- #1

- 20

- 0

## Main Question or Discussion Point

Now I expect that most of you on this forum would be familiar with the equality between point nine reoccurring and one:

Now this equality can be used to imply something else, which is rather heterodox, consider the below:

As the mathematical consensus is that division by zero is undefined, why is the proof incorrect?

**

**0.999...=1***If your not familiar please review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...*

Now this equality can be used to imply something else, which is rather heterodox, consider the below:

*Point nine reoccurring is only one infinith smaller than one*

But as point nine reoccurring and one are equal, point nine reoccurring is one infinith smaller than itself

It is only logical then to conclude that one infinith is equal to zero

Which can in turn be inverted to reveal that infinity is equal to one divided by zero

**0. 999 ... +(1/∞)= 1**But as point nine reoccurring and one are equal, point nine reoccurring is one infinith smaller than itself

**0. 999 ... +(1/∞)= 0. 999 ...**It is only logical then to conclude that one infinith is equal to zero

**0. 999 ... − 0. 999 ... +(1/∞)= 0. 999 ... − 0. 999 ...**

1/∞= 01/∞= 0

Which can in turn be inverted to reveal that infinity is equal to one divided by zero

****

*∞ =1/0*∎As the mathematical consensus is that division by zero is undefined, why is the proof incorrect?