Proof: 0.9999 does not equal 1

  • Thread starter greeniguana00
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary: He is showing why it is NOT correct. For example, what he calls the "zero property" is, in fact, the proof that-1= 0 is NOT correct. He is showing how a common error is made (not by him- by others).In what sense is this a "proof" that "0.999... does not equal 1"? You have set up a putative but obviously incorrect proof that 0.999...= 1 and shown that it is incorrect. That is exactly his point (I think).
  • #1
greeniguana00
53
0
The function y=1-1/x is often used to show how the repeating decimal 0.9999... is equal to 1. When x=1, y=1; x=10, y=0.9; x=10000, y=.9999, and so on. The limit of 1-1/x as x approaches infinity equals 1. An assumption is often made, however, that if the limit of an expression as x approaches infinity is 1, then that expression must equal 1 when x equals infinity.

Assumption: 1-1/x = 1 when x = infinity
Subtraction: -1/x = 0
Multiplication: -1 = 0x
Zero Property: -1 = 0

-1 does not equal 0, therefore 1-1/x does not equal 1 when x = infinity.

You cannot treat "infinity" like a normal number, you can only think of it in terms of limits.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Is this a troll or something?

if the limit of an expression as x approaches infinity is 1, then that expression must equal 1 when x equals infinity.
Those two statements are the exact same thing.

You cannot treat "infinity" like a normal number, you can only think of it in terms of limits.
That's exactly what you did in your "proof".
 
  • #4
x = 0.99999...

10x = 9.99999...

=> 9x = 9 (subtracting the two equations)

=> x = 1
 
  • #5
greeniguana00 said:
I confess that your intent was not immediately obvious to me.

And, incidentally, if you use the extended real numbers, it is correct to say [itex]1 - \frac{1}{+\infty} = 1[/itex] -- the error then comes when you tried to multiply, because [itex]0 \cdot +\infty[/itex] is not defined in extended real arithmetic.
 
  • #6
It doesn't matter that we can only "think of it in terms of limits" because the expression 0.999... is a limit anyway.
 
  • #7
greeniguana00 said:
The function y=1-1/x is often used to show how the repeating decimal 0.9999... is equal to 1. When x=1, y=1; x=10, y=0.9; x=10000, y=.9999, and so on. The limit of 1-1/x as x approaches infinity equals 1. An assumption is often made, however, that if the limit of an expression as x approaches infinity is 1, then that expression must equal 1 when x equals infinity.

Assumption: 1-1/x = 1 when x = infinity
Subtraction: -1/x = 0
Multiplication: -1 = 0x
Zero Property: -1 = 0

-1 does not equal 0, therefore 1-1/x does not equal 1 when x = infinity.

You cannot treat "infinity" like a normal number, you can only think of it in terms of limits.
In what sense is this a "proof" that "0.999... does not equal 1"? You have set up a putative but obviously incorrect proof that 0.999...= 1 and shown that it is incorrect. If someone claims that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow because tomorrow is the 32 of July and I show that is wrong, have I proved that the sun will NOT rise in the east tomorrow?There is no proof of anything here!

Yes, you cannot treat "infinity" like a normal number which is why why what you are saying makes no sense! No one has said "0.999... equals 1 because 1- 1/x= 1 when x= infinity". Certainly no mathematician would make that statement!

0.999... = 1 because, by the definition of "decimal place notation", 0.999... is the limit of the infinite series .9+ .09+ .009+ ... That's a geometric series and it's easy to show that the limit is 1.

Unfortunately many people who, like you, think that 0.9999... is not 1, is the series rather than the limit of the series. I've never understood that. A series is not even a number! It's limit is.
 
  • #8
You are correct, I only proved that a proof commonly used is incorrect. The title was misleading.
 
  • #9
The proof of:
x=.99999
10x=9.9999
-x = 9x = 9
x=1

is faulty (I believe) at one point:
let us say (for now) that x=.99999 (five 'nines' after decimal)
when multiplied by ten, we have 9.9999 (four 'nines' after decimal)
now when you subtract x from 10x, we get 8.9991.
Now we can question, what if x= an infinite amount of nines? can both (the number of 'nines' after the decimal in just 'x' and in '10x') be infinite yet one still remain larger?
Well, according to Russian mathematician, George Cantor, (sometime in the late nineteenth century) proved with his "diagonal argument" that some infinite sets are indeed larger than other infinite sets.
So we see that one infinity can be "larger" than another.
Why I bring this up:
x=.99999 (to infinity)
10x=9.999 (to infinity, minus one nine after the decimal)
if you subtract x now, you do not get '9'
rather a 8.9999 (to infinity plus a one)
in this case, am I correct to say .99999 does not equal one?
 
  • #10
No, you are not.
 
  • #11
As arildno says, you are not correct. Moreover, the very idea you invoke (Cantor) asserts that the two sets

{0,1,2,3,...}

and

{1,2,3,4...}

have the same cardinality, contrary to what you seem to believe.

(Posting an assertion that 1 and 0.999... are not equal (as decimal representations) you're not going to get lengthy polite replies.)
 
  • #12
greeniguana00 said:
An assumption is often made, however, that if the limit of an expression as x approaches infinity is 1, then that expression must equal 1 when x equals infinity.

awvvu said:
Those two statements are the exact same thing.
No, they are not. His whole point is that "limit as x goes to infinity" is NOT the same as "x equal to infinity". That's why he said " You cannot treat "infinity" like a normal number, you can only think of it in terms of limits."


That's exactly what you did in your "proof".
I believe, although I grant it is not especially clear, that his point is that he is giving thas as an example of a typical incorrect proof.
 

1. Why is 0.9999 not equal to 1?

The concept of equality may seem straightforward, but in mathematics, it is more complex. In this case, 0.9999 is a repeating decimal, which means it goes on infinitely. While we may approximate it as 1, it is not technically an exact match.

2. Can you prove that 0.9999 is not equal to 1?

Yes, there are several ways to prove this mathematically. One way is to use the concept of limits, where we can show that as the number of 9's in 0.9999 increases, it will approach but never actually reach 1.

3. How does this concept relate to the number system?

This concept relates to the number system because it highlights the difference between rational and irrational numbers. Rational numbers can be expressed as a fraction, while irrational numbers cannot. 0.9999 is a rational number, while 1 is an irrational number.

4. Are there other examples of numbers that are not equal to each other?

Yes, there are many other examples of numbers that are not equal to each other. For instance, 0.3333 does not equal 1/3, even though they may seem similar. This is because 1/3 is an exact fraction, while 0.3333 is only an approximation.

5. Why is it important to understand the difference between 0.9999 and 1?

Understanding the difference between 0.9999 and 1 is important because it challenges our understanding of numbers and encourages critical thinking. It also has practical applications in fields such as mathematics, physics, and engineering, where precise calculations are necessary.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
285
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
830
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
3
Replies
90
Views
5K
Replies
55
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
999
  • General Math
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top