The .9999... Debate: Is it Really Equal to One?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sublime
  • Start date Start date
sublime
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
0.99999... = 1

From what I have read and understood .999... = 1. Wherever I read it, I notice a huge argument sparked. What does everyone think.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
There are at least 20 threads on this topic, so I suggest you browse first.
 
Come on... not again. This is neither an interesting nor challenging topic for anyone with more than a school child's grasp of mathematics. The only people who argue it are, well, those with no more than a school child's grasp of mathematics. There is no argument -- 0.999... = 1 by the axioms of the real numbers. Unless you're trying to redefine the real numbers, there is no possible way that 0.999... does not equal 1. If you're interested in redefining the real numbers, well, we're not interested in listening. End of story.

- Warren
 
Last edited:
Hurkyl just closed this exact thread in "Number Theory".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
31
Views
2K
Replies
109
Views
19K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
881
Back
Top