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

  • B
  • Thread starter cyclogon
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of 0.00...1 and its relationship to 0. The expression is not well-defined and the infinite string of zeros followed by a 1 is a self-contradiction. The limit of the sequence 1/10, 1/100, ... is precisely zero, but no element of the sequence is zero. The conversation ends with a thank you to all the participants for their time and fascinating replies.
  • #1
cyclogon
14
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
  • #2
What is
cyclogon said:
0.00...1
? Where is the one placed at?
 
  • Like
Likes cyclogon
  • #3
0.00...1 is not a well-defined expression.

0.00... = 0.
 
  • Like
Likes cyclogon
  • #4
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: 758
  • Like
Likes sysprog, cyclogon and QuantumQuest
  • #5
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
  • #6
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
  • #7
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
 
  • #8
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
  • #9
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 :)
 

1. Is it possible for a number to have an infinite number of decimal places?

Yes, it is possible for a number to have an infinite number of decimal places. This is known as a repeating decimal and is commonly seen in fractions such as 1/3 = 0.3333....

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

When we write 0.999...., we are essentially representing the infinite decimal 0.999999999.... which is equal to 1. This is because in the decimal system, there is no number between 0.999.... and 1, so they are considered to be the same value.

3. Can 0.00....1 ever equal 0?

No, 0.00....1 can never equal 0. This is because the decimal system follows the rule that the further to the right a digit is, the smaller its value. Therefore, adding an infinite number of zeroes before the 1 does not change its value and it will always be greater than 0.

4. Is there a difference between 0.999.... and 1?

No, there is no difference between 0.999.... and 1. They are simply two different ways of representing the same value, just like how 1/2 and 0.5 are different representations of the same value.

5. How is this concept relevant in mathematics?

This concept is relevant in mathematics because it demonstrates the idea of limits and infinite series. It also highlights the importance of understanding different representations of numbers and how they can be equivalent.

Similar threads

  • General Math
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Math
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Math
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • General Math
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
55
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
7
Views
471
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
2
Views
820
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Back
Top