Is 1 = 0.9999......

Page 51 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

josphII

Banned
Nov 24, 2001
1,490
0
0
Originally posted by: MadRat
Originally posted by: silverpig
Infinity - 1 huh? Infinite position?

There is no infinitieth position. There is no infinity-minus-one-th position.

Are you trying to say that if you take 0.9r x 10 you'll get 0.9r...0 or something?

Its very simple, the 9's extend to infinity, making the "last" nine at the position of "infinity". Infinity doesn't exist in a fixed position on the number line, which seems to confuse the math gurus. But that does not mean the term "infinite position" can not be used to describe the limit of the number. If the nines extended beyond infinity then the number would be equal to or greater than "one". Likewise, if the number of nines is shifted 'one less than infinity' then a measurable gap would theoretically be created between "one" and the number. Luckily for all of us, infinity is by definition, undefined. The division and multiplication of a repeating decimal is nonsensical in the sense that the position of the last number cannot be moved because its position is already undefined.

a) there is no "last" 9. see the definition of infinity
b) numbers dont have limits
c) infinity is not undefined, infinity is simply infinity
d) every number can be expressed as a repeating decimal, ie 1.000..., so can you not divide 1 by 10?
e) what about non repeating decimals like pi, can i or can i not express pi/10 as a decimal

the amazing thing about you is that with such rampant ignorance on these boards you some how manage to separate yourself from all the rest
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
11
81
Originally posted by: MadRat
Originally posted by: silverpig
Infinity - 1 huh? Infinite position?

There is no infinitieth position. There is no infinity-minus-one-th position.

Are you trying to say that if you take 0.9r x 10 you'll get 0.9r...0 or something?

Its very simple, the 9's extend to infinity, making the "last" nine at the position of "infinity". Infinity doesn't exist in a fixed position on the number line, which seems to confuse the math gurus. But that does not mean the term "infinite position" can not be used to describe the limit of the number. If the nines extended beyond infinity then the number would be equal to or greater than "one". Likewise, if the number of nines is shifted 'one less than infinity' then a measurable gap would theoretically be created between "one" and the number. Luckily for all of us, infinity is by definition, undefined. The division and multiplication of a repeating decimal is nonsensical in the sense that the position of the last number cannot be moved because its position is already undefined.

You managed to contradict yourself in two consecutive sentences.

making the "last" nine at the position of "infinity"

Infinity doesn't exist in a fixed position on the number line

So there is a position of infinity, but it doesn't exist...

Extended beyond infinity? Uh, sure.

Okay, so let's say that you have 0.999...9 (infinity + 1 nines) and 0.999... and 0.999......... (this one has the nines going "beyond infinity"). You're trying to tell me that you could then say:

0.999... < 0.999...9 < 1 <= 0.999...........

I just don't know what to say to that. I really don't.
 

TuxDave

Lifer
Oct 8, 2002
10,571
3
71
Uhhh.... that's an interesting idea "9's going BEYOND infinity" So you're saying that 0.999... (off to infinity and THEN some) is greater than 1? So 1-<that number> = 0.00000......(to infinity and then something after that). So are you telling me that's a new notation for writing negative numbers? If so, what would quantize the number -1 using this beyond infinity idea.
 

OokiiNeko

Senior member
Jun 14, 2003
508
0
0
There are one of two possible answers.

1) We don't know

Or

2) 1-1(1/10^n)=x ;where n -> infinity

Either the mathematical mechanics work at infinity, in which case #2 is correct,
or the mathematical mechanics breakdown at infinity, in which case #1 is correct.

Either way .999... =1 is NOT correct.
 

amishman01

Junior Member
Jun 25, 2003
2
0
0
I dont think it is too important but I do not like the proofs shown, it seems like any proof will work depending on how you think about it..

Lets say there is a speed that is impossible to acheive, lets call this variable 'c' .

.9999999999999999c is possible
1*c is not possible as we have defined.

therfore its different
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,358
8,447
126
Originally posted by: amishman01
I dont think it is too important but I do not like the proofs shown, it seems like any proof will work depending on how you think about it..

Lets say there is a speed that is impossible to acheive, lets call this variable 'c' .

.9999999999999999c is possible
1*c is not possible as we have defined.

therfore its different

you ended your string of 9s, so, yeah its different
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,358
8,447
126
Originally posted by: MadRat
9*0.9r = (10-1)*0.9r = 9.9r - 0.9r = 9 = 9*1
9*0.9r = 9*1
0.9r = 1

For one, the idea that .9r can be divisible by 10 is laughable. What happens is the final decimal place of the last nine is no longer at infinity, but actually it would become "(infinity-1)" by your argument. The "mathematicians" of the forum seem to conveniently ignore the idea of a limit to the 9's in .9r at the infinite position.

You also cannot factor out the 9 from .9r and presume to remain accurate to what you have defined in your original terms. The argument becomes flawed at this point.

no it would be 9.99999...
 

BruinEd03

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,399
1
0
Originally posted by: Kyteland
We're having a debate at work. Is 1=0.99999..... repeating. I say that this holds but one of my coworkers claims that multiplication breaks down for an infinitely repeating number.

x = 0.9999...
10x = 9.9999...
10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999...
9x = 9
x = 1.

What do you think?

yes.

-Ed
 

Kyteland

Diamond Member
Dec 30, 2002
5,747
1
81
Originally posted by: MadRat
9*0.9r = (10-1)*0.9r = 9.9r - 0.9r = 9 = 9*1
9*0.9r = 9*1
0.9r = 1

For one, the idea that .9r can be divisible by 10 is laughable. What happens is the final decimal place of the last nine is no longer at infinity, but actually it would become "(infinity-1)" by your argument. The "mathematicians" of the forum seem to conveniently ignore the idea of a limit to the 9's in .9r at the infinite position.

You also cannot factor out the 9 from .9r and presume to remain accurate to what you have defined in your original terms. The argument becomes flawed at this point.

*sigh*

Please explain to me how a number like 0.9r is ant different then, say, 0.3r. I can multiply that by 10. That operation is well defined within the real number system.

This also holds for division. PI/10 = .3141592653589........

The only argument that you can use to say that division/multiplication is not valid for a number like 0.9r is to show that it is not part of the real number system. There has already been numerous arguments showing that it is well defined in this system, but please go ahead and present your argument as to why it is not.

As to my original "proof" I can't see why there is any confusion in the first steps. It does require a bit of algebra, but I hope that I'm safe in assuming that everyone arguing here has taken that class or learned it at some point in time. If not then you are in the wrong thread.

1) x = 0.9999...
2) 10x = 9.9999...
3) 10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999...
4) 9x = 9
5) x = 1.

step 1) is called an assumption and/or a definition. You are assuming this will hold true throughout the proof. In this case we are telling you, the reader, that x is 0.9r. At any point in this proof, if you see x, it is symbolically defined as 0.9r. This is one way that algebra works, by defining symbols to have numeric meaning.

step 2) is done using a simple algebraic rule. We are multiplying both sides of the equation by 10. If you have the equation x^2+y^2=1 then A*x^2+A*y^2 = A also holds true. This operation is well defined for any number on the real number line. Since 0.9r is on the real number line and x is a symbolic notation of a number on the real number line, there is nothing wrong with this step.

step 3) is also well defined for the real number system. you are combining equations with mathematical operations to form new equations. Take this system: If a=b and c=d then a-c=b-d. This is a theorem that you probably should have learned in grade school, and is what we have done in this step.

step 4) is where the equation is reduced. What is 10x-x equal to? 9x. If you have 10 oranges and take away 1 of them how many do you have left? 9.

The sticking point in this whole "proof" seems to be in this part of step 4). 9.9999... - 0.9999... What does this reduce to? A number of people suggest that 0.9r has one more 9 after the decimal then 9.9r. The fact that it is repeating means that the string of 9s go on forever. They never stop. Ever. For every 9 in 0.9r there is a matching 9 in 9.9r. The opposite is also true. For every 9 in 9.9r there is a matching 9 in 0.9r. These numbers both have the same "length". It is infinite. 9.9r doesn't have a slightly shorter infinite length because that would imply that it was not infinite to begin with. When you subtract them you are left with 9. Please don't tell me that you can't do this. You can. What is 1.(21)r - 0.(12)r? It is 1.(09)r. What is 3.3r - 0.3r? It is 3. What is 9.9r - 0.9r? It is 9.

Ok, now that we have that out of the way, on to step 5) In this step we are dividing both sides by 9. We can do this for the exact same reason that we can do step 2) We are applying the exact same operation to both sides of an equation so the outcome will still be equivalent.

So what does this show? We started by defining/assuming that x was equal to 0.9r. We have shown mathematically that x is equal to 1. If a=b and a=c then b=c, so 1 = 0.9999......

QED!!

On a side note: My post per day average is ~equal to PI.
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
11
81
Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
There are one of two possible answers.

1) We don't know

Or

2) 1-1(1/10^n)=x ;where n -> infinity

Either the mathematical mechanics work at infinity, in which case #2 is correct,
or the mathematical mechanics breakdown at infinity, in which case #1 is correct.

Either way .999... =1 is NOT correct.

Show how they are different then.

4 != 5

b/c

4 < 4.5 < 5

2/2 = 1 because there is no number in between 2/2 and 1, just as there is no number in between 0.9r and 1. They aren't different, so they are the same.
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
11
81
Why do people have problems with dealing with infinitely repeating decimals? EVERY NUMBER IS INFINITELY REPEATING. 1 = ...0001.000....

It has an infinite amount of digits both before and after the decimal point. Every number is like that, yet no one complains about 1/10 = 0.1
 

PowerMacG5

Diamond Member
Apr 14, 2002
7,701
0
0
Let this thread die already. It's been suffering too long. Everytime someone adds a post to it, it's like poking a dying body with a stick to see how long it can live. Just let it die already.
 

dighn

Lifer
Aug 12, 2001
22,820
4
81
Originally posted by: Kyteland
The sticking point in this whole "proof" seems to be in this part of step 4). 9.9999... - 0.9999... What does this reduce to? A number of people suggest that 0.9r has one more 9 after the decimal then 9.9r. The fact that it is repeating means that the string of 9s go on forever. They never stop. Ever. For every 9 in 0.9r there is a matching 9 in 9.9r. The opposite is also true. For every 9 in 9.9r there is a matching 9 in 0.9r. These numbers both have the same "length". It is infinite. 9.9r doesn't have a slightly shorter infinite length because that would imply that it was not infinite to begin with. When you subtract them you are left with 9. Please don't tell me that you can't do this. You can. What is 1.(21)r - 0.(12)r? It is 1.(09)r. What is 3.3r - 0.3r? It is 3. What is 9.9r - 0.9r? It is 9.

i think it should be ok. 9.9r - 0.9r should be 9. if you break down 0.9r it is 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 ..., multiple by ten you get 9 + 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 which means exactly that 9.9r = 9 + 0.9r
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,943
264
126
"9.9r = 9 + .9r" is not flawed.

".9r * 10 = 9.9r" is flawed in the sense that the .9r of 9.9r no longer has the same value. It is in this sense that the use of
9*0.9r = (10-1)*0.9r = 9.9r - 0.9r = 9 = 9*1
9*0.9r = 9*1
0.9r = 1
is flawed.
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
11
81
Originally posted by: MadRat
"9.9r = 9 + .9r" is not flawed.

".9r * 10 = 9.9r" is flawed in the sense that the .9r of 9.9r no longer has the same value. It is in this sense that the use of
9*0.9r = (10-1)*0.9r = 9.9r - 0.9r = 9 = 9*1
9*0.9r = 9*1
0.9r = 1
is flawed.

How doesn't it? The nines are infinite in both cases.
 

dighn

Lifer
Aug 12, 2001
22,820
4
81
to say the 0.9r in 9.9r is different from 0.9r would mean the series 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 ... has a finite length

but the series 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 +9/10000 ... is equivalent to the series 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 ... which is exactly what you get after multiplying 0.9r by 10, after the first term (0.9r * 10 = 9 + 9/10 + 9/100 ...)
 

Kyteland

Diamond Member
Dec 30, 2002
5,747
1
81
Originally posted by: MadRat
"9.9r = 9 + .9r" is not flawed.

".9r * 10 = 9.9r" is flawed in the sense that the .9r of 9.9r no longer has the same value. It is in this sense that the use of
9*0.9r = (10-1)*0.9r = 9.9r - 0.9r = 9 = 9*1
9*0.9r = 9*1
0.9r = 1
is flawed.

How can you say this and not provide any evidence? I thought we went through this already. If you want anyone to belive your claims then you need to support them.
 

Kyteland

Diamond Member
Dec 30, 2002
5,747
1
81
This thread is now long enough to start a new feature. I call it "Classic Posts".

Here is todays Classic Post, the first post by the man who single handedly kept this thread alive after we had all assumed it had died.

---

Originally posted by: bleeb
Originally posted by: Kyteland
We're having a debate at work. Is 1=0.99999..... repeating. I say that this holds but one of my coworkers claims that multiplication breaks down for an infinitely repeating number.

x = 0.9999...
10x = 9.9999...
10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999...
9x = 9
x = 1.

What do you think?

This proof is WRONG... you already stated that x=0.9999.... so then, since X=0.9999
9 * (0.9999...) != 9
x != 1.

Therefore: X = 0.9999... != 1

MORON. Jus playing =) Happy Doodles!

 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |