How do "0.999... equals 1" fags can explain the following?

>>8743634
putting pies back together is hard work
in order to have enough energy to do it you need to eat at least 2 of them

x = 3.333...
3x = 9.999...
3x = 10
x = 10/3

what's wrong

3.333... doesnt equal 4. It equals 3+1/3.

(3+1/3)×3 = 10

>>8743634
>Theoretically that 3.333... equals 4
never thought I'd see mathematical dadaism in action.

x=0.9999999....
10x=9.99999...
9x=9
x=9/9=1
Therefore 0.999999...=1.

File: 1458347199514-1.jpg (194KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 500x500px

>>8743634
>Theoretically that 3.333... equals 4
OP proves himself a brainlet before we even get to the meat of his argument. And you even wonder why we look down on retards like you.

>>8745239
>Begging the question this hard.
You can't just assert 9x=9 then use that to prove x=1.

>>8743999
>>8745300
>Theoretically that 3.333... equals 4
This was my first thought, but if we remember that .000...1 = 0 then we actually could assume that 3.333...3 = 3.333...4 = 3.333...5 = 4, after adding .000...1 an infinite number of times.

>>8745300
/thread
op is a fag who doesn't deserve any pie

0.9999999.... = 0.9 + 0.9 + 0.9 + ....
=0.9 (1+1+1.... )
=0.9 (-1/2)
=-1/12

>>8745331
Except the last step doesn't make sense. It would still be equal to 3.333... repeating.

>>8745331
>.000...1
That's not a real number so no.

>>8743999
Mathematical Dadaism at its finest kek

>>8743634
3.333... = 1/3 is your problem here.

File: menacing.png (23KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 480x480px

>>8745331
>add 0 to a number enough times, and the number becomes bigger
sounds like you're unclear on the concept of 'zero' senpaialam

>>8743634
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDtFBSjNmm0
btw if that was true there would be a smallest positive number equal to 1- 0.(9) which would break some math laws attached to limits soo..

>>8745344
Sure it is. It's equal to 1 - .999... :^)

More seriously tho, it's just an infinitesimal, which are regularly used in mathematics.

>>8745321
Yes we can.
If x=0.999999...
10x=9.99999....
9x=10x-x which is the same as writing: 9.9999...-0.99999...
Therefore 9x=9, and x=1.

>>8745353
> 0(\inf) = 0
Alright matey.

>>8743634
>Theoretically that 3.333... equals 4
No.

>>8745356
>just an infinitesimal
I'm not sure you're understanding that well. An infinitesimal is *arbitrarily* small.

>>8743634

It doesn't equal, it's approximately 1.

>>8743634

x = (1/3)
(1/3) = 0.3333...
x * 3 = 1

Same idea with .999 = 1

>>8745361
Obviously 0.999... = 1, but this proof doesn't work because it assumes what it's trying to prove, which makes it circular.

>>8745356
looool top troll right here

>>8743634
You started with an erroneous position and then ended with an erroneous position.

Not a mathematician but a debater here.

>>8745522
GIGO, as the /g/men say

>>8743634
>How do mathfags explain this?
Easy, you're a brianlet.
See that 0.999... = 1 does not imply that 3.333... = 4. Using the same logic you can get to the first statement you can let
x = 3.333...
<=> 10x = 33.333...
<=> 10x - x = 33.333... - 3.333...
<=> 9x = 30
<=> x = 10/3.
Also note that 4 = 12/3, and 12/3 /= 10/3 therefore 3.333 /= 4

U guys r complicating this
1-0.99999...=0.000000...forever which equals 0

Where are the wild burgers?

>>8743634
These days you can never be certain whether you're dealing with a brainlet or a troll.

>>8743634
I think you are overthinking this. People who say 0.999999... = 1 are just rounding up for simplicity.

>>8747694
"No"
0.99999999999999... on and ON up to infinity is precisely 1. It's even the definition of 1.

>>8743634
Daily reminder that nonstandard analysts actually believe 0.999... < 1

Kys.

>>8747699
No, its not 1. Its 0.0000... ...0001 - 1. Its one infinity smaller unit smaller than 1.

If it where really 1, then it would be 1.

>>8745353
This is how integrals work.

>>8743634
Maybe the two additional pies are "imaginary".

File: 2522355-2341141665-tumbl.jpg (29KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x375px

>>8745356
>>8747826
top kek, had a good chuckle

>>8743634
I come to /sci/ sparsely now due to how shitty most if the threads on this board are. I can see that status quo remains true.