Is 0.999... Truly Equal to 1 in the Realm of Infinity?

[matt grime]

let's stay away from opinion shall we.

in your claim to get closer to 1 than 0.99999... by 'adding a nine' after all the nines already there, what does that actually mean numerically?

I mean i can say that there is an integer between 1 and two, called derek, but it doesn't mean there actually is one there does it?

so what does it mean to add a nine after all the nines in 0.99...?

and you've still not answered any of the 1/2 2/4 thing. and who on Earth says 9=10? all that that proves is infinity is not in the multipliactive group of real numbers, which is not surprising because, erm, it isn't there. after all 0*9=0*10, but that doesn't imply 9=10.

so what does the notation mean of adding that nine after all the infinite number of nines there? this is the sixth time i believe I've asked you and you're yet to provide an answer.

 

[Zurtex]

and Zurtex you have disproved NOTHING. Good work again.

Once again you show your non understanding of mathematics, stop bugging people who give their help free and willingly and actually go and learn some maths.

 

[Hurkyl]

why should my system agree with something that is wrong?

Are you going to tell me that you're not talking about the standard system here either?

 

[arildno]

why should my system agree with something that is wrong?

fractions are a completely different notation system

Oh how interesting!
I never knew that!
(Here I've gone about believing that the decimal notation is simply a shorthand for sums of certain fractions, but now I know differently!)

 

[ram2048]

and you've still not answered any of the 1/2 2/4 thing. and who on Earth says 9=10? all that that proves is infinity is not in the multipliactive group of real numbers, which is not surprising because, erm, it isn't there. after all 0*9=0*10, but that doesn't imply 9=10.

YOU PEOPLE are saying 9 = 10. in order for .999~ to be = to 1, there MUST exist a digit that is 10. since we're using base 10, a DIGIT of 10 cannot exist so that means you're wrong from the start.

so what does the notation mean of adding that nine after all the infinite number of nines there? this is the sixth time i believe I've asked you and you're yet to provide an answer.

Set infinity(d) as cardinal f(n) n=0 for the system would be a way of describing what I'm doing :|

and you had to ask 6 times because i told you already even if i described it to you, you'd just say "that's stupid, our system doesn't work like that, you're wrong"

 

[ram2048]

and Zurtex you're just a useless bandwagoner, i hope to god that i never unwittingly convince you, because i don't want you "on my side" ;D

 

[ram2048]

(Here I've gone about believing that the decimal notation is simply a shorthand for sums of certain fractions, but now I know differently!)

quite true.

decimals represent an exact quantity, and create a TRUE number line from which EXACTLY ACCURATE quantified values of things can be plotted.

fractions can only represent rational numbers on their own, or all as sums of fractions (exTREMEly tedious, which is why we use decimals), but fractions are also unique in that their quantity is defined as a ratio of two integers. thusly in THAT notation you can have 1/2 = 2/4 but the notation also has its own rules.

in decimal notation system ONE NUMBER will always be equal to ONLY itself.

PS] if you say "OMG you're wrong 1.3 = 01.30 = 001.300~" i will find you and cause you bodily harm

 

[ram2048]

why should my system agree with something that is wrong?

Are you going to tell me that you're not talking about the standard system here either?

no I'm not going to tell you "that" because i have no idea what you're hinting at ... :P

Root(2) is making me angry. going to go buy a sci-calc later this week see if I'm getting the right numbers.

 

[Hurkyl]

no I'm not going to tell you "that" because i have no idea what you're hinting at ... :P

So you're unwilling to say something unless you can be sure I can't turn it around on you? Not too confindent are you?

"that's stupid, our system doesn't work like that, you're wrong"

He's right, you know. Your arguments that the standard system is "wrong" are based entirely on how your system works.

Root(2) is making me angry. going to go buy a sci-calc later this week see if I'm getting the right numbers.

Windows calculator has a scientific mode!

 

[ram2048]

well when I've had 18 or so pages of people trying desperately to turn stuff against me the caution comes naturally. it's not so much fear, as the tedium it takes to go back and correct my spelling or explain what i mean or change a term I'm using because it has "mathematical" meaning and I'm not using it right :O

He's right, you know. Your arguments that the standard system is "wrong" are based entirely on how your system works

because my system is accurate and logical. i don't have .999~ = 1. I don't have infinity + 1 = infinity. I don't have 1/infinity = 0. I don't have infinity/infinity = undefined or infinity - infinity = undefined. I don't have infinity as a limit to impede your archemedial assertations. i have ways to obtain meaningful values using "infinitessimals" and other numbers that possesses characteristics of infinity.

but most importantly is the system adheres to logic

 

[ram2048]

Windows calculator has a scientific mode!

by JOVE it freaking does.

omg omg <thanks>

 

[hello3719]

YOU PEOPLE are saying 9 = 10. in order for .999~ to be = to 1, there MUST exist a digit that is 10. since we're using base 10, a DIGIT of 10 cannot exist so that means you're wrong from the start.

what do you mean by a digit that is 10 ?
we can just have 9.999~ = 10 if you meant number
and for
1 * 0 = 0
2*0 = 0
...
will you also change the definition of zero in your system since you think that

infinity *1 = inifinity
infinity * 2 = infinity
...
is illogical?

 

[ram2048]

i might...

0^0 = 1?

hmmm... i can't even picture that but i guess it's necessary for some calculations...

we'll see

 

[Zurtex]

lol, now your threatening bodily harm because of your lack of understanding of mathematics. Basically you can even see flaws in your own argument but you seem unwilling to admit them to yourself. Anyway:

0^0 \neq 1

Can you think why?

Edit: I could be wrong on that actually, I would be interested to see if I am right.

I am fairly sure that 0^0 is undefined. But Microsoft calculator seems to disagree with me

 

[matt grime]

come one ram, you could at least pretend to explain what it is that you think that the number 0.999... plus another 9 after all of those is. because at the moment you've not managed to provide one single example of what this real number allegedly is.

Note that decimals are not exact representatives of real numbers, that is not any of the definitions of real numbers that works, as you've noticed, now why don't you look up the words cauchy sequence equivalence and class, or pssoibly dedekind and cut.


point out one sigle example where anyone but you has stated that they think 9=10. it would appear you don't understand the counter arguments to your system.

you also seem to have not noticed that we've otld you about systems of infinitesimals where there are 'numbers' smaller than 1/n for all n, and ordinals where there are infinite ordinals such as w, with w and w+1 not equal. one presumes this is because you think you are talking about real numbers alone, so let's do some analysis, prove that x^2 is a continuous function in your system. you can't as it happens, since 1.n doesn't tend to zero in your system, or it can't if you'r being consistent.

 

[Hurkyl]

In the real numbers, 0^0 is left undefined becuase no matter how you tried to define it, exponentiation would be discontinuous there. (proof based on the fact 0^x = 0 but x^0 = 1 for all positive x)

It tends to be convenient to adopt the convention that 0^0 = 1 for some applications.

 

[Zurtex]

In the real numbers, 0^0 is left undefined becuase no matter how you tried to define it, exponentiation would be discontinuous there. (proof based on the fact 0^x = 0 but x^0 = 1 for all positive x)

It tends to be convenient to adopt the convention that 0^0 = 1 for some applications.

Thanks, thought so

 

[ram2048]

Matt why do you keep hounding me about the 9?

my system works perfectly. in fact i have used your accepted conventions to prove my system.

consider x=.999~ where x possesses infinite number of digits 9.

Z) 10x - x = 9.999~ - .999~ = 9 in your system.

see:

.999~ infinite 9's
9.999~ infinite 9's +1

this is PROVEN TRUE if you accept the statement claimed in line Z) as a consequence of that calculation.

the logical conclusion to that is that in position f(n) where n=infinty+1 there existed a digit 9. (which would be false because we defined .999~ to have exactly infinite 9's but whatever)

if you accept line Z) you prove my system works for digits beyond infinity. you're also accepting infinity-infinity=0.

and every time you say .999~ = 1 you're saying 9 = 10 since in the expression .999~ there only exists digits 9. to be equal to 1, one of those 9's MUST BE a 10 somewhere in that infinite number of 9's.

in base 10 you don't HAVE digits of 10. you have 0-9. so you're wrong to even assume there might be.

 

[hello3719]

who said infinity - infnity can't be equal to 0 ? Did our system imply that?

 

[ram2048]

your system doesn't define a way for infinity - infinity to be 0. not that it couldn't be, just that it was never looked at.

my system DOES define relations amongst equal and non-equal infinities.

but that's beside the point. in THIS case you'd be accepting equal infinities to cancel out. thusly you'd be proving my point about the existence of the digit 9 in position f(n) n=infinity+1

 

[hello3719]

your system doesn't define a way for infinity - infinity to be 0. not that it couldn't be, just that it was never looked at.

in our system : lim as x->infinity of (x-x) is of type "infinity - infinity " and it does equal 0 in this case. Never looked at? very funny it seems that you didn't even take a calculus course.You don't even understand our system that's why you are trying to build a new one.

in THIS case you'd be accepting equal infinities to cancel out. thusly you'd be proving my point about the existence of the digit 9 in position f(n) n=infinity+1

IF A implies B, it doesn't mean that B implies A, your logic is flawed because of this. So we wouldn't be proving anything about your nonsense.

 

[matt grime]

i keep hounduing you about the nines because you've not explained what on Earth you mean by 'adding a 9' after the infinitely many that are there, this is the same as your intent that we ''create" a zero at the end of some string after multiplication by 10.

look back at your post 191 where you say you want to add another 9 after all of them to get a number even closer to 1, but we won't "allow" it.

 

[matt grime]

Matt why do you keep hounding me about the 9?

my system works perfectly. in fact i have used your accepted conventions to prove my system.

consider x=.999~ where x possesses infinite number of digits 9.

Z) 10x - x = 9.999~ - .999~ = 9 in your system.

see:

.999~ infinite 9's
9.999~ infinite 9's +1

this is PROVEN TRUE if you accept the statement claimed in line Z) as a consequence of that calculation.

the logical conclusion to that is that in position f(n) where n=infinty+1 there existed a digit 9. (which would be false because we defined .999~ to have exactly infinite 9's but whatever)

if you accept line Z) you prove my system works for digits beyond infinity. you're also accepting infinity-infinity=0.

and every time you say .999~ = 1 you're saying 9 = 10 since in the expression .999~ there only exists digits 9. to be equal to 1, one of those 9's MUST BE a 10 somewhere in that infinite number of 9's.

in base 10 you don't HAVE digits of 10. you have 0-9. so you're wrong to even assume there might be.

you are saying that infinity is "equal" to the "number" of digits after the decimal point in the expansion of .999..., so it is a cardinal, define the arithmetic of your cardinals then. (it can be done). for instance, take 0.99... and 0.88888... they have both an infinite number of digits, you "infinity", now i interleave them 0.989898... so i must have added the infinities together!, yet it must also be true that there are the same number digits, thus 2*infinity=infinity. so where's the arithemetic wrong there.

now, can you even remotely rigorously prove that 0.999=1 implies 9=10 using the proper definitions of addition and such? i can't see where you've done that, in fact you haven't, but then you've never even begun to understand the definition of the REAL numbers.

 

[ram2048]

you are saying that infinity is "equal" to the "number" of digits after the decimal point in the expansion of .999..., so it is a cardinal, define the arithmetic of your cardinals then. (it can be done). for instance, take 0.99... and 0.88888... they have both an infinite number of digits, you "infinity", now i interleave them 0.989898... so i must have added the infinities together!, yet it must also be true that there are the same number digits, thus 2*infinity=infinity. so where's the arithemetic wrong there.

that's absolutely wrong.

were you to take .999~ with exactly infinite 9's and .888~ with exactly infinite 8's and "interleave" them to where f(-1) is 9 f(-2) is 8 f(-3) is 9 etc each time pulling from the available 9's and 8's given, you would come up with 2x(original infinity) number of digits, BUT the sum total of those digits does NOT equal (original infinity).

yet it must also be true that there are the same number digits

very very wrong. any given infinity is equal to itself not equal to other infinities unless you clearly define the relationship beforehand, as i have been doing with digits and integers.

every time you bring something else it just gives me more and more reasons why my system is superior to the current.

in THIS case you'd be accepting equal infinities to cancel out. thusly you'd be proving my point about the existence of the digit 9 in position f(n) n=infinity+1

IF A implies B, it doesn't mean that B implies A, your logic is flawed because of this. So we wouldn't be proving anything about your nonsense.

If you're accepting that a 9 DOES exist BEYOND the number of infinite digits set forth in the initial expression such that you can multiply by 10 and a new digit 9 is brought "into play" to make the cancelling of 9's ABSOLUTELY PERFECT, then you're ACCEPTING the existence of f(n) n=infinity+1

this is a flat out consequence of YOUR logic.

that's NOT what my system believes in, it's just my system's way of interpreting the actions of your system. If you have a better way of describing to me HOW an EXACTLY infinite number of digits 9 can be multiplied by 10 and another 9 is "created" to maintain the equality you're welcome to explain it to me.

 

[matt grime]

so you are insisting that there is an infinite plus one spot in a decimal expansion which implies the existence of an infinite'th spot. none of those things exists.

we do not create any more nines who on Earth except you thinks we do? your intuition is completely wrong. stick to things you can prove.

what does the 9 in this alleged infinite'th place signify? there is no such place, stop pretending that we think there is.


but the string .98989898... must hve exactly 'infinity' digits in it - how can you dsitinguish between it and the one where i interleave two strings .9999.,.. and .888...?

so far all you've shown is that you do not understand mathematics and that you are incapable of defining a consistent notation.

 

[hello3719]

that's NOT what my system believes in, it's just my system's way of interpreting the actions of your system. If you have a better way of describing to me HOW an EXACTLY infinite number of digits 9 can be multiplied by 10 and another 9 is "created" to maintain the equality you're welcome to explain it to me.

Well first of all our infinite isn't a real number if you didn't understand that yet. Saying "exactly infinite" isn't proper concerning our infinite.
Tell me, if i have a never-ending supply of apples and I eat one will i still have a never-ending supply of apples?

 

[matt grime]

so we've ascertained that your infinity is a cardinal, which you insisted it wasn't.

please offer formal statements about when two cardinals are equal.

 

[ram2048]

my infinity is NOT cardinal

my "default infinity" can be cardinal. it can be many things because it is a tool that i define at the onset of calculations and extrapolate meanings from that point onwards.

without definition "default infinity" has no meaning whatsoever.

Well first of all our infinite isn't a real number if you didn't understand that yet. Saying "exactly infinite" isn't proper concerning our infinite.
Tell me, if i have a never-ending supply of apples and I eat one will i still have a never-ending supply of apples?

well then explain your infinite apples "getting eaten" such that EXACTLY none are left in 999~ - .999~. By your accounting "a never ending supply of apples" should still be "a never ending supply of apples" regardless of eating "an infinite number of apples" from that amount.

so therefore:
.999~ - .999~ = .999~ (your logic)

it is clear that your infinity cannot handle such contradictions. i don't know why you cling to it so desperately.

 

[Integral]

my infinity is NOT cardinal

my "default infinity" can be cardinal. it can be many things because it is a tool that i define at the onset of calculations and extrapolate meanings from that point onwards.

without definition "default infinity" has no meaning whatsoever.



well then explain your infinite apples "getting eaten" such that EXACTLY none are left in 999~ - .999~. By your accounting "a never ending supply of apples" should still be "a never ending supply of apples" regardless of eating "an infinite number of apples" from that amount.

so therefore:
.999~ - .999~ = .999~ (your logic)

it is clear that your infinity cannot handle such contradictions. i don't know why you cling to it so desperately.

Pure and simple nonsense.

.999... - .999... = 1-1=0

Apparently you are unable to differentiate between an infinite number of digits and a quantity of infinite magnitude. All real numbers have an infinite number of digits, no real number is infinite in magnitude.

 

[hello3719]

yea it seems he thinks that .999... is infinite LOL.