Proof: 0.999... Squared = 1

In summary: In your second expression, the last 9 has no meaning. In general, the nth digit is that digit times ##10^{-n}##. And, the expression ##0.999 \dots## represents a number that has a ##9## in every place.Formally, this is ##\Sigma_{n = 1}^{\infty} 9 \times 10^{-n}##.This can be evaluated by anyone who has learned about infinite geometric series.Your last 9 does not represent ##9 \times 10^{-n}## for any number ##n##.In your second expression, the last 9 has no meaning. In general, the nth digit is that digit times 10−
  • #1
Fala483
8
0
I am trying to prove that all numbers of the form 0.999... Squared end in a decimal value of 1. For example

0.99sq = 0.9801
0.999sq = 0.998001

Etc.

Is it possible to prove for all 0.999... ?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Well, in every case, the least sig dig is always 9, which, when squared is 81. And since it is the least sig dig, no other digits will affect the last digit in the answer. so...

BTW, it works for numbers greater than 1 too.
 
  • Like
Likes Fala483
  • #3
DaveC426913 said:
Well, in every case, the least sig dig is always 9, which, when squared is 81. And since it is the least sig dig, no other digits will affect the last digit in the answer. so...

BTW, it works for numbers greater than 1 too.

So since 0.999... Squared ends in a decimal value of 1 and 1 squared ends in a decimal value of 0, 0.999... = 1 is a contradiction
 
  • #4
Have you done a forum search about this? I'm pretty sure it's been addressed here many times...

And Welcome to the PF, BTW. :smile:
 
  • #5
Fala483 said:
So since 0.999... Squared ends in a decimal value of 1 and 1 squared ends in a decimal value of 0...
Wait. What?

One squared doesn't end in zero any more than any other number squared ends in zero - including .999.
One squared ends in one.

.92 = .81
12 = 1

or

.92 = .810
12 = 1.0

Take your pick. But be consistent.
 
  • #6
Fala483 said:
So since 0.999... Squared ends in a decimal value of 1 and 1 squared ends in a decimal value of 0, 0.999... = 1 is a contradiction
No, because you only squared numbers with finite digits: ##0.\underbrace{9...9}_{n \text{ times }}## which is not the same as if it doesn't end. If it doesn't end, the ##1## at the end will never be reached.
 
  • #7
The problem with this thread and others discussing the same proof ground on a common misunderstanding:

Are the expressions: 0.999999... and 0.99999...9 to be considered equal ? Here "..." represent an infinite string of 9's.
 
  • #8
The "0.9999..." would in principle be as correct a decimal expansion of number 1 as "1.0000...", but by convention we generate the decimal expansions of positive numbers by approaching them from the right instead of left side.
 
  • #9
Rada Demorn said:
The problem with this thread and others discussing the same proof ground on a common misunderstanding:

Are the expressions: 0.999999... and 0.99999...9 to be considered equal ? Here "..." represent an infinite string of 9's.

In your second expression, the last 9 has no meaning. In general, the nth digit is that digit times ##10^{-n}##. And, the expression ##0.999 \dots## represents a number that has a ##9## in every place.

Formally, this is ##\Sigma_{n = 1}^{\infty} 9 \times 10^{-n}##.

This can be evaluated by anyone who has learned about infinite geometric series.

Your last 9 does not represent ##9 \times 10^{-n}## for any number ##n##.
 
  • Like
Likes QuantumQuest
  • #10
PeroK said:
In your second expression, the last 9 has no meaning.
To amplify on this: One can attempt to create a system of arithmetic that works on unconventional strings with infinite sequences of digits "in the middle". But it is harder than it looks. The conventional scheme which only permits infinite sequences "at the end" is used for good reason.

One way of understanding the standard system is that decimal strings are a convenient notation to express exemplars of equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences of rationals. A course in real analysis would show that equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences of rationals are one of the standard ways to construct the Reals.
 
  • Like
Likes QuantumQuest
  • #11
PeroK said:
In your second expression, the last 9 has no meaning. In general, the nth digit is that digit times 10−n10−n10^{-n}. And, the expression 0.999…0.999…0.999 \dots represents a number that has a 999 in every place.

Formally, this is Σ∞n=19×10−nΣn=1∞9×10−n\Sigma_{n = 1}^{\infty} 9 \times 10^{-n}.

This can be evaluated by anyone who has learned about infinite geometric series.

Your last 9 does not represent 9×10−n9×10−n9 \times 10^{-n} for any number nnn.
Huge LOL!

What about 0.9999...99 ? What about 0.9999...999 etc?

Both expressions are equally valid. The only difference is that you construct 0.9999...9 without the addition: ie. instead of 9/10+9/100+9/1000... you just compute 9/10, 99/100, 999/1000 etc. 0.9999...9 is just a backward construction.
 
  • #12
Rada Demorn said:
What about 0.9999...99 ? What about 0.9999...999 etc?

Both expressions are equally valid.
Indeed they are equally invalid. No such sequences have any valid interpretation as real numbers that gives meaning to the finite trailing sequence of digits.
 
  • #13
Rada Demorn said:
What about 0.9999...99 ? What about 0.9999...999 etc?

Both expressions are equally valid.
As @jbriggs444 already said, both expressions are invalid. If you write 0.9999..., that means that an infinite number of 9 digits follow, but in the meaningless expression 0.9999...9, at which position is that final 9?
 
  • #14
Rada Demorn said:
Huge LOL!
This is Physics Forums.
We don't LOL here.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #15
DaveC426913 said:
This is Physics Forms.
Er, this is Physics Forums...
 
  • Like
Likes DaveC426913
  • #16
PeroK said:
In your second expression, the last 9 has no meaning. In general, the nth digit is that digit times ##10^{-n}##. And, the expression ##0.999 \dots## represents a number that has a ##9## in every place.

Formally, this is ##\Sigma_{n = 1}^{\infty} 9 \times 10^{-n}##.

This can be evaluated by anyone who has learned about infinite geometric series.

Your last 9 does not represent ##9 \times 10^{-n}## for any number ##n##.

Then how do you multiply infinities
 
  • #17
Fala483 said:
Then how do you multiply infinities
Are you asking for how to a prescription for multiplication of normal one-way infinite digit strings? (The sort that do not end with ...9)?
 
  • #18
Fala483 said:
Then how do you multiply infinities
By ##\lim_{n \to \infty} a_n \cdot \lim_{n \to \infty} b_n = \lim_{n \to \infty} (a_n\cdot b_n)\,.##
 
  • #19
Mark44 said:
As @jbriggs444 already said, both expressions are invalid. If you write 0.9999..., that means that an infinite number of 9 digits follow, but in the meaningless expression 0.9999...9, at which position is that final 9?

The number won't be a real number. It might still be a more general kind of number.

Now there is the corresponding problem in surreal numbers. If we allow also transfinite integers as the integers in rational numbers of the form a/b does some "middle infinite" decimal expansion correspond to such a transfinite rational. In fact the transfinite integer with the lowest birthday ω={1,2,3,4...|} can give raise to 1/ω = ε which might be argued to have the decimal expansion of 0.000... ...001. However with the relevant definition of rationals this is a rational number. It might be a hint that any infinite end would only be a finite real multiple of ε. But then there is the trouble that 1/ε is also a valid surreal. Thus for those kind of expanded decimal notions you migth need a notion of size of the infinities to make things work out (that is adding countably many infinite digits might be a different thing than adding uncountably many).
 
  • #20
fresh_42 said:
By ##\lim_{n \to \infty} a_n \cdot \lim_{n \to \infty} b_n = \lim_{n \to \infty} (a_n\cdot b_n)\,.##

That seems to result in the same problem.
 
  • #21
Fala483 said:
That seems to result in the same problem.
We should distinguish whether we talk about standards analysis or about hyperreals. But, please, not both at the same time.
 
  • #22
fresh_42 said:
We should distinguish whether we talk about standards analysis or about hyperreals. But, please, not both at the same time.

They should both work right? Neither should break math because of this trivial arithmetic problem.
 
  • #23
Fala483 said:
They should both work right? Neither should break math because of this trivial arithmetic problem.
It is not about right and wrong, it is about a common basis for debate. Otherwise this is a cheap trick to reason and change cloths whenever suited.
 
  • Like
Likes Fala483
  • #24
Fala483 said:
They should both work right? Neither should break math because of this trivial arithmetic problem.

The hyperreals are not the subject for a "B" level thread. They are beyond my knowledge, for one thing.

And, they are not an easy way out of the hard realities of standard analysis.
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42 and Fala483
  • #25
Fala483 said:
In fact the transfinite integer with the lowest birthday ω={1,2,3,4...|} can give raise to 1/ω = ε which might be argued to have the decimal expansion of 0.000... ...001.

"lowest birthday" ? What does that mean?

I'm not an expert on the hyperreals, but to the best of my knowledge, 0.000... ...001 is meaningless, whatever the number system happens to be. The most significant problem with it is that you can't say exactly where (what index) the 1 digit is. You can't simply say that it is an infinite number of places out in the decimal representation.
 
  • #26
This was post #1 in the thread, marked as "B" (basic, or high school level)
Fala483 said:
I am trying to prove that all numbers of the form 0.999... Squared end in a decimal value of 1. For example

0.99sq = 0.9801
0.999sq = 0.998001

Etc.

Is it possible to prove for all 0.999... ?
Yes, using limits on finite sequences of decimal fractions.

From post #19:
Fala483 said:
The number won't be a real number. It might still be a more general kind of number.
From post #1, the context was that you were dealing with real numbers, and there was no mention that you weren't talking about any other kinds of numbers.

Based on your other thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/solve-this-math.932820/, which is closed, it appears that you are trying to prove that ##(0.999...9)^2## is something other from 1, with the aim at showing that ##0.999 \dots \ne 1##. If so, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Thread closed.
 
Last edited:

1. Is 0.999... equal to 1?

Yes, 0.999... is equal to 1. This is a concept known as "limit" in mathematics, where a number approaches a certain value as it gets closer and closer to infinity. In this case, as the number of 9's after the decimal point increases, the value gets closer to 1.

2. How can 0.999... be equal to 1?

0.999... is equal to 1 because it is a representation of the same value in different forms. Just like how 1/2 and 0.5 are different ways of representing the same value, 0.999... and 1 are also different representations of the same value.

3. How can 0.999... squared be equal to 1?

When we square 0.999..., we get 0.999... x 0.999... = 0.998001. However, as we continue to add more 9's after the decimal point, the value gets closer and closer to 1. In the limit, the value becomes 1, making 0.999... squared equal to 1.

4. Why is this concept important?

The concept of 0.999... equaling 1 is important because it challenges our understanding of numbers and their representations. It also has practical applications in calculus and other areas of mathematics.

5. Can you prove that 0.999... squared is equal to 1?

Yes, there are multiple proofs that show 0.999... squared is equal to 1. One way to prove it is by using the geometric series formula, while another way is by using algebraic manipulation. Both methods involve using the concept of limits and infinite decimals.

Similar threads

  • General Math
Replies
1
Views
940
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • General Math
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
23
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • General Math
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
721
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
7K
Back
Top