Is 0.999 Repeating 1? Debate & Opinions

  • Thread starter Thread starter killerinstinct
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The debate over whether 0.999... equals 1 centers on the understanding of real numbers and their representations. Many participants argue that in the real number system, 0.999... and 1 are indeed the same, as demonstrated through various mathematical proofs, including the infinite series approach. Critics of the equality often misunderstand the concept of infinity and the nature of decimal representation, leading to confusion. The discussion highlights the persistence of this question across forums, indicating a common misconception among those unfamiliar with advanced mathematical concepts. Ultimately, the consensus is that 0.999... is mathematically proven to be equal to 1.
  • #51
TENYEARS said:
What proof you would like to come up with is irrelevant. .99999999... <> 1.
You would have to project it into infinity and it would approch 1 but never be 1. You may accept it as such, but it is not correct. 1/3 * 3/1 will yeild one, but .333333333333... * 3 will not yeild one. We accept it as one, but it is not one. One is infinite and complete. The approximation is not. Like I said, I do not expect you to understand. I am done with expectation. If you are trying to project infinite probability, you will always stop short with .999999... you must stop somewhere to project, if not you will always be running.

But .999... IS an infinite number of nines, what can you possibly mean by stop short?

Perhaps it is your concept of infinity that is flawed, that along with your lack of knowledge of the Real Numbers leads you to false conclusions.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #52
1/3 * 3/1 If I mulitple the across the top I have 1 * 3 = 3, if I multiple across the bottom I have 3 * 1 = 3 If I then divide I have 1.

If I take the number 1 divide it by 3 I have an infinite series of .33333. If I multiple that * 3 I have .9999999 in an infinite series. It is accepted as 1, but it is not 1.

By stopping short I mean if you take the .99999... in an infinite series and attempt a calculation, unless you were satisified with that degree, you could could never complete the calculation. In a projection of infinite proability this would be significant.

The processor would have to do a conversion of .999... series and equate that to 1 in order for proper calculations to occur otherwise the result could potentially be flawed.

The reason we .99999 series is accepted as 1 is because the assumption is it was taken from 1/3 of a whole which added together(.3333... 3333... 3333...) creates a whole object or 1 this would preclude one knowing that the past calculation was indeed done in this fashion because if not the projection could potentially go billions deep and not be repetative.
 
  • #53
The reason we .99999 series is accepted as 1 is because the assumption is it was taken from 1/3 of a whole which added together(.3333... 3333... 3333...)

The DEMONSTRATION you give is not a complete or stand alone proof. There are many ways of proving this FACT without doing that calculation. Once again your limited knowldege of the field is leading you to bad assumptions.

Edit: completed a word, the out fell throught the keyboard in "withOUT"
 
  • #54
By stopping short I mean if you take the .99999... in an infinite series and attempt a calculation, unless you were satisfied with that degree, you could could never complete the calculation. In a projection of infinite proability this would be significant

Infinite geometric series CAN be summed EXACTLY. The formula for this is well known and it is NOT an approximation. http://home.comcast.net/~rossgr1/Math/one.PDF link shows a detailed use of the this formula. It is followed by a separate proof which you may be able to follow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
My view on this will not change under any condition, but the initiating post was good. To test the accepted as if one has never seen it before is what creates breakthoughs.
 
  • #56
Willfulness?
 
  • #57
TENYEARS said:
My view on this will not change under any condition, but the initiating post was good. To test the accepted as if one has never seen it before is what creates breakthoughs.
Nonsense. Breakthroughs can only come when the current theories are well understood. The state of the sciences has progressed to the point where you MUST understand what is known before you can hope to add anything to the state of knowledge.

Your blind adherence to faulty concepts spells doom for any hope of your contributing anything of meaning.
 
  • #58
My view on this will not change under any condition,

Then I see no point in continuing this discussion. Do your preaching in some other thread.
 
  • #59
I think we are done here.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top