The problem you're having is that you actually believe there to be "space" between 1 and 0.999~.
There is not. This is mathematically proven and has been demonstrated to you numerous times.
C'mon Cosmicpsore, you gotta read more carefully than that.
I did read.... That's why I pointed out that you are wrong.
....Read more carefully for yourself next time.
As I said, you actually believe there is a space between 0.999~ and 1. This space, even if you call it "infinitely small", does not actually exist. There is no space. It is nonexistent.
This is why you are confused, and why you're wrong that it is an inconsistency. You're the one making the inconsistency. It does not exist otherwise.
Math is internally consistent in every way. You really have absolutely no argument.
You could argue that math is inconsistent with reality if you'd like, but that is not what you are doing.
This is implying the existence of "infinitely small" values. These 'values', however, are typically ignored because they have no true value in mathematics, and no relationship to reality.
As you can see from above, we still reach the same conclusion as we would without it... Simply because it literally has no value.
This is why there is no "space" between 0.999~ and 1. There is literally no value between them. Therefore it is logically and internally consistent.
And unless you can prove the existence of an actual value for "infinitely small" numbers, then they will never have meaning within mathematics.
Why do you think repeating the same thing I've already read will make me change my perspective? I've already stated that I understand.
You said it was a "logical inconsistency".
If you understood what I've stated to you, then you would also understand that it is not and that you were wrong.
Since you have neither admitted to this error, or explained that you understand in a way that would be acceptable for me to see you have accepted this error.... then I can only assume you needed more explanation.
As well, I repeated nothing. Apparently you are still refusing to read people's posts.... again.
Just answer me two things.....
Do you still believe '0.999~ = 1' is a "logical inconsistency", yes or no?
If 'No' then: Did you actually read the explanation in my previous post, yes or no?
Since you have neither admitted to this error, or explained that you understand in a way that would be acceptable for me to see you have accepted this error.... then I can only assume you needed more explanation.
What error was there to admit to? I already explained that I understand it.
If 'No' then: Did you actually read the explanation in my previous post, yes or no?
I know you've read them, but have you comprehended any of my posts? Not just in this thread, but out of every post of mine you've ever read. We've been over this so many times: You presume too much or simply fail to understand what I'm saying.
I'm going to assume that means "No, but I'm too afraid to admit that I was wrong so I'm going to say 'yes' and qualify it so it makes it sound like I still know what I'm talking about".
....Because that's honestly what it sounds like to me.
For future reference, there is nothing wrong with being wrong sometimes. Admitting it is the mature thing to do. Everyone makes mistakes.
I know you've read them, but have you comprehended any of my posts?
You stated something which was incorrect I gave you valid reasoning why it was wrong. You then ignored my posts stating you "already understood".
There is not much there to "comprehend" about them except that you are just trying to get out of admitting a mistake.
Not just in this thread, but out of every post of mine you've ever read. We've been over this so many times: You presume too much or simply fail to understand what I'm saying.
I don't "presume too much". I don't make assumptions, unless those assumptions are necessary because of lack of information or context.
I've quoted what you have actually stated. I then gave an argument based on how that statement was incorrect.
You then gave absolutely no argument in return and therefore failed to support your statement.
There is nothing else to understand here. Don't try to make me out to look like 'a bad guy' or some kind of idiot just because I was just explaining that you were wrong about something. Just admit to your mistakes and move on. It's the proper thing to do.
I'm going to assume that means "No, but I'm too afraid to admit that I was wrong so I'm going to say 'yes' and qualify it".
Because that's honestly what it sounds like to me.
The fact that you took everything I said and turned it into that says to me that you have negative motives here, or you really did not understand what I was saying. I'm stating that I view it as illogical under specific circumstances.
For future reference, there is nothing wrong with being wrong sometimes. Everyone makes mistakes.
You clearly don't know me, because I have no issue admitting that I'm wrong or ignorance about something. The simple fact is that, in this case, I'm not wrong. To clarify, neither are you.
I've quoted what you have actually stated. I then gave an argument based on how that statement was incorrect.
You then gave absolutely no argument in return and therefore failed to support your statement.
Why would I give an argument for it? What would that argument even be?
There is nothing else to understand here. Don't try to make me out to look like 'a bad guy' or some kind of idiot just because I was just explaining that you were wrong about something. Just admit to your mistakes and move on. It's the proper thing to do.
You completely misunderstood what I said then have the audacity to not only assert that I was wrong, but also that I should admit to it because it's the right thing to do? Cosmicspore, you should take your own advice. But fear not, for I don't demand or even ask that you admit that you were the one who made a mistake. I'm much better than that.
I did read.... That's why I pointed out that you are wrong.
....Read more carefully for yourself next time.
As I said, you actually believe there is a space between 0.999~ and 1. This space, even if you call it "infinitely small", does not actually exist. There is no space. It is nonexistent.
This is why you are confused, and why you're wrong that it is an inconsistency. You're the one making the inconsistency. It does not exist otherwise.
Math is internally consistent in every way. You really have absolutely no argument.
You could argue that math is inconsistent with reality if you'd like, but that is not what you are doing.
This is what I can't quite grasp... 0.9999... repeating has infinite number of 9's, and with each 9, the number gets slightly closer to 1. So, the space between the numbers would grow infinitely small, but you can't say there is no space. Likewise, it's convienient in every way in math to simply call 0.999... 1, but it technically doesn't.
Also, is this proof valid?
Let A = 0.9999... repeating, and let's assume that A also = 1. Let B = 0.0000...1 \neq 0.
(A + B)= 1
1 - (A + B)= 1 - (1)
1 - (A + B)= 0
(1 - A) + B = 0
(1 - 0.99...) + B = 0
(1 - 1) + B = 0
B = 0 *contradiction*
This is what I can't quite grasp... 0.9999... repeating has infinite number of 9's, and with each 9, the number gets slightly closer to 1. So, the space between the numbers would grow infinitely small, but you can't say there is no space. Likewise, it's convienient in every way in math to simply call 0.999... 1, but it technically doesn't.
Also, is this proof valid?
Let A = 0.9999... repeating, and let's assume that A also = 1. Let B = 0.0000...1 \neq 0.
(A + B)= 1
1 - (A + B)= 1 - (1)
1 - (A + B)= 0
(1 - A) + B = 0
(1 - 0.99...) + B = 0
(1 - 1) + B = 0
B = 0 *contradiction*
No, your proof is not valid. You cannot have a 1 at the end of 0.0 repeating because by definition the zeros go one forever. Not only that, but by definition, .999~ is equal to 1. B is = to 0, as A+B =1, and A = .999~ There is no contradiction.
No, your proof is not valid. You cannot have a 1 at the end of 0.0 repeating because by definition the zeros go one forever. Not only that, but by definition, .999~ is equal to 1. B is = to 0, as A+B =1, and A = .999~ There is no contradiction.
I see. Well, thanks. By that logic, though, wouldn't it be impossible for 0.999... to be equal to 1, since eventually it would have to be rounded up, and that's impossible since the 9's go on forever?
I see. Well, thanks. By that logic, though, wouldn't it be impossible for 0.999... to be equal to 1, since eventually it would have to be rounded up, and that's impossible since the 9's go on forever?
I had an interesting proof for it, but alas, it's in my Algebra notebook which I didn't bring home from school.
Sorry, 0.0...1 is not a valid notation for an actual number. The ellipsis marks represent an infinte series. You cannot have something "after" an infinite series. You might as well have said "Let B = 0.01boston01" for all the sense that makes.
This is what I can't quite grasp... 0.9999... repeating has infinite number of 9's, and with each 9, the number gets slightly closer to 1. So, the space between the numbers would grow infinitely small, but you can't say there is no space.
You're thinking of it as a true 'series' of numbers, which it is not.
As a whole, it is a 'complete' number. The 'whole' of the infinity in this case is equal to 1.
This infinity only 'repeats' for purposes of writing it for decimal representation.
The problem is that you're imaging the number 'expanding' and 'approaching 1' but it never does so... There is no 'expansion' and therefore no 'space' between the two numeric representations. Taken as a whole, the entirety of the infinity expressed (0.9999~) is equal to 1 simply because it is.
The representation as an infinity is nothing more than an error in representation. It is a conceptual misrepresentation of the actual value.
"3/3" represents the 'whole' of the value in a better way and does not involve the same problem in representation.
3/3 of course being equal to 1.
The true problem relies in the fact that people were always taught that 1/3 = 0.33333~ and so you simply 'accept' the fact that these infinities exist, when they truly do not.
Take a piece of paper and cut it into 1/3.... Do you actually see an infinity of 0.333~ of that paper? Of course not. You see 1/3 of the paper.
The "0.3333~" decimal value is a conceptual misrepresentation used only within mathematics. It's real-life counterpart is only "1/3".
As I explained to Nerevar, if you care to 'piece it back together' using an "infinitely small" number (0.0000~1) which is equivalent to nothing (0), then you can find a secondary mathematical proof that 0.999~ = 1... But this requires two unnecessary assumptions:
1. That infinitely small numbers exist.
2. That a 0.000~1 equals 0.
These are two assumptions which can be ignored by mathematics, because there is proof that 0.99~ = 1 without them.
Likewise, it's convienient in every way in math to simply call 0.999... 1, but it technically doesn't.
No, No... That is incorrect. Technically, it truly DOES.
If you cut a paper into thirds, and then put them back together, you still have ONE full-size piece of paper.
The concept is incredibly simple. The difficulty is that people were trained and educated to understand the problem one way, and then this phenomena changes the way people must understand it.
By the way... I'm not trying to discourage anyone from trying to philosophically understand why an infinity equals 1...
If you want to think about it as something greater than simply a 'writing error' be my guest and feel free to conjecture. I've done it plenty of times before myself.
It's quite an interesting phenomena.
But it should be understood that this is a clear fact of mathematics. There should be no confusion about this.
"0.999~ = 1" in the same way "1 = One". They are merely two representations of the same number.
Feel free to wonder 'why'.... but just don't say it isn't true...
People always get their panties in a bunch over this for some reason. But when you throw the Banach-Tarski paradox at them there never seems to be a counter-argument. Or, hell, an actual response.
Here's the thing: your brain sucks with infinities. I'm sorry, but it's true. When you start working with infinities all sorts of weird and counter-intuitive things start happening. But that's the beauty of math, it has to be logically consistent and it is.
Within the set of real numbers 0.999... is a short-hand notation for the following sum:
Stop trying to think of its value in terms of its partial sum. 0.999... is not "approaching" 1, it is exactly 1, because it can only have one single value. The only real number that makes sense to assign to that sequence in 1. Let's do a bit of a proof by contradiction, it won't really be a proof, but hopefully it should illustrate something:
First let me introduce a new notation: 0.9{n}. I will use this to indicate a decimal number with n 0s after the decimal point. As a corollary this is also true: 0.9{n} = 1 - 10-n, so we can actually extend this to negative values for n, weird though that may be.
It should be clear that 0.9{n} < 0.999... for all natural numbers n.
Now, assume that 0.999... < 1. This is equivalent to saying that 0.999... = 1 - ε for any ε > 0.
Let's consider for a moment the equation: 0.9{n} > 1 - ε
Now we can rewrite this as: ε > 1 - 0.9{n}
ε > 10^-n
Now comes the actual argument: no matter how small we make ε, there will always be a finite integer n that will satisfy that the above inequality. That means that for every real number less than 1, there is a finite n that makes 0.9{n} bigger than that real number. Therefore, 0.9{n} is greater than every real number less than 1. So, 0.9{n} cannot be less than 1, because it is greater than every real number less than 1. So basically, this proves that 0.9... >= 1 (should be evident from here that it must be equal to 1).
This is essentially the same argument put forth earlier with the number line. Two real numbers are distinct if and only if there exists a real number between them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
C'mon Cosmicpsore, you gotta read more carefully than that.
I did read.... That's why I pointed out that you are wrong.
....Read more carefully for yourself next time.
As I said, you actually believe there is a space between 0.999~ and 1. This space, even if you call it "infinitely small", does not actually exist. There is no space. It is nonexistent.
This is why you are confused, and why you're wrong that it is an inconsistency. You're the one making the inconsistency. It does not exist otherwise.
Math is internally consistent in every way. You really have absolutely no argument.
You could argue that math is inconsistent with reality if you'd like, but that is not what you are doing.
Well, then why are you arguing that it is inconsistent then? This is perfectly consistent.
If 0.0000~1 (an infinitely small number) did indeed exist, and was equal to 0 (nothing)...
Then this is true and consistent:
0.9999~ = 1
0.000~1 = 0
0.9999~ + 0.000~1 = 1
1 + 0 = 1
Therefore: 0.999~ + 0 = 1
Finally: 0.999~ = 1
This is implying the existence of "infinitely small" values. These 'values', however, are typically ignored because they have no true value in mathematics, and no relationship to reality.
As you can see from above, we still reach the same conclusion as we would without it... Simply because it literally has no value.
This is why there is no "space" between 0.999~ and 1. There is literally no value between them. Therefore it is logically and internally consistent.
And unless you can prove the existence of an actual value for "infinitely small" numbers, then they will never have meaning within mathematics.
You said it was a "logical inconsistency".
If you understood what I've stated to you, then you would also understand that it is not and that you were wrong.
Since you have neither admitted to this error, or explained that you understand in a way that would be acceptable for me to see you have accepted this error.... then I can only assume you needed more explanation.
As well, I repeated nothing. Apparently you are still refusing to read people's posts.... again.
Just answer me two things.....
Do you still believe '0.999~ = 1' is a "logical inconsistency", yes or no?
If 'No' then: Did you actually read the explanation in my previous post, yes or no?
It is because of the way I am imagining it. If you graph it, 0.99999 never actually reaches 1.
Or you just didn't understand what I was saying.
What error was there to admit to? I already explained that I understand it.
You're repeating the same augmentative consensus, that 1=0.9999~. And, actually, I have seen that specific argument used before.
In a certain way, yes.
I know you've read them, but have you comprehended any of my posts? Not just in this thread, but out of every post of mine you've ever read. We've been over this so many times: You presume too much or simply fail to understand what I'm saying.
I'm going to assume that means "No, but I'm too afraid to admit that I was wrong so I'm going to say 'yes' and qualify it so it makes it sound like I still know what I'm talking about".
....Because that's honestly what it sounds like to me.
For future reference, there is nothing wrong with being wrong sometimes. Admitting it is the mature thing to do. Everyone makes mistakes.
You stated something which was incorrect I gave you valid reasoning why it was wrong. You then ignored my posts stating you "already understood".
There is not much there to "comprehend" about them except that you are just trying to get out of admitting a mistake.
I don't "presume too much". I don't make assumptions, unless those assumptions are necessary because of lack of information or context.
I've quoted what you have actually stated. I then gave an argument based on how that statement was incorrect.
You then gave absolutely no argument in return and therefore failed to support your statement.
There is nothing else to understand here. Don't try to make me out to look like 'a bad guy' or some kind of idiot just because I was just explaining that you were wrong about something. Just admit to your mistakes and move on. It's the proper thing to do.
Nothing else to see here folks, move along.
The fact that you took everything I said and turned it into that says to me that you have negative motives here, or you really did not understand what I was saying. I'm stating that I view it as illogical under specific circumstances.
You clearly don't know me, because I have no issue admitting that I'm wrong or ignorance about something. The simple fact is that, in this case, I'm not wrong. To clarify, neither are you.
That never happened. It's one thing to misunderstand, but you just fabricated that. Don't do that again, please.
This is a bold thing to say for someone who doesn't assume (and thus presume). It's reasons like this why it's hard to take you seriously.
Why would I give an argument for it? What would that argument even be?
You completely misunderstood what I said then have the audacity to not only assert that I was wrong, but also that I should admit to it because it's the right thing to do? Cosmicspore, you should take your own advice. But fear not, for I don't demand or even ask that you admit that you were the one who made a mistake. I'm much better than that.
I agree. There never was anything to see -- well, maybe a showman with a broken arm.
This is what I can't quite grasp... 0.9999... repeating has infinite number of 9's, and with each 9, the number gets slightly closer to 1. So, the space between the numbers would grow infinitely small, but you can't say there is no space. Likewise, it's convienient in every way in math to simply call 0.999... 1, but it technically doesn't.
Also, is this proof valid?
Let A = 0.9999... repeating, and let's assume that A also = 1. Let B = 0.0000...1 \neq 0.
(A + B)= 1
1 - (A + B)= 1 - (1)
1 - (A + B)= 0
(1 - A) + B = 0
(1 - 0.99...) + B = 0
(1 - 1) + B = 0
B = 0 *contradiction*
No, your proof is not valid. You cannot have a 1 at the end of 0.0 repeating because by definition the zeros go one forever. Not only that, but by definition, .999~ is equal to 1. B is = to 0, as A+B =1, and A = .999~ There is no contradiction.
I see. Well, thanks. By that logic, though, wouldn't it be impossible for 0.999... to be equal to 1, since eventually it would have to be rounded up, and that's impossible since the 9's go on forever?
I had an interesting proof for it, but alas, it's in my Algebra notebook which I didn't bring home from school.
I'll get it tomorrow, I promise!
Considering the fact that all repeating decimals are rational numbers, and that all rational numbers are real numbers, then 0.9... is a real number.
Sorry, 0.0...1 is not a valid notation for an actual number. The ellipsis marks represent an infinte series. You cannot have something "after" an infinite series. You might as well have said "Let B = 0.01boston01" for all the sense that makes.
You're thinking of it as a true 'series' of numbers, which it is not.
As a whole, it is a 'complete' number. The 'whole' of the infinity in this case is equal to 1.
This infinity only 'repeats' for purposes of writing it for decimal representation.
The problem is that you're imaging the number 'expanding' and 'approaching 1' but it never does so... There is no 'expansion' and therefore no 'space' between the two numeric representations. Taken as a whole, the entirety of the infinity expressed (0.9999~) is equal to 1 simply because it is.
The representation as an infinity is nothing more than an error in representation. It is a conceptual misrepresentation of the actual value.
"3/3" represents the 'whole' of the value in a better way and does not involve the same problem in representation.
3/3 of course being equal to 1.
The true problem relies in the fact that people were always taught that 1/3 = 0.33333~ and so you simply 'accept' the fact that these infinities exist, when they truly do not.
Take a piece of paper and cut it into 1/3.... Do you actually see an infinity of 0.333~ of that paper? Of course not. You see 1/3 of the paper.
The "0.3333~" decimal value is a conceptual misrepresentation used only within mathematics. It's real-life counterpart is only "1/3".
As I explained to Nerevar, if you care to 'piece it back together' using an "infinitely small" number (0.0000~1) which is equivalent to nothing (0), then you can find a secondary mathematical proof that 0.999~ = 1... But this requires two unnecessary assumptions:
1. That infinitely small numbers exist.
2. That a 0.000~1 equals 0.
These are two assumptions which can be ignored by mathematics, because there is proof that 0.99~ = 1 without them.
No, No... That is incorrect. Technically, it truly DOES.
If you cut a paper into thirds, and then put them back together, you still have ONE full-size piece of paper.
The concept is incredibly simple. The difficulty is that people were trained and educated to understand the problem one way, and then this phenomena changes the way people must understand it.
But... 0_o
How this?
1 = 0.(9)
It's weird... (Logically)
But it's possible.
Typo. Forums doesn't take every charsets.
If you want to think about it as something greater than simply a 'writing error' be my guest and feel free to conjecture. I've done it plenty of times before myself.
It's quite an interesting phenomena.
But it should be understood that this is a clear fact of mathematics. There should be no confusion about this.
"0.999~ = 1" in the same way "1 = One". They are merely two representations of the same number.
Feel free to wonder 'why'.... but just don't say it isn't true...
a = 0.(9)
10a = 9.(9)
10a - a = 9.(9) - 0.(9)
9a = 9
a = 1
0.(9) = 1
Still weird...
Damn you, that was the post I was going to post! CURSES!
Oh well, no more posting mathematical proofs for me
Here's the thing: your brain sucks with infinities. I'm sorry, but it's true. When you start working with infinities all sorts of weird and counter-intuitive things start happening. But that's the beauty of math, it has to be logically consistent and it is.
Within the set of real numbers 0.999... is a short-hand notation for the following sum:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum 9/10^n for n from 1 to infinity
Stop trying to think of its value in terms of its partial sum. 0.999... is not "approaching" 1, it is exactly 1, because it can only have one single value. The only real number that makes sense to assign to that sequence in 1. Let's do a bit of a proof by contradiction, it won't really be a proof, but hopefully it should illustrate something:
First let me introduce a new notation: 0.9{n}. I will use this to indicate a decimal number with n 0s after the decimal point. As a corollary this is also true: 0.9{n} = 1 - 10-n, so we can actually extend this to negative values for n, weird though that may be.
It should be clear that 0.9{n} < 0.999... for all natural numbers n.
Now, assume that 0.999... < 1. This is equivalent to saying that 0.999... = 1 - ε for any ε > 0.
Let's consider for a moment the equation: 0.9{n} > 1 - ε
Now we can rewrite this as: ε > 1 - 0.9{n}
ε > 10^-n
Now comes the actual argument: no matter how small we make ε, there will always be a finite integer n that will satisfy that the above inequality. That means that for every real number less than 1, there is a finite n that makes 0.9{n} bigger than that real number. Therefore, 0.9{n} is greater than every real number less than 1. So, 0.9{n} cannot be less than 1, because it is greater than every real number less than 1. So basically, this proves that 0.9... >= 1 (should be evident from here that it must be equal to 1).
This is essentially the same argument put forth earlier with the number line. Two real numbers are distinct if and only if there exists a real number between them.