Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:42:06 UTC No. 16096641

>>16096593
0.999999... IS 1.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:53:22 UTC No. 16096658

>>16096641
Fake and gay. Next are you gonna tell me 0.3333... = 0.4? Or 0.77777.... = 0.8?

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:11:01 UTC No. 16096676

>>16096641
its not, first 2 digits arent the same.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:13:52 UTC No. 16096682

>>16096593
0,999999999 recurring is the same thing as one (and it's not just me, retarded 4channer, that says so).

Proof:
Let x = 0.99999etc
10x = 9.9999999etc
10x - x = 9.99999etc - 0.9999999etc = 1

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:14:05 UTC No. 16096683

>>16096658
>>16096676
Give me a number between 0.99999... (with the 9s going on for infinity) and 1.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:14:30 UTC No. 16096684

>>16096593
Geometry confuses the decimalcel

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:21:15 UTC No. 16096698

>>16096683
0.AAA… in base 11.

also, an infinitely long decimal isnt possible

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:26:14 UTC No. 16096707

>>16096698
>also, an infinitely long decimal isnt possible
wrong
0.9 repeating is one by definition, you like it or not wont change the definition, its what it is in our commonly used math system
you are free to make your own system where its not equal

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:55:59 UTC No. 16096739

>>16096698
You need a math class.

0.AAAAAA... in base 11 is
(11/10^1)+(11/10^2)+(11/10^3)+(11/10^4)... in base 10
So 1.2222222222222...


0.9999999... in base 11 is
(9/11^1)+(9/11^2)+(9/11)^3...

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:36:14 UTC No. 16096786

>>16096683
Give me a number between 0.3333... and 0.4. also give me a number between 0.6666... and 0.7

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:36:58 UTC No. 16096787

>>16096698
0.A... > 0.9... for all same length strings except at ∞ where A and all other such natural radix-1 strings are equivalent to 1.
Now, if your radix changes between each place holder, then it is a different thing.
Did you know that 0 doesn't occur until the 33rd digit of Pi?

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:46:49 UTC No. 16096800

>>16096739
the ratio is 10/11 in base 11 dumbass

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:47:52 UTC No. 16096801

>>16096707
defining it to be equal doesnt make it equal.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:56:01 UTC No. 16096809

>>16096786
0.34 and 0.67. Are you retarded?

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 05:55:53 UTC No. 16097270

>>16096676
[math] \displaystyle
1= \dfrac{3}{3}=3 \cdot \dfrac{1}{3}=3 \cdot 0. \bar{3}=0. \bar{9}
[/math]

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 06:19:13 UTC No. 16097287

>>16097270
1/3 isnt equal to 0.3 bar

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 06:24:08 UTC No. 16097293

>>16097287
sure it is

1/3 = 3/10 + 1/30
= 0.3 + 1/30
= 0.33 + 1/300
= 0.333 + 1/3000
:
= 0.333... + 1/inf
= 0.333... + 0
= 0.333...

elipo at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 12:37:29 UTC No. 16097597

>>16096658
LMFAO are you retarded, how do you not understand the difference between 0.33333 to 4 and 0.9999 to 1

you can give a number between 0.3333 and 0.4, but you can't give a number between 0.9999 and 1

elipo at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 12:40:10 UTC No. 16097606

>>16097293
that's a really good definition, very nice

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 13:42:52 UTC No. 16097656

>>16097293
1/300... ≠ 0
1/300... = 0.000...

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 13:46:46 UTC No. 16097659

>>16096593
>1/3=0.333333
I don't accept this 'definition' or notation.

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 13:47:53 UTC No. 16097660

>>16096707
.9999... isn't a decimal expansion

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 13:54:22 UTC No. 16097663

so THIS is what Mathematicians DO all day? Waste of taxpayer dollars

B4rk0n at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 14:04:45 UTC No. 16097671

You maths doesn't make sense.

0.66
Is also sixty six
0.666666666666666666/666666666
Where the / is the point that repetition is off the margin becoming redundant 0 spam

B4rk0n at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 14:21:50 UTC No. 16097693

>>16097671
In math, you can't just assume numbers go on forever. You need to prove this. The highest number of the units is four thousand quadrillion.

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 17:50:42 UTC No. 16097900

>>16096683
By that logic 1 = 999... because there isn't a number you can add between them

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:16:24 UTC No. 16097939

>>16097656
your point?
each line = 1/3, exactly

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:19:49 UTC No. 16097946

>>16097900
You are malfunctioning.
2 and 67 are between 1 and 999999...
Also an arbitrary amount of other numbers.

You should be able to tell us how the number between 0.99.... and 1 looks, like I did above.

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:19:55 UTC No. 16097948

>>16097606
with 1/7 it gets a bit unwieldy

1/7 = 142857/1E6 + 1/7E6
= 0.142857 + 1/7E6
= 0.142857 142857 + 1/7E12
= 0.142857 142857 142857 + 1/7E18
:
= 0.142857... + 1/inf
= 0.142857... + 0
= 0.142857...

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 22:47:01 UTC No. 16098343

>>16096809
>>16097597
0.33333... = 0.34 because there's no number between them

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 00:54:37 UTC No. 16098555

>>16098343
0.337

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 01:36:48 UTC No. 16098609

>>16097946
>2 and 67 are between 1 and 999999...
And there's an infinite sequence of 0.999.. between 0.999... and 1

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 01:37:52 UTC No. 16098613

>>16096593
>1/3=0.333333
It's not, it's "a third".

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 01:42:38 UTC No. 16098617

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 01:46:20 UTC No. 16098626

>>16098617
That first "proof" of induction is already wrong, you start by defining x as infinite, then removing 1x and magically defining x as finite (1)

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:20:37 UTC No. 16099548

>>16098617
the difference of 9.999~ from 10 should be about 10 times larger than 0.999~ from 1. it's 1 minus an unknown infinitesimal quantity, compared to 9.999~ minus 9.999~ of these unknowns.

0.999~ = 1 - x
where x can be an infinitesimal of any scale, or zero.
0.999~ = 1 is only true when x is zero. But if x was zero, you would not write it as '0.999~'. So I would say it's only a useful expression when combined with infinitesimals, in which case x should always be an infinitesimal if you are using this expression.

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:49:11 UTC No. 16099596

>>16099548
0.999~ = 1 - x
9.999~ - 0.999 = 10(1 - x) - (1 - x)
10(1 - x) - (1 - x) = 10 - 10x - 1 + x
10 - 10x - 1 + x = 9 - 9x

9.999~ - 0.999~ = 9 - 9x

result: 8.999~ or 9, depending on the value of x

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 18:24:22 UTC No. 16099643

>>16096593
1/3 = 3 in base 9. 2/3 = 6 in base nine. 1/3 + 2/3 = 3/3 = 1.

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 19:17:00 UTC No. 16099735

>>16096593
>>16096658
i would just like you to know that this is the dumbest, weakest, stupidest, bait i have seen in a very long time and i usually browse /pol/

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 22:39:56 UTC No. 16100120

>>16096683
Give me a number before 1 first

Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 01:07:23 UTC No. 16100331

>>16096593
You need more 3s, 6s, and 9s in your decimals