B If 0.999.... = 1 , Does 0.00....1 = 0

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter cyclogon
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the expression 0.00...1, which is deemed undefined due to the contradiction of having an infinite number of zeros followed by a one. Participants clarify that if the zeros are infinite, there cannot be an endpoint to place the one, making the expression nonsensical. The limit of the sequence 1/10, 1/100, etc., approaches zero but never reaches it, highlighting the difference between a limit and an actual value. The conversation emphasizes the importance of precise mathematical definitions and the nature of limits in calculus. Overall, the conclusion is that 0.00...1 cannot be defined in a meaningful mathematical context.
cyclogon
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Sorry if the question has been asked before, but is there any proof that 0.00...1 equals 0?
Or not, as the case may be
Thanks for any replies :)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
What is
cyclogon said:
0.00...1
? Where is the one placed at?
 
  • Like
Likes cyclogon
0.00...1 is not a well-defined expression.

0.00... = 0.
 
  • Like
Likes cyclogon
Here's a more interesting example. Consider the function ##x \longmapsto e^{-(x-n)^2}##. For ##n=10## it looks like

upload_2018-4-22_1-45-15.png

and the greater ##n## is, the more to the right is the bump. The area below the curve is ##\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} e^{-(x-n)^2}\, dx \,=\, \sqrt{\pi}\,##. If we move it to infinity, then it is still the same bump with the same area ##\lim_{n \to \infty} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} e^{-(x-n)^2}\, dx \,=\, \sqrt{\pi}##. However, if we first move the bump to infinity, we get ## \lim_{n \to \infty} e^{-(x-n)^2} = 0## and the area ##\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} (\lim_{n \to \infty} e^{-(x-n)^2})\,dx ## vanishes with it. This is the same with your ##1##. If we move it to infinity, it vanishes, because wherever we look, we are left from the bump and arbitrary close to zero, the bump is never reached.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-4-22_1-45-15.png
    upload_2018-4-22_1-45-15.png
    3.4 KB · Views: 836
  • Like
Likes sysprog, cyclogon and QuantumQuest
There's a huge difference between 0.999... and 0.000...1 that is alluded to in post #2. In the first expression, the ellipsis (...) means that the same pattern of 9 digits repeats endlessly, so that each position to the right of the decimal point contains the digit 9. In the other expression, it's not specified where that 1 digit is, making it not well-defined.
 
  • Like
Likes cyclogon
Perhaps better written as $$\lim_{n\to \infty} \frac{1}{10^n}=0$$

But keep in mind that is the limit. And that is different than zero.
 
  • Like
Likes cyclogon
hi, thanks for all your replies. Sorry about not explaining clearing enough.
The "1" is at the end of a length of infinitely many zeros
ie. 0.0000000...(infinte zeros)...1 Thanks
 
cyclogon said:
hi, thanks for all your replies. Sorry about not explaining clearing enough.
The "1" is at the end of a length of infinitely many zeros
ie. 0.0000000...(infinte zeros)...1
Yes, I think people probably realized that's what you meant, but there is no such thing which is why folks are saying that it's undefined. If you get to a point where you can put a 1, then you are not yet at infinity so your statement is nonsensical/undefined.
 
  • Like
Likes cyclogon
cyclogon said:
The "1" is at the end of a length of infinitely many zeros
ie. 0.0000000...(infinte zeros)...1
This is a self-contradiction: if the string of zeros is infinite, it doesn't have an end. That's why that expression doesn't work isn't used in math.
 
  • Like
Likes cyclogon
  • #10
aheight said:
Perhaps better written as $$\lim_{n\to \infty} \frac{1}{10^n}=0$$

But keep in mind that is the limit. And that is different than zero.
That limit is not different from zero. It is precisely zero. As one can see from the epsilon/delta definition of a limit.
 
  • Like
Likes cyclogon and phinds
  • #11
russ_watters said:
This is a self-contradiction: if the string of zeros is infinite, it doesn't have an end. That's why that expression doesn't work isn't used in math.
To be picky, one could index the digits in a decimal string over a set of positions with order type omega plus one. The difficulty is not that this is a self-contradiction. The difficulty is that the resulting digit strings do not naturally form an algebraic field.
 
  • Like
Likes cyclogon and fresh_42
  • #12
jbriggs444 said:
That limit is not different from zero. It is precisely zero. As one can see from the epsilon/delta definition of a limit.

Perhaps I should have said the limit is zero but the sequence 1/10, 1/100, ... is never precisely zero.
 
  • Like
Likes cyclogon
  • #13
aheight said:
Perhaps I should have said the limit is zero but the sequence 1/10, 1/100, ... is never precisely zero.
The sequence, which is just a list of numbers, is never precisely anything. This sequence converges to zero, although no element of the sequence is zero.
 
  • Like
Likes cyclogon and fresh_42
  • #14
aheight said:
Perhaps I should have said the limit is zero but the sequence 1/10, 1/100, ... is never precisely zero.
I would phrase it that "no term of the sequence is zero".

Edit: Beaten to it by @Mark44
 
  • Like
Likes cyclogon
  • #15
Thank you all, for your time in answering this question. Although I cannot add anything more to the discussion, I am still fascinated by the replies. Thanks :)
 

Similar threads

Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
36
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
66
Views
6K
Back
Top