I really need a straight, correct answer on this. Does 0.999

>>8701033
since when are there hairless guinea pigs?

>>8701037
It's shaved I think.

>>8701037
there's hair on its nose you fucking blind idiot

>>8701043

hh..? h..how would you s h a v e a Guinea Pig?

0.99999.... = -1/12

>>8701033
Depends on how you define

>>8701079
Explain.

0.999999... = suk my cocc dood

>>8701033
I'd think in a practical sense yes because the limit of that shit as it keeps getting closer to 1 is 1. Take that with a grain of salt because I might not be correct.

>>8701033
Does "lead" mean to be in front and show the way? Or does "lead" mean a weighty element Pb on the periodic table? Well? Which is it?

"Give me a number that is as close to 1 as possible, without being 1." The answer to this, is the NUMBER 0.999...

What is the LIMIT process of 0.999... ? It is 0.999... = 1, just as Liebniz defined.

It all depends upon context.

File: 1b5e66a574cf613eeaa0ca8ac3100153a4f320ed67aceed923bd034da2799388.jpg (79KB, 790x602px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 790x602px

>>8701033
x=.999...
>multiply by 10
10x=9.999....
>subtract x
9x=9
>divide by 9
x=1
substitute .999... for x
.999...=1

>>8701117
This is the classic category mistake.
If you treat 0.999... as a number to be multiplied, and not a limit process, then you have made a mistake by not including the differentials. (the seminal work _Non_Standard_Analysis_, Abraham Robinson 1960).

You can't use 0.999... as a limit and treat it as a number.