Does 0.999999999.... equal 1.0, Jow Forums?

>so then 1.1111... is also the same number
based retard
9/9=1, therefore 10/9=1?

No, but if you had $9999999.99, you'd probably still say you had $10mil.

Just because there's a mathematical difference, that doesn't necessarily mean that the practical application of that difference would have any consequences.

what is the third step here

did you multiply by 9/10? if so you would get 8.999 repeating on the left side.

Attached: pepepe.jpg (188x152, 5K)

Subtract x from both sides

but there is no x on the left side you would have 9.99999... - x = 9x

Sounds like educating the mods would be a good time. I lost access to the IP I used so I couldn't even check it, that's why you see the ban archive and not the ban page.

But x=.9999..., that is the given. Substitute .999... for x, it's apparent algebra.

ok, i didn't see it that way

Thank you user. I like this proof because all of it is defined by logic.

Attached: Untitled.png (419x559, 17K)

It does not, but since 0.000000001 of a year is 0.031536 of a second, that means that in the time it took you to post your statement that you were 17.999999999 years old, you turned 18.

There are many different ways to prove this, but this is the only real way

Brainlets detected
You people should really learn your place

It makes me wonder that the rule isn't 100% concise, if you said you were turning 18 in a second would you still get banned?

>but this is the only real way
your dang right. I didn't spend 2 years in uni for this knowledge to go to waste. Other proofs have some hand waving and explaining it away as "because math"

>2 years in uni
that's high school stuff

Abstractions are useless. Practically, 0.999...works just as well as 1.0

shhh, you are breaking the illusion of me larping as a mathlet

Yes, you would
Merely being under 18 isnt ban worthy, its specifically POSTING while underaged that gets you slapped, so if you said you were turning 18 in one second, it is implied that you made that post while under 18

The fuck kinda high school did you go to???

this. infinity doesn't actually exist.

But are you justified getting banned for 30 days then?

No, 0.99... < 1
It's the whole reason we have the "

Yes, because you broke the rules. If CP became legal today they would not unban the IPs that broke the rule.

>school told me it's right therefore it's true
You truly were the brainlet all along.

I'm not sure about that, if they appeal it they could probably get unbanned then.

INFINITY IS THE ONLY THING THAT EXISTS, YOU FOOL

Wait a minute this was a ban in 2018? Have mods gotten dumber?

Yes, because you broke a rule that gets you b& for 30 days
If you assault someone, does your prison term end as soon as theyre fully healed?
You have autism and it would be better for everyone if you stopped fighting and just came to terms with it

1 - 1 = 0
1 - .9999999999... = 0.000000000... and so on to infinity
Therefore .999999... = 1
This isn't difficult

>I was never good in school
>projecting this hard

Not really but as people said, limiti as n approaches 1 of (n ) is one

Yes, I genuinely have autism. If being a neurotypical would mean I would accept an untruth as a truth simply for practicality, then I do not wish to be neurotypical.

>rejecting literally the closest thing to absolute truth we know to be edgy

guess I expected too much of you, seeing as you don't even know what projecting means.

(infinity)/(infinity) = 1 right? wrong :^)

1 / infinity = 0.000...
0.000... = 0

0 * infinity = 0.

it doesn't exist :^)

Why do you have such a distrust of school?

>(infinity)/(infinity) = 1
No one with more than two brain cells thought that

lim(x) as x->infinity = infinity
lim(2x) as x->infinity = infinity
2x=x
2=1
take that math IDIOTS bet ya didn't think of that XDDDDDD

>i-it's close to 1 therefore it is 1!
this fucking board

What part of dont you understand?

I'm familiar with the "proof" that OP was really trying to reference, and it's been exploded and rebutted many times. As one might expect, since it's fucking OBVIOUSLY STUPID.

My objection - that it's not possible to type the message, solve the captcha, and post the message while still remaining under 18, is actually a better argument against his ban.

here's something that will BLOW YOUR MIND. the earth is SO SMALL compared to the rest of the universe that MATHEMATICALLY we don't exist WHOOOOOOOOOOAAAAA

:^)

What part of # dont you understand? Orgeano

It takes longer than one second to say that you're turning 18 in one second. So you actually CANNOT make that post while under 18. The transaction cost in time makes it impossible.

This is a classic date stab data problem, user.

the part where you pulled a 1 out of your ass

Technically no but there isn't any point in getting autistic about it

>this thread
Wow this sure made me realise that math is retarded. Glad I never paid attention in school desu.

Where? Or are you b8ing

the only intelligent answer in this thread

The part where Zeno's paradox can't actually be resolved if an infinite string of .9's has any referent in reality.

>t. didnt read the thread

Nigger.
>9 * (1/9)
distribute the 9
>(9/9)
simplify
>1/1
>1

>60+ posts in and no one has questioned if we're in base 10 or not
impressed

Zenos paradox can easily be solved, but the ancients who thought of it didnt have access to infinite sums, so the idea seemed foreign and unsolvable to them

>using a math problem from the era where mentioning the square root of 2 got you executed as an argument objective proofs

Definition of brainlet:
Thinks 0.99... is not equal to 1
Can't understand the monty hall paradox

>Can't understand the monty hall paradox
This one drives me up the fucking wall

That infinite string of 9s is just a different decimal representation of 1. It does not represent anything infinite.

Probability is really about how much information we have, not about counting the number of final outcomes.

>.999...=x
>9.99...=10x

The error in the proof occurs at the first step.

While treating "multiplying by 10" as a simple move of the decimal point one space to the left is appropriate in our system of mathematical notation, in this case it's assuming the conclusion and engaging in circular reasoning.

We could similarly conclude that .999, .9999, and .99999 are all the same number, since if we multiply them by 10 we always add 9 to our value.

Go on, prove your assertion.

0.999=x
9.99=10x
8.991=9x
0.999=x
0.999=0.999
Woah

>We could similarly conclude that .999, .9999, and .99999 are all the same number, since if we multiply them by 10 we always add 9 to our value.
You might want to check your work there, Einstein

By definition of the representation there are endless 9 values extending. I did not change the amount of 9s in the statement, just moved the decimal place
1.0 times 10, move the decimal place one to the right so 1*10=10
.9999... times 10, move the decimal place one to the right so .999...*10=9.9999
not confusing at all

>Zenos paradox can easily be solved, but the ancients who thought of it didnt have access to infinite sums, so the idea seemed foreign and unsolvable to them

A mathematical, Archimedean solution to Zeno's paradox doesn't help with a logical solution.

The paradox is only resolved if it is not, in fact, possible to infinitely divide either space or time into ever-smaller segments. If infinite division is not possible *in reality*, then the entire concept of .999~ has no referent in reality. "Number line" oriented proofs are therefore meaningless.

If anything, this entire discussion should make mathematicians more humble, because the only reason .999~ even exists as a concept is to represent a number which approaches 1 but does not reach it - and if your system "proves" that a concept invented to be not-1 actually *is* 1, that should lead to pretty serious doubt about the validity of the overall system.

Would you keep your physics out of this please?

The limit of x as x approaches 1^-
No, it's not equal to 1.
The limit of x as x approached 1^+
No, it's not equal to 1.

>If infinite division is not possible *in reality*, then the entire concept of .999~ has no referent in reality. "Number line" oriented proofs are therefore meaningless.
Infinite division is all throughout the real world, theyre called integrals

y = 10
x*y = x+9
y = (x+9)/x
10 = (x+9)/x
All possible integers now = x
Transitively, all possible integers now equal each other.
Thanks, I'd like my Nobel Prize now

>the only reason .999~ even exists as a concept is to represent a number which approaches 1 but does not reach it
Absolutely wrong. What is being argued here is that it exists to represent the same value as one. You are using circular reasoning.

something can be put together to as much as it was divided from

Attached: Untitled.png (696x561, 17K)

x can only equal 1 there
Sorry lad

>What is being argued here is that it exists to represent the same value as one.

That would mean that your system now LACKS a concept to represent the largest possible number smaller than 1.

>All possible integers now = x
How about 2

sageYou're the mathlet here, I know which proof you're talking about, and it's not a formal proof.

>That would mean that your system now LACKS a concept to represent the largest possible number smaller than 1.
No such number exists, it would contradict its own existence
Say such a number, n, did exist. Then (n+1)/2 would be larger than n yet smaller than 1

If y=10 and xy=x+9 then
x+9=10x
x=1

Indeed it doesn't, because such a number does not exist.

>Infinite division is all throughout the real world, theyre called integrals

It's a handwave and it's always been a handwave

>Indeed it doesn't, because such a number does not exist.

Then there's no such thing as an infinite decimal and by even devising a system of notation that purports to describe one mathematicians are deliberately lying.

It's just an inconvenience in notation. You were just confused by it like many others. Don't take it personally.

>there's no such thing as an infinite decimal
Yes retard decimals are an informal way to represent numbers. Infinity is not recognized in traditional mathematics as a value. You can't write down the relationship between two numbers as a base 10 value all the time. That's why they are abandoned beyond arithmetic. an lim(x) x->0 = 0.

>It's just an inconvenience in notation. You were just confused by it like many others. Don't take it personally.

I'm actively angered by the offense against logic.

1 = 1

1 /= 1 - (1/n)

>YES IT DO

What the fuck ever.

>literally infinitely small
>want it to have a finite arithemtical value
bet you think infinity + 1 > infinity too

Reality is often disappointing.

Attached: RealityStone_Gauntlet.png (447x442, 237K)

(1/n) is greater than zero, no matter how large n becomes.

That means that 1 and (1-(1/n)) simply can't be the same value, for any positive value of n.

>NUH UH Look at the clever way I have proven this impossibility to be true!

All you've done is introduce doubt that our system of mathematics is sound or meaningful at all. If your method proves the obviously false to be true, then I have to start looking for the fundamental flaw in your method that I can't currently see or don't currently understand. I can, however, be sure that flaw exists.

>for any positive value of n
And infinity is a positive number?

>bet you think infinity + 1 > infinity too

The fact that this statement is paradoxical should lead us to doubt that "infinity" is sound as a concept.

>And infinity is a positive number?

Is it greater than 0?

It isn't. That's why it does not exist. you cannot divide by 0, this is mathematics for 4th graders.