Ok this is stupid. Any one saying 0.999... = 1 is saying the same thing as 2 = 3. Using the flawed logic, "well it's close enough". No it is ****ing not. These are numbers not emotional words. X=X. X will always equal X. It will never equal Y. Now stop being stupid and use logic.
Ok this is stupid. Any one saying 0.999... = 1 is saying the same thing as 2 = 3. Using the flawed logic, "well it's close enough". No it is ****ing not. These are numbers not emotional words. X=X. X will always equal X. It will never equal Y. Now stop being stupid and use logic.
Yeah and √1 isn't equal to 12 and 1 because they look different. You can tell by the pixels.
Just because you don't understand mathematical concepts doesn't mean everyone else isn't using logic.
Ok this is stupid. Any one saying 0.999... = 1 is saying the same thing as 2 = 3. Using the flawed logic, "well it's close enough". No it is ****ing not. These are numbers not emotional words. X=X. X will always equal X. It will never equal Y. Now stop being stupid and use logic.
Do you have a dumbass calculator, or one of those 70$+ ones?
I have a 100$ one.
More like a $30 one.
ON TOPIC: No, no, no. The square root of one is an operation, therefore, you are comparing too many variables. .9999... is not an operation, however, the square root of 1 and 1 squared are. If .9999... wasn't .9999... then it would not exist, and the whole number system would be that .0000...1 off.
ON TOPIC: No, no, no. The square root of one is an operation, therefore, you are comparing too many variables. .9999... is not an operation, however, the square root of 1 and 1 squared are. If .9999... wasn't .9999... then it would not exist, and the whole number system would be that .0000...1 off.
.999 repeating is indeed equal to one. People who think otherwise don't know enough about math to know better.
The limit of a number 0.99 is equal to 1 as the number of '9's after the decimal point approaches infinity. When you write it as 0.99 repeating, you are writing it with infinity 9s. You are writing that limit, which is equal to 1.
.9999... Does not represent one. It represents .9999... Are you just saying that the number .9999... simply does not exist?
Look, by your logic (of erroneously adding a 0.000...1 to infinitesimally represented numbers, and also believing that arithmetic works intuitively in these odd cases not meant for base 10 decimals anyhow), can you tell me what 1/3 * 3 equals? Surely since 1/3 equals 0.333...4, multiply that by three and we have 1.000...2! But no, 3/3 is 1.
ON TOPIC: No, no, no. The square root of one is an operation, therefore, you are comparing too many variables. .9999... is not an operation, however, the square root of 1 and 1 squared are. If .9999... wasn't .9999... then it would not exist, and the whole number system would be that .0000...1 off.
I have proved this wrong. All numbers are operations. x*1
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I would tell you about how awesome I am down here, but I have a feeling you probably already know that. <- Please. ._.
Haha, somebody read the article on cracked.com about how simple topics make flame wars. If so, I was just reading that and planning to do the same thing you did. If not, carry on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do not press the (+) button. I rarely make any posts. This isn't even reverse psychology, just don't.
Look, by your logic (of erroneously adding a 0.000...1 to infinitesimally represented numbers, and also believing that arithmetic works intuitively in these odd cases not meant for base 10 decimals anyhow), can you tell me what 1/3 * 3 equals? Surely since 1/3 equals 0.333...4, multiply that by three and we have 1.000...2! But no, 3/3 is 1.
.33...*.66...7=1
But, by your logic, 66...7=3 which it probably does if .99...=1
But, by your logic, 66...7=3 which it probably does if .99...=1
What? How is it that you multiplied two positive numbers less than 1 and got 1? You haven't the slightest idea what you're doing or what you're talking about.
But, by your logic, 66...7=3 which it probably does if .99...=1
Apparently there's "emotionless" numbers but not an "emotionless" mathematician, considering how many times you've insulted without reason your opposition's logic. There is definitely a "clueless" mathematician, though, as shown by how you think (1/3)*(2/3)=1.
What? How is it that you multiplied two positive numbers less than 1 and got 1? You haven't the slightest idea what you're doing or what you're talking about.
Wait, what? I'm an idiot. I actually added that, and I was confusing my multiplication with adding...
*facepalm*
Anyway, .33...+.66...7=1 .33...*.33...*.33...3=1? It equals .99... Which you can use to prove .99...=1.
But, by your logic, 66...7=3 which it probably does if .99...=1
I think you mean 0.66.. is equal to 2/3, which it exactly is.
There is no 7 at the end of it, by the way. That's your calculator rounding. You can't put things at the end of an infinite sequence of numbers. Would you like to know why? It's because an infinite sequence never stops.
Now that being said. Ponies.
Yeah and √1 isn't equal to 12 and 1 because they look different. You can tell by the pixels.
Just because you don't understand mathematical concepts doesn't mean everyone else isn't using logic.
Also, by your math, 0.000...0001 = 1.
You heard that, green and red.
Actually, X^0 will always equal 1, unless X is 0. So there are an infinite number of numbers that equal one, as long as you count exponents.
X=54
Y=54
X=Y
Now stop being stupid and use logic.
Math is hard.
DEAL WITH IT.
More like a $30 one.
ON TOPIC: No, no, no. The square root of one is an operation, therefore, you are comparing too many variables. .9999... is not an operation, however, the square root of 1 and 1 squared are. If .9999... wasn't .9999... then it would not exist, and the whole number system would be that .0000...1 off.
<- Please. ._.
(8÷9)+(1÷9) is an operation, and what does equal?
The limit of a number 0.99 is equal to 1 as the number of '9's after the decimal point approaches infinity. When you write it as 0.99 repeating, you are writing it with infinity 9s. You are writing that limit, which is equal to 1.
<- Please. ._.
No, we're saying it's the same number as 1. The problem is you think that the real numbers have unique decimal expansions. They don't.
Look, by your logic (of erroneously adding a 0.000...1 to infinitesimally represented numbers, and also believing that arithmetic works intuitively in these odd cases not meant for base 10 decimals anyhow), can you tell me what 1/3 * 3 equals? Surely since 1/3 equals 0.333...4, multiply that by three and we have 1.000...2! But no, 3/3 is 1.
I have proved this wrong. All numbers are operations. x*1
<- Please. ._.
.33...*.66...7=1
But, by your logic, 66...7=3 which it probably does if .99...=1
<- Please. ._.
What? How is it that you multiplied two positive numbers less than 1 and got 1? You haven't the slightest idea what you're doing or what you're talking about.
Apparently there's "emotionless" numbers but not an "emotionless" mathematician, considering how many times you've insulted without reason your opposition's logic. There is definitely a "clueless" mathematician, though, as shown by how you think (1/3)*(2/3)=1.
Wait, what? I'm an idiot. I actually added that, and I was confusing my multiplication with adding...
*facepalm*
Anyway, .33...+.66...7=1 .33...*.33...*.33...3=1? It equals .99... Which you can use to prove .99...=1.
<- Please. ._.
I think you mean 0.66.. is equal to 2/3, which it exactly is.
There is no 7 at the end of it, by the way. That's your calculator rounding. You can't put things at the end of an infinite sequence of numbers. Would you like to know why? It's because an infinite sequence never stops.