mathematicians now?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_gUE74YVos

>>8109497
If you admit that there is a number 1 at the """end""" of the number 0.000...1, then the number 0.999... does not expand forever.
Go learn about infinity again.

We have this paradox because real numbers are imperfect. It's just a quantifying approximation of continuous line

>>8109446
But it's a very easy proof and you can Google it.

op is either a troll or he's just started high school maths and thinks his limited knowledge of quadratic equations makes him knowledgable in maths.

[math](0.999...)^\infty = 0[/math]

[math]1^\infty = 1[/math]

retards

>>8109416
This is a notational problem. Notational problems, like all problems of language, are resolved by appeal to consensus.

When most mathematicians talk about "0.999 repeating", they are referring to a particular construct, a particular definition, where it is in fact equal to 1.

Further, one of the properties of the Real Numbers is that two real numbers are inequal if and only if there is a third Real number in between them. By appealing to informal arguments, "0.999 repeating" names a Real number, and there is no Real number between "0.999 repeating" and 1, and therefore they name the same Real number.

>>8109505
>how can there be an infinite number of 0s and THEN 1?
[math]1+x+x^{2}+... = 1/(1-x)[/math] right retard? how can you have an infinite series equally a single term?

>>8109416
1/3 = .3333333333333333333....
So 3 * .333333333333333333...
=1

>>8109632
>1/3 = .3333333333333333333....
no, 1/3 = .333333... plus the 0.00...00000 and 1/3 at the end.

>>8109627
Welcome to calculus.

[math] \displaystyle
1 = \frac{3}{3} = 3 \cdot \frac{1}{3} = 3 \cdot 0. \overline{3} = 0. \overline{9}
[/math]

>>8109652
1/3 =/= 0.3333...

>>8109655
yes it does yuo fucknard

>>8109655
but it literally is

>>8109490
The only story I have was intro to analysis where the lecturer seemed kind of disappointed nobody objected to his claim that (0,1) had no maximum.

>>8109662
>>8109676
1/3 = 0.3333... + 0.000...000 and 1/3, we just leave off the last part because it's really small and the first part is accurate enough

>>8109633
>the 0.00...00000 and 1/3 at the end.
There is no such Real number. If you want to talk about some new kind of please, please give your definitions of terms.

>>8109472
You don't understand how infinity works

>>8109692
i'm not talking about kinds of numbers, i'm just talking about plain old numbers, the kind we all use, not some arbitrary wishy-washy alternative universe math from the ivory towers

>>8109699
Ok. We're interested in formal analysis, not "it makes sense to me". Might I suggest /x/ or /b/ ? Maybe /lit/ ?

>>8109703
i am doing a serious analysis, go to /lit/ if you want a safe space from the hard truths of math.

>Comparing infinite sums with natural numbers

No

0.99999... = 1 is true only in the same way 1/0 = infinite

You are not using math correctly

Go home

0.9999... = x
10x = 9.9999... / -x
9x = 9 /:9
x = 1
ez

>>8109711
this, there is no infinity in the really existing numbers, you can't take "limits" without the contradictory framework of calculus on top

1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1

you can't just choose to apply infinity when it suits you faggots

>>8109717
Back at you

>>8109514

>people seriously responded to this thread without saging
?

>>8109712
wtf is /:

>>8109472
If 0.00...001 is a nonzero real number what is its reciprocal?

>>8109717
0.999... literally means infinite 9's... You can't just say something is not infinite when it literally is. Pro tip, decimal expansions are not unique. It is something you have to accept in real analysis.

>>8109731
:/

>>8109627
Do you even realize the argument you have right there proves 0.999... = 1? Write 0.999... as a summation of fractions and literally plug it into that equation right there.

>>8109416
So you're going to tell me straight faced that decimal expansions are unique? Give me the proof for that and then you'll have a basis for dismantling very well established mathematics

>>8109472
>>8109497
>>8109717
>0.000...1
>An infinite sequence with something after it.
Jesus. Are you even trying?

In any case, this seems like it's obvious shit being over-thought.
The sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999, ... obviously converges to 1 as the number of nines goes to infinity. 0.xxx... is notation that signifies the number of x's goes to infinity.
Problem solved: 0.999... = 1

>>8109781
>Do you even realize the argument you have right there proves 0.999... = 1? Write 0.999... as a summation of fractions and literally plug it into that equation right there.
geomtric series doesn't work like that

I honestly can't tell if people agreeing with OP are trolling.

>>8109793
don't you think trolls would target more serious people and issues? and not brilliant /sci/entists who, since they're so quick-minded, would pick up on trolling very quickly?

>>8109783
0.9/1 = 0.1
0.99/1 = 0.01
...
0.999.../1 = 0.000...0001

i don't get what's so hard about this, it's like you're all stupid and can't do math

>>8109655
prove it

Infinity is a concept. We can arbitrarily assign whatever properties we want to the concept of infinity. The property P(x) together with the inference rules of mathematical logic dictates that 0.999... = 1. That is enough for most mathematicians.

We do not know if infinity as such is metaphysical possible, but it does not really matter. Does the concept of infinity outside of mathematics have the property P(x)? Who cares... in mathematics it does (because we have we have defined it that way) and most mathematicians are in agreement that P(x).

>>8109836
1/3 is a fraction, 0.3333... is a decimel. There's no isomorphism between rationals and reals... so therefore there's no way to map. it makes sense because with decimels everything is counting in 10s, but you can count in 3's with fractions. 10/3 is undefined in decimal

>>8109855
>There's no isomorphism between rationals and reals... so therefore there's no way to map.
>all morphisms are isomorphisms
Excellent argument. Go back to school, anon.

X=0.999
X10=9.999
X10=9+0.999
X10=9+x
X9=9
X=1
Right?

>>8109416
here, let's do it informally OP.
suppose we have two numbers, x and y. can we agree that if there is no number z such that x < z < y, then x = y? okay, good.
can you find a number inbetween 0.9999... and 1.000...? no? then they are equal.

>>8109873
0.999 * 10 = 9.990 you dumb fuck

>>8109864
that's not what i said.

>>8109882
It is an assumption made to move forward with your argument. Maps can be injective but not surjective. Do you have something useful to say?

>>8109891
You can map 1/3 to 0.3333.. but they aren't the same number.

>>8109901
uh, anon...

>>8109911
?

>>8109416
t. Norman Wildberger

>>8109922
never thought i'd have to say this to someone who knew what the word "isomorphism" meant, but i guess you really didn't
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/335560/is-1-divided-by-3-equal-to-0-333/335561

>>8109901
Changing the subject to a new argument without conceding to your clear mistake? I don't have time for this, feel free to educate yourself rather than putting full faith into the first idea that you consider without thoroughly testing its viability.

>>8109626
No one responded to this. How is this in any way a dismissible response?

>>8109953
Because the trolls in this thread are ignoring arguments they can't counter without making it too obvious that they are trolling.

>>8109953
I'm pretty sure 75% of the people in this thread already have that idiot filtered

>>8109715
Go to bed Norman

File: get out.jpg (106KB, 560x510px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 560x510px

>>8109828
> 0.9/1 = 0.1
>Not 0.9
Pic related

>>8110058
Clearly he meant set minus on the dedekind cuts with the parameters reversed, right?

File: 0dcfRfn.jpg (39KB, 467x489px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 467x489px

>>8109828
> A sequence of infinite zeros followed by a one
That's not a real number anon. When the hell are you going to reach the end of an infinite sequence to put a one at the very end?
Also here's a simple proof that .9999...=1:

.9999... = 9/10+ 9/100 + ... + 9/(10^n) (n is a member of the natural numbers)

Hence, using the sum of an infinite geometric series:

.999... = (9/10)/(1 -(1/10)) = (9/10)/(9/10) = 1

I seriously don't get how hard this is to grasp. There's certainly a plethora of strange shit in the many fields of math but this isn't one of those things.

>>8110065
>Also here's a simple proof that .9999...=1
you cant prove that without first saying which number system you're using.

if you're using the reals, the answer is so blatantly obvious it defies belief anyone could even beg the question in the first place. All we have to do is check whether the sequences 0.9, 0.99, 0.999... and 1, 1, 1, ... are equivalent cauchy sequences of rational numbers, which they fucking obviously are.

However, there are number systems where 0.9999... is not equal to 1. The main point to note here is that to this day I have not heard of a single reason why anyone should care about these extensions of the reals. Obviously we can do calculus just fine without the need for actual infinitesimals, so why bother with these things?
So that fucktards on 4chan my troll other fucktards?
literally the only reason I can think of

>>8110106
True. I was just implying we were in the reals with respect to the proof I gave.

>>8109709
I'm curious, you can't conceive infinity, what's the biggest number you can think?

>>8109731
>>elementaryschool

>>8109699
>>8109709
top kek m8, copied that pasta presto.

(0.9999....∞) + (0.0000...∞1) = 1

:^)

Are we getting invaded by /v/ or something?

>>8109416
tell me a number that fits in between 0.9... and 1 and ill accept that they're not equal

>>8109514
No, I agree there are infinitely many 9s in 0.999.... But when you take 1-0.999..., you get 0.000...1, where you have a 1 in the [math]\omega[/math] decimal point.

>>8109766
1...000, i.e. a 1 followed by infinitely many 0s to the left of the decimal point. Come on, this isn't even difficult.

>>8110356
How about 0.999...5?

>>8110359
0.000...1 is nonsensical. So a infinite expansion of zeros ends with 1? Basically, you are telling us that an infinite decimal expansion is finite. Nice contradiction.

>>8109532
>someone disagrees with me and claims two completely-different numbers are not equal to one another
>h-he must be in high school!
Fuck off, you walking testament to eugenics.

>>8109876
I understand where you're coming from, but one of those numbers is still defined as being higher than the other, regardless of the fact that it's only by a very miniscule amount. If I show you a step on a staircase and then point to the one above it and say, "There are no steps between this step and the one before it, therefore they are at the same elevation," I would be wrong. An asymptote is not the same as the number it is approaching. It will, by its very nature, never actually reach that number, but merely get closer and closer to it. To equate the two is just silly. Yes, the fraction multiplication is a neat trick, but that's all it is--a neat trick. These are still two different numbers with two different values.

>>8109478
>0.999...×1=0.999...×0.999...
How is that possible? Isn't .999×.999 != 1? I'm not that one guy bitching, I'm lurkin and think this is fascinating

>>8109686
Where the flying fuck do you get this shit from?

>>8110402
You're confusing a set being well-ordered with being finite. 0.000...1 has (countably) infinitely many 0s before the 1, and then a 1 afterwards. Are you disagreeing that the decimal points of a number are well-ordered, that it's possible to have an infinite well-ordered set, or that it's possible to have an well-ordered set where one element is larger than infinitely many other elements? In any case, you're wrong: these are well-known results in set theory.

>>8109723
>>8109772
>>8109783

Yeah and you faggots don't understand that 0.000...1 is infinite 0s FOLLOWED by a 1

If you can have infinite 9s followed by a 9 then you can have infinite 0s followed by a 1.

this is a contradiction

so, 0.999...9 != 1

QED

X = 1
1/3 of x * 3 = 0.333... * 3 = 0.999...

X = 9
1/3 of x * 3 = 3 * 3 = 9

See?

>>8110356
That's like saying "Tell me an integer that fits between 1 and 2 and I'll accept that they're not equal".
Why would two "consecutive" (I know the word doesn't really apply to the set of real numbers, but I'm not sure what you'd call this) real numbers have to be equal? Although there are other proofs for 0.999...=1, this one's fairly weak.

>>8110417
If it ends it's not infinite.

actually 0.333... * 3 = 1, not 0.999...

This 0.999... = 1 is one of the most annoying memes in math and it only works if you ignore constraints inherent to infinities.

>>8110483
That's not even remotely true. The interval [0,1] ends at 1, but there are undeniably infinitely many points in between (including, for example, both 0.999... and 1).

>>8110497
Please do not confuse countable and uncountable infinities.

Infinitesimals don't really exist (even less so than infinities).

>>8110507
The distinction between countable and uncountable infinities is irrelevant here. Replace my example with the set of rational numbers between 0 and 1 inclusive and it's still just as true.

>>8110527
You're right, though my second objection still stands. Infinitesimals don't real.

>>8110531
K, they aren't "real" but they exist in certain sets. What's you're point?

>>8110478
Because if there were no number between 0.999... and 1 it would contradict some very important properties of real numbers.

>>8110551
*no number between, and they were not equal

>>8110531
Why not? They're used all the time in mathematics. Arbitrarily cutting off decimals at a certain point to remove the idea of infinitesimals is arbitrary and does nothing but lead to useless, counterintuitive "proofs" like 0.999... = 1.

>>8110551
Try 0.999...5. Clearly 0.999...5 is more than 0.999... because of the extra 5 at the end, but it's still not quite equal to 1. So 0.999... < 0.999...5 < 1.

>>8110557
0.999...5 is less than 0.999...

>>8110559
Nah. 0.999...5 - 0.999... = 0.000...5 > 0, so 0.999...5 > 0.999....

>>8109679
>that (0,1) had no maximum.
But it does. It's 1.
0.999.... Is obviously within (0,1), but according to this thread, 0.999... = 1.

>>8110557
0.999...995 is exactly 0.000...004 less than 0.999...

Regardless, you have yet to disprove that 0.999 = 1 despite numerous proofs offered. Please provide a single proof for your counterclaim if you wish to be taken seriously.

>>8110562
0.999...9995 doesn't exist. An infinite sequence that terminates is a contradiction in terms.

>>8110565
>0.999...995 is exactly 0.000...004 less than 0.999...
Don't be silly, I'm talking about a decimal with a 5 in position [math]\omega+1[/math], not a decimal with a 5 in position [math]\omega[/math]. Of course you can also have a number smaller than 0.999... which has a 5 in it, but that's a different number (off by 0.000...45, specifically).

>Regardless, you have yet to disprove that 0.999 = 1 despite numerous proofs offered. Please provide a single proof for your counterclaim if you wish to be taken seriously.
As stated on many previous occasions, 1-0.999... = 0.000...1 > 0, so 1 > 0.999... and it's therefore impossible that 1 = 0.999...

>>8110572
Again, there are infinitely many 9s before the 5. The list of 9s does not terminate, yet there is still a 5 after all of them. It's entirely possible for a set to be both well-ordered and infinite, as is the case here with the set of decimal points of 0.999...5.

>>8110572
>infinite sequence
infinite sequence doesn't exist.

>>8110582
>There are infinitely many 9s before the 5

Then there is no 5.

>>8109454
>argumenting against yourself

are you retarded?

>>8110587
This is a basic set-theoretic idea I'm talking about here. There is a 9 in decimal positions 1, 2, 3, and so on for all positive integers. Then there is a 5 in an index after the index corresponding to each such positive integer. If you're unfamiliar with the idea of a well-order, here's the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-order.

Believe it or not, it is possible to have an infinite well-ordered set. And furthermore, the decimal positions of a number must be such a set. They have to be well-ordered if we want decimal numbers to have any meaning, and they must also be infinite if we want to allow constructions like 0.999... to exist in the first place.

Nice bait OP it's worked thus far

>>8110600
Well if we're dropping to Wikipedia citations, here's their opinion on 0.999...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

Eight whole proofs for you to attempt to refute.

>>8110616
Most of these "proofs" are completely lacking in rigor. They just assume you can carry out the usual arithmetic on infinite series and infinite decimals, and then arrive at absurd results. The fraction "proof" relies on the equivalent false assumption that 1/9 is exactly equal to 0.111..., while more formal "proofs" like Dedekind cuts and Cauchy sequences rely on shaky notions of limits.

How about you try to refute my proof that 1 > 0.999...?

>>8110637
If 1 > 0.999..., then that would mean 1 is not equal to 0.999...
But it is, and any college math professor, or even any college math student can tell you that. Not that I expect you to be at college, but a high school math teacher should be able to prove it too if you live in a country where teachers need to have a university degree.

>>8110656
> If 1 > 0.999..., then that would mean 1 is not equal to 0.999...
I agree. 1 is not in fact equal to 0.999....

>But it is, and any college math professor, or even any college math student can tell you that. Not that I expect you to be at college, but a high school math teacher should be able to prove it too if you live in a country where teachers need to have a university degree.
Nice appeal to authority - hypothetical authority, even. If it's so easy to prove, why can't you do it?

>>8110420
No, that is not how it works. If 0.999.. doesn't equal 1 then things like completeness are contradicted. Learn some math before you start talking about it

0.999 is not equal to 1 indeed
however, the problem is where that 0.999... comes from

0.9 != 1
9 != 10
99 != 100
999 != 1000
...
0.999... * n != 1 * n

>>8110684
>>8110420
Furthermore, you used absolutely no axioms or theorems in analysis or mathematics in general to base that argument. Also you didn't argue why the existence of YOUR stupid number 0.0000......1 and 0.999.... proves 0.999... != 1. That proof is 0/10. If you insist that 0.9999... != 1, then look up surreal numbers and use those instead. The real numbers do not hold decimal expansions to be unique so you're shit out of luck there.

>>8109878
The .999 actually is a simplified notation for the infinite series of .99999999999... you fucking retard. Go take a remedial algebra class to see how that IS a proof. It's a simplified NON Calculus method proof that simpletons like yourself can understand.

>>8109416
Actually, 0.999999999... = -1/12

>>8110600
You do clearly not understand what well ordered means. If A is a well-ordered set then every nonempty subset of A has a least element. Let A = {(0.999...)}, the set A has only one element.

>>8110557
>Try 0.999...5
>Clearly 0.999...5 is more than 0.999... because of the extra 5 at the end
>because of the extra 5 at the end

That's some grade A mathematical arguing right there.

Are we talking about the cardinal numbers or ordinal numbers here? We're talking about 0.9999... and 1 as real numbers, right? 0.999...5 doesn't make any sense in this context.

>>8110563
It has no maximum but it has a supremum and the supremum is 1.
>0.999.... Is obviously within (0,1)
How do you know? Can you build a real number bigger than 0.999.... that's still in that interval? If not, then 0.99... is an upperbound and unless 1 is less than 0.999..., it is the supremum (the supremum is unique) thus they are equal. My arguement is poorly formulated but that's the basic idea.

>>8110724
Other people were saying it's impossible to have something like 0.000...1 because "you never get to the 1". My point was that you can absolutely have a well-ordered set with one value that follows after infinitely many other values, as the 1 comes after infinitely many 0s in 0.000...1. The sequence of place values 0, 0, ..., 1 (or for that matter the values 9, 9, ..., 9 in 0.999...) is the infinite well-ordered set I'm talking about.

>>8110730
0.999...5 = 0.999... + 0.000...5. I don't see what's so difficult here.

>>8110739
0.999... < 0.999...5 < 1. Prove me wrong.

>>8109416
>people still arguing whether or not 0.999... = 1
Mix it up a little: Why not argue that; (10^infinity)-1 = (10^infinity)
its the same question essentially.

>>8110768
What? For one thing, "infinity" isn't really well defined. For another thing, whatever value you assign to 10^infinity, it's obviously going to be larger than that same value minus 1.

>>8110768
But can you prove that 0.000.....0001 is equal to 0?

ITT: /sci/ learns the difference between approximately equal and exactly equal.

>>8110757
>My point was that you can absolutely have a well-ordered set with one value that follows after infinitely many other values

No you cannot when you're talking about cardinal numbers which is what we're dealing with in the real number system. What you're thinking of is an ordinal number.

>0.999...5 = 0.999... + 0.000...5

That is not a true statement. 0.000...5 is not a real number. It doesn't make sense.

>0.999... < 0.999...5 < 1. Prove me wrong.

It just doesn't make sense in the context of real numbers. You are saying some cardinal number is less than some ordinal number which is less than some cardinal number. Usually you compare things that are the same.

1 + x + x^2 + x^3 + ... = 1/(1-x): for |x| < 1. Will you refute that? It is a very elementary result. If you do, we're done here since you're throwing Analysis out the window and have no basis to talk about the real number line.

0.999.... = 1/9(1/10 + 1/100 + 1/1000 + ....) = 1/9[1/(1-1/10)] = (1/9)(9/1) = 1

File: image.jpg (127KB, 735x820px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 735x820px

>>8110335

>>8110809
>>8110757
Ahh fuck, it should be:
0.999.... = 9(1/10 + 1/100 + 1/1000 + ....) = 9[1/(1-1/10)] = (9)(1/9) = 1

>>8110582
>in position w+1
So in position w

>>8110809
>No you cannot when you're talking about cardinal numbers which is what we're dealing with in the real number system. What you're thinking of is an ordinal number.
If we're really dealing with cardinal numbers, then what cardinality does 0.5 represent, exactly?

>That is not a true statement. 0.000...5 is not a real number. It doesn't make sense.
Why not? Infinitely many 0s, and then a 5.

>>8110816
That series approaches 1 as a limit at infinity, but there's still 0.000...1 between 0.999... and the actual value 1.

>>8110819
No, [math]\omega+1[/math] is the successor to [math]\omega[/math], meaning they're not equal by definition.

>>8110816
Now in binary!
0.111...= 1(1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+...) = (1)(1/1) = 1.0

>>8110820
I'll admit I don't know anything about Cardinal, Transfinite Cardinals etc so I'll stop talking about that.

>Why not? Infinitely many 0s, and then a 5.

Numbers like that are not defined in real analysis. It's like working with integers and using fractions as an argument.

>That series approaches 1 as a limit at infinity, but there's still 0.000...1 between 0.999... and the actual value 1.

No there isn't. A limit is defined such that for ANY value greater than zero, you can extend the series between 1 and that number. Literally in the definition it says, there is NO number between 0.999... and 1 when you take the limit.

>>8110832
Good one. Gave me a nice chuckle

>>8110827
Arithmetic operations on infinity result in infinity. Don't be so trash.

>>8110832
>forgot a step
0.111...= 1(1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+...) = 1[1/(1-1/2)] = (1)(1/1) = 1.0

>>8110850
I'm not sure what the point is that you're trying to make. I know you're trying to say:

0.9999... = 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009+ .. = 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + ... = 9(1/10 + 1/100 + 1/1000 + ...)

is not true but I assure you it is.

>>8110842
A limit is defined using delta/epsilon formalism. I'm not sure what you mean by "you can extend the series between 1 and that number". Certainly there's nothing within the definition of "limit" itself that says there's no number between 0.999... and 1.

>>8110849
Only for infinite cardinals. But these are clearly ordinal numbers because they're indexing the decimal places of a real number.

>>8110860
If you're going to use "avanced" math like ordinals don't simultaneously claim that .(9) != 1

>>8110860
If you're using functions, yes. For sequences you use epsilon/N (almost the same so I will use that to illustrate my argument). The lack of formalism will hurt me a little bit it doesn't seem like you care anyway. 0.999... is a sequence of 9's and consider any 9n the nth 9. For any N > n there is an epsilon, you will always have |0.999....9n - 1| < epsilon. Choose ANY number and you can do that. Since you can do that for ANY number, there is no number between 1 and 0.999... when you take n to infinity thus they are equal. That is the essence of the series argument.

>>8110545
>>8110531
Both sides are right, as usual it´s only a question of miscommunication. One side is arguing based on the notion that 0.999...=1 in the reals, and the other side based on the notion that 0.999...=1 isn´t true in every set of numbers

>>8109416
Let's never talk about this shit tier,
>https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070620111810AAF5EZC

The number in between 0.999... and 1 is 0.000...1

Thusly.

0.999... != 1

QED.

>>8110876
But what that's actually showing is that 1 is the limit of the sequence. Yes, the LIMIT is exactly equal to 1. But that's not the same as the value 0.999..., which is not a limit but rather a real number.

>>8110614
It's always going to work. The "debate" will never end.

>>8110884
Then how would you describe 0.999... in a mathematical way? How else do you describe infinity? If you don't want to talk about infinity, then you have 0.9999.....9 which is in fact not equal to 1. I'll give you a hint about how you talk about infinity: limits and sequences.

>>8110884
0.9999... is greater than every term of the sequence and less than or equal to 1
What this implies is crystal clear.

>>8110876
I fudged this up a bit too.
>For any N > n there is an epsilon, you will always have |0.999....9n - 1| < epsilon

It should be:
For any epsilon > 0 there is an N > n such that |0.999....9n - 1| < epsilon

>>8110891
Limits and sequences aren't the best. They're unintuitive and you run into problems with undefinable real numbers and similar things. Instead we can say that 0.999... has 9s in all decimal places corresponding to positive integers. Much simpler, and it still allows for usual arithmetic operations. From these, it can be easily shown that 0.999... < 1.

>>8110898
Yes, 0.999... is bounded between the terms of the sequence and 1. So are 0.999...5, 0.999...1, and plenty of other numbers.

According to measure theory, there is a difference between 0.999999... and 1

see the difference between surely and almost surely.

>>8110909
But the sequence converges to 1 as you yourself have admitted

>>8109626
>>8109454

>>8110909
>They're unintuitive
They're fairly intuitive. Regardless math isn't supposed to be intuitive, it is supposed to be logically sound.

I'm going to stick with Analysis where you use limits to talk about infinity. You can stick with whatever it is you made up.

>Yes, 0.999... is bounded between the terms of the sequence and 1. So are 0.999...5, 0.999...1, and plenty of other numbers.

Just note ff 0.9999...5 is indeed a number between 0.999... and 1, then for |0.999...9n - 1| < 0.99...5 there is a real number epsilon = 0.99...5 such that there is no N >n satisfying that inequality. Either 0.99...5 is not a real number or you don't have limits. I know what I will choose

>>8109891
So since you can't perform a the Linear Identity to get the same value back, one is the the vector space of another

>>8110927
Not* stupid phone

>>8110912
>almost surely
P=1, with possibly nonempty complement in the sample space of measure zero
>surely
P=1, complement is the empty set

Measure is an extraneous notion here though, and certainly does not contradict a basic property of the reals.

>>8110914
He would have a point if "integers x and y are equal if and only if there is no integer z such that x<z<y" was an axiom of or equivalent to the axioms of the integers. Which it's not.

The guy is clearly just confused about the properties of R, trying to represent them with transfinite decimal expansions

>>8109455
the only true answer

>>8110913
Yes, the limit of the sequence is 1, meaning it slightly "overshoots" the value of 0.999....

>>8110923
>Just note ff 0.9999...5 is indeed a number between 0.999... and 1, then for |0.999...9n - 1| < 0.99...5 there is a real number epsilon = 0.99...5 such that there is no N >n satisfying that inequality.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The definition of a limit: for any given positive real number (such as 0.999...5, sure) there is a natural number N such that [math]|x_n-x| < \epsilon[/math] for all n > N. Choose 0.9...9 with n 9s as your xn and 1 as your x, and this absolutely does hold for an epsilon of 0.999...5. Literally any positive N will work.

>>8110939
I learned long ago that .999... = 1 due to how the Reals are constructed, though it must be fun to work with a new set allowing stuff like .999...001...223 and the like, when Im advanced enough I'll screw around possibly there ahaha but who knows

>>8109464
Are you trolling?

>>8110958
Exactly. So that means 0.9...9 with n 9's is closer to 1 than 0.999...5. That's what the absolute norm measures: the distance between two real numbers. How can 0.9...9n be closer to 1 than 0.999...5 when 0.999...5 is supposedly bigger than 0.999... with INFINITE 9's?

File: 1463466927939.png (178KB, 398x315px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 398x315px

>>8110958
>meaning it slightly "overshoots" the value of 0.999....
What the fucc are you smoking?

>>8110970
Replace 0.999...5 with 1 in your argument. Clearly |0.9...9n-1| < 1 for any positive choice of N, so by your definitions 0.9...9n is closer to 1 than it is to 1. But this doesn't make sense, so there must be something wrong with your definition of distance.

File: what.jpg (12KB, 223x98px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 223x98px

Hi /sci, in calc we are doing infinite series. Just came across the problem in my textbook.

The pic is the problem and the answer given in the back of the book. What gives

>>8110988
Jews trying to force the .99999999 meme to brainwash pure pedigree white males into believing the incorrect maths

>>8110984
What the fuck?

|0.9..9n - 1| < 1 says that the distance between 0.9...9n and 1 is less than 1. |1 - 0.5| < 1 says the distance between 0.5 and 1 is less than 1...

>>8110998
>>8110984
Oh I see what you mean now. Yeah that was a stupid arguement. I'm not sure what I was thinking actually.

File: proof.gif (1KB, 157x88px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 157x88px

The correct answer was given many times, you cannot compare infinities like this

0.999... is an illegal operation, because 0.999... is an infinite sum and that's the end of it.

Infinities cannot be treated like normal numbers that work with the same arithmetic operations that you are used to, this is the error in your thinking.

>>8111015
>0.999... is an illegal operation
It's not an operation at all. It's a real number.
>because 0.999... is an infinite sum and that's the end of it.
No, 0.999... is the unique least real number to be an upper bound on every interval of the form (0,a) with 0<a<1. This puts it in every set of the form [a,1], which are each clearly compact. The intersection of all of these is simply the set {1} and the equality follows (nested sphere theorem)

dumbfuck

>>8111010
>>8110984

If 0.999... approaches 1 and 0.999....5 is less than 1, then 0.99... also approaches 0.999...5. It is known that limits are unique so either 0.99...5 is a limit of 0.999... or 0.999... surpasses is it and thus is bigger than it. Can you explain that to me?

>>8111036
0.99...5 = .999... = 1

>>8109791
>Not that guy but they LITERALLY do.

>>8111039
That is the point I'm trying to make with that

>>8111032
>No, 0.999... is the unique least real number to be an upper bound on every interval of the form (0,a) with 0<a<1.

This is wrong, you're implying that the set of uncountable infinity in 0<a<1 has a "final last step", which is definitely wrong.

0.999... is not a real number as it doesn't terminate.

The rest of your post falls apart here.

>>8109479
[math]1-.999...=\lim_{c \to 0}c[/math] is what you're saying

>>8111059
>real numbers have to terminate

>>8111036
0.999... doesn't "approach" anything. It's a constant real number with a fixed value.

>>8109925
they forgot the infinitsemal math..

>>8110356
you have the entire set of fractions between 0 and 1

they go like 0.999... +p/q, where p/q is an infinitely small fraction

it's necessary because you can't map between fractions and decimals

0.444444444444444.....

>>8110415
it's one of the rules of algebra. if you multiply 0.999... by itself, you get back 0.999...

You actually get the same no matter what you multiple 0.999... by, 0.999... x 18 = 17.999... and so on, it works as an identity, and identity must be unique. that's the proof that convinced me at least, even though i didn't understand it in algebraic terms for years.

>>8110416
From sheer logic. I use my massive intellect to think hard about these problems and always come to good conclusions. People have confused fractions and decimals for centuries. It's time to enter a new paradigm where we accept they're only approximately equal.

>>8110572
it doesn't terminate, you just keep adding in terms in the middle instead of the end.

If 0.999... = 1
then 0.333... must logically be 0.333...4, which is impossible, as a non terminating real number cannot have a last step.

>>8109416
.99 repeating is equal to 1-h (infinitesimal)

it is 1 for all practical purposes

>>8110785
this, 0.333... only approximately equals 1/3

>>8111083
0.333...4 * 3 = 1.000...2 =/= 1

>>8110988
ivory tower mathematicians are stuck in their old paradigms, and fight to keep that lush government grant money. the truth will win out anon.

>>8111064
0.999.. = 9(1/10 + 1/100 + 1/1000 + ...) = 9[1/(1-1/10)] = 1. 1/10 + 1/100 + 1/1000 + ... looks like an infinite sum to me. An infinite sum is just a limit of partial sums. If you don't like that then how else would you describe a sequence of numbers?

Either, way, I'll go back and explicitly ask you the question from the point of view of the limit we were talking about. If 0.99...5 is less than 1 and 0.99...9n approaches 1 as you go to infinity, then 0.99...9n approaches 0.99..5. So either, 0.99..5 is the limit where it follows 0.99..5 = 1 or you have an n such that 0.99...9n exceeds 0.99....5. Can you explain that?

>>8111083
>If 0.999... = 1
then 0.333... must logically be 0.333...4

Show that and then we can start talking.

>>8111090
Thanks for proving my point... I guess?

>>8111074
does not equal 4/9.

>>8111075
But 0.999... * 0.999... = 0.999...8000...1, obviously.

>>8111094
There are plenty of numbers less than 1 which 0.9...9n does not approach. 0.999...95 is simply one of them.

>>8111099
Guess again.
(0.333... * 3) = 0.999... = 1
(0.333...4 * 3) = 1.000...2 =/= 1
(1.000...2 / 3) =/= (0.999... / 3)
0.333... =/= 0.333...4
(0.999... / 3) =/= 0.333...4

hexes for 0.999... =/= 1

>>8111084
>everyone ignores my answer which is correct
you guys need to retake calc 1

>>8111059
>you're implying that the set of uncountable infinity in 0<a<1 has a "final last step"
Yeah? Where? Do you not know what "upper bound" means?
>protip: no, I'm not.

>0.999... is not a real number as it doesn't terminate.
1. That doesn't preclude a number from being real
2. Simply writing down "0.999... " is not an unambiguous construction. If we specify that 0.999 is the real number as described, it necessarily equals 1. If we define it similarly as a real number less than one, it does not exist. If you're not defining it as a real you must state which number system you're defining the scrawl "0.999..." to belong to and what its properties are. It has no meaning absent a definition.

0.999999999999999999...FOOT DOCTOR

>>8111112
shut up nerd, the numbers do what i say they do

>>8111101
>There are plenty of numbers less than 1 which 0.9...9n does not approach. 0.999...95 is simply one of them.

Well fuck me right? How can 0.9...9n approach 1 but not 0.99....5?

>>8111111
>>8111112

I was one away from sexts, fuck

I suppose it doesn't really matter that much on this board.

>>8111124
maybe you should go back to /s4s/

>>8111126
all of the high population boards care about gets

notice how I stated "I suppose it doesn't really matter that much on this board"

>>8111111
rigorously and unambiguously define the relevant hexes for 0.999...

>>8111111
The true irony would be if you had gotten a 8111112 get

>>8111129
>all of the high population boards care about gets
that's because they've been colonized by /s4s/ immigrants who have forced this aspect of their board culture on the other boards. it's board-cultural imperialism.

>>8111123
Well, because 0.999...95 is a distinct, smaller number than 1, obviously 0.9...9n can't approach both 0.999...95 and 1 at the same time. And none of your proofs have proven anything other than that 0.9...9n has a limit of 1.

if 0.999...9n >= 0.999...5
9n >= 5
n >= 5/9

if 0.999...9n =< 0.999...5
9n =< 5
n =< 5/9

0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 ... + 0.000...9 = ???
0.000...9 = ???
??? = ???
???

>>8111142
>Well, because 0.999...95 is a distinct, smaller number than 1
How about you formally construct this new number system you're inventing?
Is it a metric space?

>>8111142
How does 0.99...9n approach 1 without approaching 0.99...5?

>>8111161
I know right?

>>8111163
How does 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + ... approach 2 without approaching 1.99? They're different numbers, that's how. But 0.999...95 is much closer to 1 than 1.99 is to 2, in fact so close that it's larger than any element of the 0.9...9n series (though still smaller than their limit).

>>8109655

you fucking retarded faggot

>>8109766
>If 0.00...001 is a nonzero real number what is its reciprocal?

ez. that would be 10000000000 ... 1

you math faggot. /s

>>8111142
what is the value of 1/0.999...95 ?
of 1/0.000...1 ?

File: trollface-dancing.gif (42KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 400x400px

>>8110359

>>8111179
No, that is not how. In 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 +... you have an nth term such that 1 + 1/2 + ... (1/2)^n is larger than 1.99, that is how. You still haven't explained yourself.

>But 0.999...95 is much closer to 1 than 1.99 is to 2, in fact so close that it's larger than any element of the 0.9...9n series (though still smaller than their limit).

Using your logic I can just say 0.99999....95 has infinite numbers and then 5. 0.9999....99 has infinite numbers and then 9 . Since 9 > 5 you have 0.99999....99 > 0.999.....95 but then `obviously' 0.9999.....99 = 0.999....

>>8110420
>If you can have infinite 9s followed by a 9 then you can have infinite 0s followed by a 1.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHHAHAHAHA

0.000...1 / 0.999... = 0

>>8111188
1/0.999...95 = 1.999.../2.
1/0.000...1 = 100...0.

>>8111199
You're getting mixed up because of the infinite decimals. 0.999... only has 9s through decimal place [math]\omega[/math], while 9.999...5 has 9s through decimal place [math]\omega[/math] and then a 5 in place [math]\omega+1[/math]. Of course you could also have 0.999...9, which has 9s through decimal place [math]\omega+1[/math], but that's also a different number than 0.999... by itself.

In summary, 0.999... < 0.999...5 < 0.999...9 < 0.999...95 and so on.

>>8111215
>1/0.999...95 = 1.999.../2.
Whoops, meant to say 0.999...5 = 1.999.../2 so 1/0.999...5 = 2/1.999...

File: Photo on 30-05-2016 at 22.57.jpg (110KB, 1080x720px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1080x720px

>If you can have infinite 9s followed by a 9 then you can have infinite 0s followed by a 1

ok. Let's create this number:

>>8110359
>the ω decimal point
This does not exist in the real number system. Kill yourself.

All rational and recurring numbers can be given in the form a/b where a,b are integers. Prove to me that you can show 0.999... in this form?
Protip: you can't.

>>8111220
That is not an element of the complex numbers.

If you want to "create a number" and you want us to call it complex, then you need to prove to us that it is a complex number. This is easy to do for all known complex numbers. It is not possible to do for yours.

What you have just written makes as much sense as the number 0.0...fish
Both are undefined until you give it a precise definition.

>>8111229
.99999999 is irrational faggot

>>8111229
Let a = 1 and b = 1. Wow a/b is fucking 0.999....
That wasn't hard.

>>8111229
0.999... = 999...999/100...000. It's rational.

>>8111234
Then it doesn't equal 1 =)

>>8111234
I clearly said rational OR recurring.
0.999... is recurring.

>>8111229
0.99999... = 1/1

>>8111234
You have your definitions wrong.

in your case the fraction would be 99999999/100000000000000000

I did not count the zeros, but that is good enough.

>>8111215
>0.999...9, which has 9s through decimal place ω+1, but that's also a different number than 0.999... by itself

Ya okay

>>8111250
>>8111237

>>8111254
It is, though. 0.999...9 - 0.999... = 0.000...9 > 0.

>>8111255
>>8111116

>>8111237
>infinity is an element of the integers
You dumb fuck

>>8111229
Sorry for confusion, my intentions of this post were to prove that 0.999... could not be expressed differently than 1.
Hence, 1/1=1=0.999...

>>8111264
No, "infinity" isn't a precise term that corresponds to a single number nicely. 100...000 just has an infinite series of 0s following the 1, but preceding the decimal point.

>>8111270
Not an integer. Integers are finite. Buddy :-)

>>8111270
>has an infinite series of 0s following the 1, but preceding the decimal point.
Not an integer

>mfw I fail students who get this wrong

You better not assume 0.999.. = 1 because you'll get a fail for that task

>>8111255
So you're telling me there's more digits in 0.99....9 just because you insist? Do you understand how infinity works?

>>8111274
>teaching objectively incorrect maths
absolutely AMERICAN

>>8111279
Woops wrong one.

>>8111257
So you're telling me there's more digits in 0.99....9 just because you insist? Do you understand how infinity works?

>>8110359
0.000000.....1 = 0
.999... = 1
1 = 1
1-.999... = .000....1
1 - 1 = 0

I don't see why this is so hard for you people.
The whole concept of repeating decimals comes from fractions that don't work well in base 10, namely 1/3. 1/3 is standardized to mean the same thing as .3333... because you have to keep dividing the next place value in thirds infinitely. 2/3 = .6666..., so it only makes sense that 3/3 = 1 = .999...

>>8109454
THANK YOU

>>8109459
>What is Zeno's paradox
I thought we got past the grade school understanding of infinity when we decided to talk about this on a korean animus board.

>>8109679
Haha that's great

>>8110409
a<b<c
if b = (/)
then a = c
This is a logic proof. It has nothing to do with math. Neither of those numbers is being defined as higher than the other. I could say 1<x<.999.

The whole point of the field of calculus is that you can actually find numbers in a limit that don't actually exist discreetly. I could tell what lim(x->3) (y = 1/(x-3)) equals even though I know it's a discontinuous set.

Fraction multiplication is not a neat trick, it's one of the elementary functions. And your staircase argument doesn't work, the number line is continuous, it isn't made of steps. And at the infinitesimal level, it's perfectly continuous, which makes the inequality lemma work.

>>8111282
>believing the communist conspiracy regarding math

I bet you believe in the global warming con job too

>>8111237
9999...9999/100...000 = 1. Do you still need help understanding this babby concept?

>>8111288
>implying global warming isn't a product of the artificial man-made atmosphere and artificially constructed starry night skies completely surrounding the globe under orders of the worldwide mad communist gangster computer god

Typical parroting puppet sneak touch tarantula assassin response

File: Screen Shot 2016-05-30 at 23.12.16.png (162KB, 2490x1264px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 2490x1264px

/thread

>>8111234
No...it's not. It is equal to 99999999/100000000.


HOWEVER, to answer >>8111229
, consider this.

We know that the addition of an infinite number of integers is also an integer by the property that the ring of integers is closed under addition and multiplication, right? Thus it may easily be shown that

[math]\sum_{n = 0}^{\infty}(9)(10^n) [/math]

is an integer.

Likewise, it may easily be shown that [math]\sum_{n = 0}^{\infty}(10^n) [/math]

is also an integer.


Thus [math]\sum_{n = 0}^{\infty}(9)(10^n) [/math] divided by [math]\sum_{n = 0}^{\infty}(10^n) [/math] , which equals 0.999....

is by definition a rational number.

So we have proven 0.999.... is a rational number.

I thus propose we call this rational number 1 because, as a rational number, it must exist between 2 irrational numbers. But since 1 is also rational, it must not be the number preceding 1 in the real number system, And yet, it is clearly less than 1. So that means it either equals 1 or there is an irrational number between it and 1. But by the same logic, if there is an irrational number between it and 1, then there are infinitely many irrational numbers between it and 1. This is a contradiction. Thus we say it equals 1, and if anyone can prove a single contradiction following from this assumption, I will admit this system needs to be refined from that contradiction.

>>8110939
exactly.

surely is 1/1
almost surely is 0.99999.../1

if there was no difference between 0.999999... and 1 then there would be no difference between surely and almost surely.

The only reason these little kids think that 0.9999... = 1 is because they've only done calculus 1-3 or are still in highschool.

When you grow up a little bit and learn some real math in measure theory and grown-up probability you learn that 0.999999... =/= 1

>>8111298
THE MEMES, JACK

>>8111286
Except you're forgetting infinitesimal fractions. There are countably infinite fractions between 0.999... and 1

>>8110417

1/9 = .111...
1/9 * 9 = .999...
1 = .999...

What about this specifically is invalid?

>>8110304
I think like 9 with a quadrillion nines after it is probably the biggest number.

So if we take that number and add 1, then we have a contradiction.

>>8111285
0.999... has 9s in all the digits through index [math]\omega[/math], while 0.999...9 has 9s in the digits through index [math]\omega+1[/math]. [math]\omega+1 > \omega[/math].

>>8111302
lol i done doxed myself

>>8111292
No, 100...000 - 999...999 = 1. For them to be the same, the difference would have to be 0.

>>8111304
Uncountably many, actually.

>>8111304
Not in the complex number system there aren't. Those entities are not defined in the complex numbers. They are defined in other number systems, for which 0.999... does not equal 1, but which carry their own limitations. In the number system from which real and complex analysis are derived, such entities do not exist. A different type of analysis, known as non-standard analysis, has been created which defines the unique properties of such number systems as those.

>>8111306
1/9 = .111.... is wrong

>>8111321
What's the decimal representation of 1/9 then?

>>8111321
do you have a single fact to back that up

>>8111317
I'm not talking about complicated, contrived fairy tale math that academics do to keep tenure. I'm talking about real numbers, which we actually use in the real world.

>>8111310
>index ω
AGAIN, not the standard number system (complex).

You are using non-standard analysis to demonstrate properties of a DIFFERENT NUMBER SYSTEM. Good for you. But most people consider that as useless as defining the number "fish" and then explaining properties of said number. In the complex number system, fish doesn't exist. But yet you continue to list properties of this thing using rules from another number system as if it did.

is w a real number?

>>8111326
You are not though. Because the number you have defined is not a real number. It does not exist in the real number system. The real number system is easy to construct (using dedekind cuts) and the number you have described is not an element of it.

YOU are the one using complicated, contrived fairy tale number systems with properties YOU have defined to suit you, but which are different from the real numbers.

>>8111333
No.

>>8111341
what kind of number is w then

>>8111324
>>8111325
1/9 = .111... + an infinitely small 1/9. That way you multiply 9 by both sides and get 1 = .999... + an infinitely small 1 which closes the very real gap between the distinct numbers.

>>8111333
No. It's not. That's the whole fucking point.

A real number can be constructed as the "dense completion" of the rationals OR, more intuitively, by using dedekind cuts. Read a fucking book because it only takes a few steps to do.

Infinity is ALSO not a real number.

>inb4 extended real number system
Different number system. Still not a real number.

>>8111343
If you mean omega, that's an ordinal number.

>>8111349
okay well I'm not Greek so I don't really have that number on my keyboard

>>8111335
Except my system doesn't have contradictions like yours. Typical of academics to defend their shitty research.. can't make it in the real world I see, gotta depend on those government handouts that you stole from working Americans at gunpoint?

>>8111355
Not judging you, just making sure.

>>8111344
We're talking real numbers here.

>>8109416
0.99999... = something that never happens = 0

>>8111343
It is an element of a different number system.

As an example, if I defined the number "fish" and defined a new number system which contained all the real numbers AND fish, then my new number system would have all the properties of real numbers defined for everything except fish and then ARBITRARY properties that I can MAKE UP at will for "fish" which have no contradictions in them, at all. Because they are made up. I could say "fish is the number you get when you add up all the numbers forever," kind of like infinity. Cool. Still no contradiction. Fish is arbitrary. This is exactly the case with w. It's an arbitrary, made up number, which can have any arbitrary properties anyone gives it and still not cause any contradictions.

The real numbers, however, are defined rigorously with dedekind cuts. In this way, assuming everyone has agreed to refer to the numbers which are defined by this arbitrary algorithm called "dedekind cuts" as "real numbers," then we can all agree to observe the properties of them and do so. w is not a number which can be defined this way and thus it is not a real number. It's just an arbitrary object defined by a different rule, completely irrelevant to the real numbers.

>>8111357
Lel I'm an undergraduate who understands this because it isn't hard. I haven't done a days worth of mathematical research in my life.

What happened to an argument? You'd really rather throw insults at something which isn't me?

>>8111357
I can assure you my number system, the standard complex number system, contains no contradictions. Please demonstrate that it does.

See: >>8111371
as well.

>>8111300
>if there was no difference between 0.999999... and 1 then there would be no difference between surely and almost surely.
This is complete bullshit. Probability is 1/1 in both cases. The empty set has measure zero, but "almost surely" accounts for arbitrary sets of measure zero.
Consider babby's first prob. What is the probability of selecting .5 from the interval [0,1] under the uniform distribution? How about the integral over [0,1] of the function which is 1 at all rationals and 0 elsewhere?

>>8111375
Kill yourself, you neomillennial alaskan goatfucking faggot.

>>8111310
You're going to need some justification to just talk about these index things. How can you finitely index an infinite set of numbers? Are you talking about Ordinals or some shit?

You've given me no construction and no theorems or proofs whatsoever. I tried my best to use well established and defined notions like limits and series and you're just talking about these indexed decimals like I'm supposed to believe you they exist and work like how you say they do.

If you do know what you're talking about, you need to work on justifying these things mathematically. If you do not, well I see that I'm getting absolutely no where with this just because you think you're right out of ignorance.

>>8111371
>>8111345
>>8111335
READ THE FUCKING POSTS BEFORE YOU EVEN USE THE WORDS "REAL NUMBERS" YOU FUCKING CUNTS

>>8111375
>alaskan goatfucker / neomillennial weak white cuckold gets BANNED ON

Laughing my lmao off, to be t.b.h.

>>8111379
Struck a nerve there? You're spouting insults instead of actually arguing with the other anon.

>>8111393
No need to argue. That alaskan faggot and known goatfucker got BANNED ON. Banned on, forever mad, foreverially mad and cucked and permanently trolled, until the end of time, forever.

>>8111390
I'm still here for the time being, but I've just gotta say it's been p entertaining watching the other anon dismantle you

>>8111398
>19-year-old goatfucking alaskan from the tumblrtale general IRC literally actively evading a ban because he's so mad and cucked and trolled

It literally writes itself

>>8111397
>>8111405
What are you even saying? Do you just speak entirely in memes? Also, I wasn't banned, my post was just removed for being offtopic (which I have issues with considering the awesome post quality you've made).
Regardless, I'm out of this thread, you can continue incessantly swearing at academia if it satisfies you

>>8111377
>What happened to an argument? You'd really rather throw insults at something which isn't me?
You haven't demonstrated mine wrong, you just throw out bullshit and say "hur dur aren't you so wrong"

I demonstrated your argument wrong here:
>>8111335 and here: >>8111371.

>>8111423
This was meant for >>8111417

>>8110335
But first, let's talk about parallel universes

>>8110335
/pol/ and /v/ it seems like.

>>8111446
You are the only /pol/ here.

>>8111059
>0.999... is not a real number as it doesn't terminate.
Non terminating decimal =/> Real number

>>8111423
>>8111427
>>8111382
Refer to >>8111161
that's /thread, unless you want to deliver and sell us on the usefulness of this fucky system nobody's ever used for serious business

>>8111465
Nope that summed up my point, thanks.

>>8111472
Heading to a department party, be my ω plus one?

>>8111465
What? His post is directly confronting the real number system. It's literally the one most commonplace number system out there.

>>8111503
Who is fish?

>>8111511
Maybe I linked the wrong guy. Was supposed to be Mr "0.99...995"

>>8111345
>A real number can be constructed as the "dense completion" of the rationals
Is that the proper terminology? Rationals are already dense. Did you mean "closing the rationals over least upper bounds", because that would be correct.

>>8110883
>0.000...1
Either names the number "0", or it's not a Real number.

>>8111083
Writing a decimal expansion with an infinite number of 3s, followed by a single 4, is wrong. You are no longer working in standard mathematics. A decimal expansion can be thought of as a function from Naturals to the digits {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9}. For example, the decimal expansion of an infinite number of 3s can be thought of as the function
f : N -> digits, f(n) = 3
You cannot talk about a decimal expansion of an infinite number of 3s, followed by a single 4, because that single 4 has no element in the domain that maps to it. "Infinity" is not a member of the Naturals.

>>8111237
Those aren't integers. Integers do not contain infinite numbers. Integers are all finite.

>>8111620
Then 0.999...9 is not a Real number either

>>8111639
Or the number is named "1." Which is his point.

0.999... + 0.000...1 = 1
1 + 0 = 1
0.9 + 0.1 = 1
0.8 + 0.2 = 1
0.7 + 0.3 = 1
0.6 + 0.4 = 1
0.5 + 0.5 = 1
0.999... = 0.5
0.000...1 = 0.5
0.999... = 0.000...1

>>8111654
>0.9 = 0.8 = ...
I think you're onto something anon, and it's probably drugs

>>8111654
You had me until here:
>0.999... = 0.5
>0.000...1 = 0.5
>0.999... = 0.000...1
Not sure what silly argument you're trying to make.

>>8111660
0.8 + 0.0999...9 = 0.9
0.9 - 0.000...1 = 0.8999...9
0.8 + 0 = 0.8
0.9 - 0 = 0.9
0.9 = 0.8
0.8 = 0.9

>>8111666
And again, you lost me here:
>0.9 = 0.8
>0.8 = 0.9
I don't know what games you're playing.

>>8111676
0.8 + 0.0999...9 = 0.9
0.0999...9 = 0.999...9 - 0.9
0.999...9 = 1
1 - 0.9 = 0.1
0.1 = 1000...0 * 0.000...1
0.000...1 = 0
n * 0 = 0
1000...0 * 0 = 0
0.8 + 0 = 0.9
0.8 + 0 = 0.8
0.8 = 0.9

>>8111689
Going to have to stop you right here:
>0.1 = 1000...0 * 0.000...1
You're no longer doing math in any number system that I recognize. Those are not integers, rationals, nor Reals.

Could you please give me the rules for your new number system? Or could you go back to using the standard number systems please.

>>8111676
>>8111698
He's screwing with us, dw

>>8111698
1000...0 = 10 * 10 * 10 ... * 10
0.000...1 = 10 / 10 / 10 ... / 10 = 0
0.1 = 1000...0 * 0.000...1
1 = 1000...0 * 0.000...1
10 = 1000...0 * 0.000...1
0.01 = 1000...0 * 0.000...1
0.001 = 1000...0 * 0.000...1
0.2 = 1000...0 * 0.000...1 * 2
0.3 = 1000...0 * 0.000...1 * 3
0.4 = 1000...0 * 0.000...1 * 4
0.1n = 1000...0 * 0.000...1 * n
1000...0 * 0.000...1 = 1000...0 * 0 = 0
0 * n = 0
0.1n = 0
n = 0
i = sqrt(-1)
-1 = 0
sqrt(0) = 0
i = 0
n * i = 0
n + n * i = 0
(any real, imaginary, or complex number) = 0

>>8111730
Typical ivory tower propagandist shill response

>>8111731
>0.00000....1 = 0

why are you still reading this nonsense

>>8111896
why are you a big black nigger with a fat cock?

>>8111896
1 - 0.999...9 = 0.000...1
0.999...9 = 1
1 - 1 = 0
0.000...1 = 0

>>8111613
Yeah. I'm sorry.

I meant the closure of the rationals but I guess I was hoping the general idea would come across somehow. I'm honestly terrible at explaining mathematical ideas even though I understand them on paper but thanks, yeah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TINfzxSnnIE

Reasons why .9999999... = 1

mfw 47 (you)s

why are you sperglords so easy to bait?

>>8112280
literally this :-)

>>8112280
rigorously and unambiguously define bait

>>8112280
prove it

File: Merely_34d334_5380319.jpg (40KB, 580x499px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 580x499px

>>8112280
Fuck ω

File: sperglords.png (122KB, 1917x535px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1917x535px

>>8112764

filename related

>>8112280
because sadly there are real breathing people that believe this bullshit
remember anon, people recognize a troll once they say "wait a minute, no one is THIS stupid. This is done on purpose". Here this moment doesn't come, since some people ARE this stupid, and it is easier to assume that they are arguing with single digit IQs that to say that this is an elaborate farce