Is 0.999... Truly Equal to 1?

[Integral]

I don't get what you are saying here. It seems to me that while 1- .1^n = .999... maybe be true, this doesn't make sense... 1- .1^n < .999... < 1+.1^n. You are saying that 1cm - (and infinitely small amount of space aka a point) is greater than 0.999...cm, which is the same thing as far as i can tell.

Simply pick an n, any n in the integers and do the arithmetic. The whole point is that for ANY n you choose (you must pick an n) the relationship holds.

Please show me an integer for which the bolded statement holds? Remember that infinity is not a valid integer, or is it a valid real number. I am not talking about anything physical, we are discussing math and not physics here.

 

[musky_ox]

Simply pick an n, any n in the integers and do the arithmetic. The whole point is that for ANY n you choose (you must pick an n) the relationship holds.

Please show me an integer for which the bolded statement holds? Remember that infinity is not a valid integer, or is it a valid real number. I am not talking about anything physical, we are discussing math and not physics here.

Well you say that n cannot be infinity, but we are dealing with infinity and infinitly small values here so i don't see how you can have this stipulation on the equation...

 

[Hurkyl]

Anyways, since mathematics is abstract, i don't see why there can't be an infinitely small amount.

Just because it's abstract doesn't mean you can do whatever you please. Mathematical objects and ideas usually have very precise definitions.The definition of the real numbers (and thus the decimal numbers) permits no infinities or infinitessimal numbers.

If you so desired, you could start talking about some different abstract idea in which you do have infinities and infinitessimal numbers. You may or may not be able to show that 0.999... is different than 1 in one of these different abstract systems. But the point is that you're speaking about something other than the real numbers.

Incidentally, in one of the more useful alternate systems, the hyperreal numbers, there are two analogues of 0.999...: you could have a hyperdecimal number that has some specified transfinite number of 9's (followed by zeroes). Such numbers would then be infinitessimally close to 1, but not equal.

However, the direct analogue of 0.999... is the one with a 9 in every position, and it is equal to 1, just as in the reals.

 

[musky_ox]

So basically you are saying that mathematics (or whatever system of it we are talking about) is incapable of handling infinities, and is thus not capable of representing our universe? Then what is the use of everyone studying it, if there are other systems that can better account for everything in life? In higher level mathematics/physics do they switch to different systems so we can handle the infinite?

 

[musky_ox]

In base 5, 1/4 = (0.111...), and 4·(0.111...) = (0.444...). In every base, dividing 1 by the largest digit of the system gives 0.111... In hex, 1/(F) = (0.111...), and (F)·(0.111...) = (0.FFF...).

0.999... = 1
(0.444...)5 = 1
(0.FFF...)16 = 1

Its just a flaw that exists in any base system, because you can never acount perfectly for all the fractions. All you are proving is that the mathematical system rounds 1/3 to 0.33...

 

[Integral]

I am not sure how you arrive at that conclusion? Why cannot we handle the infintiies correctly? Perhaps it is you who cannot deal with the infinities correctly?

 

[musky_ox]

Well i can see that 0.99... is infinitely close to 1. It is just the way that our base system rounds up 0.33... to be 1/3. Obviously whatever mathematics we are talking about cannot handle infinity if it has to precisely say that infinity doesn't have a place in it. We know that infinity has a place in abstract ideas and in the universe.

 

[Hurkyl]

So basically you are saying that mathematics (or whatever system of it we are talking about) is incapable of handling infinities

I'm saying this: zero is the only infinitely small real number, and no real number is infinitely large.

Well i can see that 0.99... is infinitely close to 1.

Well, you see wrong. Or, more precisely, your intuition is not in agreement with the definitions.

Its just a flaw that exists in any base system, because you can never acount perfectly for all the fractions.

No, this is a flaw in your version of the decimals. The very purpose of the decimals is to exactly represent any real number (and thus all fractions). The properties of the decimals were carefully chosen so they fulfill this purpose.

You state that 0.333... is not an exact representation of 1/3, and similarly for other decimals, but you will always get exactly the right answer if you replace your fractions with decimals, compute, then convert back to fractions. (this includes using 0.999... = 1, and similar equalities)

We know that infinity has a place in abstract ideas and in the universe.

And that place is not as an element of the real numbers.

 

[Rogerio]

It is just the way that our base system rounds up 0.33... to be 1/3. Obviously whatever mathematics we are talking about cannot handle infinity if it has to precisely say that infinity doesn't have a place in it.

Commonly, anyone who knows divide by hand, knows that 1/3 is 0.33... EXACTLY!
The three points at the end (...) means infinite 3's , and there is no rounding here.
It is not the same result we get with a calculator.

 

[Locrian]

So basically you are saying that mathematics (or whatever system of it we are talking about) is incapable of handling infinities, and is thus not capable of representing our universe? Then what is the use of everyone studying it, if there are other systems that can better account for everything in life? In higher level mathematics/physics do they switch to different systems so we can handle the infinite?

There are tools to deal with infinities. For instance, limits. You probably learned about them in high school.

The original poster, however, clearly did not.

 

[musky_ox]

Yea sure i learned about limits. However, in limits you are saying that the limit to something is for example 0 as you approach x=infinity, not that it actually equals 0. Anyways, limits has nothing to do with it. Here is what I am saying.

"In base 5, 1/4 = (0.111...), and 4·(0.111...) = (0.444...). In every base, dividing 1 by the largest digit of the system gives 0.111... In hex, 1/(F) = (0.111...), and (F)·(0.111...) = (0.FFF...).

0.999... = 1
(0.444...)5 = 1
(0.FFF...)16 = 1

Its just a flaw that exists in any base system, because you can never acount perfectly for all the fractions." You can only pick on this example as long as you use the decimal system.

 

[chroot]

You cannot find a number between 0.999... and 1, and therefore, by the definition of the real numbers, 0.999... and 1 are the same number. It's just that easy.

- Warren

 

[Hurkyl]

you can never acount perfectly for all the fractions.

I challenge this. Would you care to demonstrate an actual error that arises from using decimals instead of fractions, even if you accept 0.999... = 1?

 

[musky_ox]

I can think of a number between them...

0.99...9 + 0.00...1 = 1
0.99...9 + nothing = 0.99...9

 

[musky_ox]

I challenge this. Would you care to demonstrate an actual error that arises from using decimals instead of fractions, even if you accept 0.999... = 1?

The error is in the tread name:

"0.99... = 1"

In base 12, 1/3 is a terminating number... so you don't get the small rounding error when you use it for calculations.

 

[Hurkyl]

I can think of a number between them...

0.99...9 + 0.00...1 = 1
0.99...9 + nothing = 0.99...9

Warren didn't ask for a number between 0.{terminating sequence of 9's} and 1. He asked for a number between 0.{9 in every allowable position} and 1.

(And, incidentally, you didn't produce a number between 0.99...9 and 1)

In base 12, 1/3 is a terminating number... so you don't get the small rounding error when you use it for calculations.

This doesn't address my challenge. Maybe if I restate it, it will be more clear.


I am asking you to produce an arithmetic calculation involving only fractions.
It must have the property that, if I convert the fractions to decimals, do all the arithmetic according to decimal arithmetic, then convert back to a fraction (including the use of 0.999... = 1), I get the wrong answer.

 

[musky_ox]

Warren didn't ask for a number between 0.{terminating sequence of 9's} and 1. He asked for a number between 0.{9 in every allowable position} and 1.

(And, incidentally, you didn't produce a number between 0.99...9 and 1)

Okay try this then. Using your logic:

0.99...9 = 0.99...8
0.99...8 = 0.99...7

Now, i can think of a number between 0.99...9 and 0.99...7, which is 0.99...8.

In base 12, 1/3 is a terminating number... so you don't get the small rounding error when you use it for calculations.

This doesn't address my challenge.

I am challenging you will this. I have just shown you the answer to your "challenge." 0.99... = 1 is the error that it causes.

 

[Hurkyl]

It's easy to find a number between two different terminating decimals of the same length: simply append a 5 to the lesser of the two.

0.999... is not a terminating decimal. It has a 9 in every allowed position. There is no place left to put a 5.

 

[chroot]

Okay try this then. Using your logic:

0.99...9 = 0.99...8
0.99...8 = 0.99...7

But these numbers do not (and cannot) exist. There is no such thing as a number with an infinite number of nines, followed by an eight. There is no position to put an eight in "after" an infinite number of nines, because an infinite number of nines never ends.

- Warren

 

[musky_ox]

They don't exist? Okay. So an infinitly large number exists, but an infinitly small number doesnt? Theoretically, what is 1/infinity? Its limit is 0, but we know that it will never reach 0, doesn't this make it 0.00...1?

Its like my example with the guy counting. He is counting out 0 forever after his decimal point, always with the conscious idea that he is going to say 1 as his last digit, even though he will never make it.

Also, please address my posts about using base 12 to eliminate the 1/3 glitch.

 

[BoulderHead]

I can think of a number between them...

0.99...9 + 0.00...1 = 1
0.99...9 + nothing = 0.99...9

Let me guess...somewhere, wayyyyy out there at the end of infinity there's room for just one more digit ?

 

[Hurkyl]

Okay. So an infinitly large number exists, but an infinitly small number doesnt?

No, no infinitely large (real) number exists, and no infinitely small nonzero (real) number exists.

 

[musky_ox]

How do you get from 1.00... to 1.10...? Do you not have to first pass through 1+infinitesimal to get there?

 

[musky_ox]

No, no infinitely large (real) number exists, and no infinitely small nonzero (real) number exists.

So how many 9s are after the decimal point in 0.99...? There is no real number for them, so the number can't exist?

1 2 3 4 5 6 ... infinity
2 3 4 5 6 7 ... infinity + 1 = ?

Why can't we add an 8 after the 9s? Would there still be an infinite number of decimals after the decimal point?

 

[Hurkyl]

So how many 9s are after the decimal point in 0.99...?

I don't know^*. All I know is that there is a 9 in every legal position.

Why can't we add an 8 after the 9s?

There is a 9 in every legal position in the decimal 0.999...; in particular, there is no "after". Any decimal number (with a 0 to the left of the decimal point) with an 8 in it is smaller than 0.999..., because 0.999... has a 9 where that number has an 8.



*: actually, I do know, but this question is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. A different number system, called cardinal numbers, is used for counting the "size" of things. This number system is an extension of the natural numbers, and has rather poor arithmetic. For example, x + x = x for nearly every cardinal number.

 

[chroot]

So how many 9s are after the decimal point in 0.99...? There is no real number for them, so the number can't exist?

Infinity exists, it's just not a real number -- specifically, I mean \infty \nin \mathcal{R}[/tex].<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="" data-source="" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... infinity<br /> 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... infinity + 1 = ? </div> </div> </blockquote>The notation &quot;infinity + 1&quot; is nonsense.<br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="" data-source="" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> Why can&#039;t we add an 8 after the 9s? </div> </div> </blockquote>Because there are an infinite number of nines. No matter where you stuck the eight, you&#039;d by definition no longer have an infinite number of nines before it.<br /> <br /> - Warren

 

[musky_ox]

1) How do you get from 1.00... to 1.10...? Do you not have to first pass through 1+infinitesimal to get there?

2) In base 12, 1/3 is a terminating number... so you don't get the small rounding error when you use it for calculations. If 0.99... truly equals 1, then it wouldn't be confined to just our base 10 (decimal) system.

 

[chroot]

1) How do you get from 1.00... to 1.10...? Do you not have to first pass through 1+infinitesimal to get there?

"1 + infinitesimal" doesn't exist, so the question is meaningless.

2) In base 12, 1/3 is a terminating number... so you don't get the small rounding error when you use it for calculations. If 0.99... truly equals 1, then it wouldn't be confined to just our base 10 (decimal) system.

Numbers are numbers, no matter what base you put them in. Numbers exist independently of representation, as has been shown with numbers like 6/4 and 1.5. There is no "rounding error" involved anywhere.

The fact that 1/3 is a terminating number is base 12 actually helps our case, not yours. If 0.333... did not truly equal 1/3, then it would truly not equal 1/3 in any base, not just decimal.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Besides, musky_ox, you have still not answered my question:

Can you find a number between 0.999... and 1?

- Warren

 

[musky_ox]

1 - 0.99... = infinitesimal

As you say that a nine occupies every space in 0.99..., in infinitesimal, a 0 occupies every space except the last one. I don't see how infinity is any more real than infinitesimal.

 

[chroot]

1 - 0.99... = infinitesimal

No, it equals zero, because 1 and 0.999... are the same number.

- Warren

 

[Hurkyl]

in infinitesimal, a 0 occupies every space except the last one.

Why do you think there is a "last space"?

I don't see how infinity is any more real than infinitesimal.

I repeat, the real number system has neither infinite numbers nor infinitessimal numbers.


Incidentally, I get the feeling the terminology is misleading you; the "real" in "the real numbers" is unrelated to the English word "real".

 

[musky_ox]

asymptote

\As"ymp*tote\ (?; 215), n. [Gr. ? not falling together; 'a priv. + ? to fall together; ? with + ? to fall. Cf. Symptom.] (Math.) A line which approaches nearer to some curve than assignable distance, but, though infinitely extended, would never meet it

So is there no such thing as an asymptote?

Incidentally, I get the feeling the terminology is misleading you; the "real" in "the real numbers" is unrelated to the English word "real".

So 0.99... is not a real number in the first place? Math must deal with more than just real numbers then.

 

[chroot]

So is there no such thing as an asymptote?

What? Why are you bringing another concept into this muddled discussion? Please answer the questions that have already been asked of you, rather than trying to complicate it further.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

So 0.99... is not a real number in the first place? Math must deal with more than just real numbers then.

0.999... is a real number in the sense that it is a member of the field \mathbb{R}[/tex]. Infinity is not a real number in the sense that it is a not a member of the field \mathbb{R}. That is what mathematicians mean by the term &quot;real.&quot; That is what we in this thread mean by the term &quot;real.&quot;<br /> <br /> - Warren

 

[musky_ox]

I see no questions to answer... And no, I am not bringing a totally unrelated topic in here. Read the definition of an asymtote. By your reasoning, there is no such thing as one. Id like to know so next time someone starts talking about an asymptote i can tell them that it doesn't actually exist because there is no such thing as infinitely approaching a number without being defined at it.

 

[chroot]

I see no questions to answer... And no, I am not bringing a totally unrelated topic in here. Read the definition of an asymtote. By your reasoning, there is no such thing as one. Id like to know so next time someone starts talking about an asymptote i can tell them that it doesn't actually exist because there is no such thing as infinitely approaching a number without being defined at it.

From what I can tell, this has nothing to do with the discussion to this point. I fear you are misreading what people are saying.

The only question I have to ask you is this one:

Can you find a number between 0.999... and 1?

- Warren

 

[musky_ox]

Sorry i looked for a graph of this but couldn't find one.

Say you graph a function that has a horizontal asymptote of 1. By definition, as the x value goes to infinity, the y value is infinitely approaching 1, but will never be 1. I see no reason that just because i cannot identify a number between 0.99... and 1 that you can say it equals 1.

 

[chroot]

By definition, as the x value goes to infinity, the y value is infinitely approaching 1, but will never be 1.

Except at infinity, where it (might) be 1.

The notation 0.999... does not mean "a lot of nines," it means "an infinite number of nines," which is completely different.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

BTW, I must mention that Webster's dictionary is an abhorrent place to find the definitions of mathematical or scientific words. Rarely are the definitions provided in a common English dictionary adequately precise for technical communication.

- Warren

 

[musky_ox]

I never said that it was "a lot of nines." I said as x-> infinity that y is infinitely close to 1. (infinitesimal away from 1)

Think of this analogy.
Lets assume that space is quantisized and just say that a quark is the smallest distance of space. Does length of 1 quark = 2 quarks just because there is no length between it?

 

[chroot]

I never said that it was "a lot of nines." I said as x-> infinity that y is infinitely close to 1. (infinitesimal away from 1)

And its behavior as it goes to infinity might have nothing at all in common with its behavior at infinity.

Think of this analogy.
Lets assume that space is quantisized and just say that a quark is the smallest distance of space. Does length of 1 quark = 2 quarks just because there is no length between it?

We're not talking about physics, for the last time. We're talking about pure math. The real number line is not quantized, and there is no "smallest number."

I'm going to ask you again, for the third time:

Can you find a number between 0.999... and 1?

- Warren

 

[musky_ox]

What is 2(.99...)? Isnt is 1.99...8? So theoretically if you could have this number, would it equal 2? I can think of a number in between it and 2, 1.99...

 

[chroot]

No, because once again numbers like 1.99...8 do not, and cannot exist! We've already covered this ground. 0.999... does not have a lot of nines, it has an infinite number of nines.

2(0.999...) = 2

I'm really beginning to believe you are just a troll. When things have been explained to you clearly, yet you continue to just repeat yourself and ignore what has been explained, you are trolling.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

I'm going to ask this question again for the fourth time. If you do not answer it directly, I will take action against you for trolling.

Can you find a number between 0.999... and 1?

- Warren

 

[musky_ox]

I guess i can't find any number between 0.99... and 1 then. I don't think it has any implication, but it does appear to be a glitch in the decimal system to me. The only reason i kept arguing is that in base 12 it seems to me that doing 1/3*3 gives you the same answer as 0.4*3.

BTW - What do you mean by "Troll?" I got a warning for saying someone had an IQ below 25 (an idiot) and i hope you weren't indirectly calling me stupid!

 

[chroot]

If you cannot find a number between 0.999... and 1, then 0.999... and 1 are the same number. There are literally dozens of proofs in this very thread, which I suggest you read in its entirety.

Your concept that numbers behave differently in different bases is simply wrong. There is no room to argue this. What is true in one base must be true in all other bases. The definition of the real numbers has nothing to do with what base you choose to represet them in. The definitions deal with the properties of the numbers themselves, independent of representation.

- Warren

 

[musky_ox]

Alright, i will admit defeat then, however 0.99... only equals 1 mathematically. Theoretically, it is still an infinitely small distance away from being 1. I have a question for you: How can a problem involving infinities be represented with equations?

 

[chroot]

Alright, i will admit defeat then, however 0.99... only equals 1 mathematically.

What else have we been talking about besides math? This is absurd.

- Warren

 

[musky_ox]

Physics.

- musky ox