Explain to me why 0.999...= 1 Don't use algebraic proofs

>>8697437

0 stand for nothing/ does not exist, so .9999.... = 1/-.1111....

>>8697437
Thats because you limit it you fuck. Its an unending number. so if you have 99.999.. of anyones money you would have them all. Because you can go lower and lower until you get sub cents.

>>8697437
because the distance between 0.999... and 1 is 0 thus they are the same points

>>8697437
How are proofs not "logical thought?"

You basically want us to prove something about limits of real numbers without analysis.

>>8697482
He's baiting hard. Boy wants an explanation of some brainlet shit using brainlet methods (impossibly so)

>>8697437

Take 1l of water.
Divide it into 3 glasses
How much water is in each glass?
You'd say 0.33333...
If you then regather that water together, how much do you have?
Well, you have 3 x 0.33333... = 0.99999...
But obviously, you have as much water as you started with, which is 1l
Hence, 0.99999... = 1

Someone fucked up on this picture in the very middle.

>>8697437
Most guys--and most gals--can't help you because they believe in "sort of" true, "sort of" yes and "sort of" right and they have one set of rules for themselves and another set for other people. They have severely limited imaginations and intellect, so they can only do what they've been taught they ought to do and what they were taught they ought to believe.

However, some guys here seem to have honor, intelligence and open-mindedness. I appreciate your sanity and wisdom.

>>8697437

Take the notion of distance (metric). If you want to call two number different, there must be a distance between them. Otherwise we have to consider them the same number, since there's literally no difference. In order to show that 0.99... is not in-fact just 1, you must show there is something in-between to distinguish them apart from each other. However, there is nothing you can place at the end of 0.99... that would result in being less than 1.

>>8697457
>as long as you assume infinite ways to divide small sums of money
which is about as realistic as assuming infinite amount of money.

>>8697481
this is interesting because I think there would be a distance of 0.however many 0's,1 approaching 0 but never reaching 0

>>8697482
no they are, I was unclear in my statements. basically I think proofs are limited by some factor of their construct so try to convince me in a way I will understand. kinda dumb I know.

>>8697498
honestly not bait, just a normal intelligence person looking for an explanation

>>8697499
this is good. but maybe 1/3 does not equal .333... then. it is clear that 1/3*3 equals 1, but .333... times 3 should equal .999... which in my mind should be distinct numbers. but 1/3 has to equal .333... so I think you might have explained it. thanks.

>>8697504
yes they did

>>8697521
so you agree that .999... and 1 should be different numbers by the nature of everything we know about numbers to be true?

>>8697561
I get what you're saying, but
>there is nothing you can place at the end of .999...
yeah you can place another 9, and another 9, and another 9. but you can never place so many 9's at the end that it turns into 1.

File: 100100100100100100100100.gif (1001KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

1001KB, 640x480px

>>8697437
>teach me math but don't use algebra because algebra is wrong

Prove that 10*0.9999...= 9.999...

>>8697851
Why is 3*0.3333....=0.9999...? Proof required