## 1=.999999...?

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

### Re: 1=.999999...?

Form and Void wrote:1=1.0

3/3=1.0

1/3=.333333...

(3)x(1/3)=(3)x(.333333...)

1=.999999... <> 1.0

The fractal conversion to decimal placeholders breaks whole numbers into particles. (whole = sum of parts)

Simple. Finished. Done. Kaput.

This is true only in math and in logic...In reality another order rules: that there is nothing less than one... You will never arrive at a whole dog combining any number of half dogs, nor make any whole apple out of so many half apples... Individuality is essence, and divide from that point and you have destroyed an essence, and even if you have created two new essences, you may not combine them in reality to make a single essence... So, half apples are essences, but you cannot them make whole apples out of halves...
Juggernaut
Philosopher

Posts: 1342
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:07 am
Location: Michigan

### Re: 1=.999999...?

Juggernaut wrote:This is true only in math and in logic...In reality another order rules: that there is nothing less than one... You will never arrive at a whole dog combining any number of half dogs, nor make any whole apple out of so many half apples... Individuality is essence, and divide from that point and you have destroyed an essence, and even if you have created two new essences, you may not combine them in reality to make a single essence... So, half apples are essences, but you cannot them make whole apples out of halves...

I accept that.

Wholeness is based on originality anyway.
Philosophers trade & deal in water, you know? ~ The Universe. Everybody drinks water. Sophists choke on water.

If I have learned of anything in life thus far, then I have learned of the absolute existence of Good & Evil ~ Good & Evil exist absolutely. Some men are born to do Good. Some men are born to do Evil. These two forces reassemble & represent the Primal Movement of the Human Spirit, Human Drama, and Human Trauma. Those who pay homage to God are the Good. Those who resist this tribute are Evil. And only the godless are powerless to choose their Fate & Destiny at all.

So come now and let us crucify this Evil! Let us crucify Jesus Christ of Nazareth once again! Let us watch Rome burn to the ground! Form and Void
BANNED

Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:24 am

### Re: 1=.999999...?

Sauwelios wrote:It's correct. Infinity is nonsense.

10(.999[bar]) would be = 9.99[bar]0, which is nonsense (nothing can follow after the "[bar]", i.e., beyond infinity).

The difference between 1 and .999[bar] would be = 0.000[bar]1, which is nonsense (see above). So the difference between 1 and .999[bar] is = 0.000[bar], which is 0.

Pardon me for being obvious, but infinity is not finite, thus there is no such thing as beyond infinity. The [bar] notation is simply a representation of that which would otherwise be futile. I can not recognize how it is nonsense.

So the difference between 1 and .999[bar] is = 0.000[bar]1, not 0.000[bar].  Rocket

Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:24 pm

### Re: 1=.999999...?

Juggernaut wrote:
Form and Void wrote:1=1.0

3/3=1.0

1/3=.333333...

(3)x(1/3)=(3)x(.333333...)

1=.999999... <> 1.0

The fractal conversion to decimal placeholders breaks whole numbers into particles. (whole = sum of parts)

Simple. Finished. Done. Kaput.

This is true only in math and in logic...In reality another order rules: that there is nothing less than one... You will never arrive at a whole dog combining any number of half dogs, nor make any whole apple out of so many half apples... Individuality is essence, and divide from that point and you have destroyed an essence, and even if you have created two new essences, you may not combine them in reality to make a single essence... So, half apples are essences, but you cannot them make whole apples out of halves...

Not trying to be facetious here, but how is the whole defined? True you can't combine half dogs to make a whole, however an incomplete dog would still be whole?  Rocket

Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:24 pm

### Re: 1=.999999...?

Rocket wrote:
Juggernaut wrote:
Form and Void wrote:1=1.0

3/3=1.0

1/3=.333333...

(3)x(1/3)=(3)x(.333333...)

1=.999999... <> 1.0

The fractal conversion to decimal placeholders breaks whole numbers into particles. (whole = sum of parts)

Simple. Finished. Done. Kaput.

This is true only in math and in logic...In reality another order rules: that there is nothing less than one... You will never arrive at a whole dog combining any number of half dogs, nor make any whole apple out of so many half apples... Individuality is essence, and divide from that point and you have destroyed an essence, and even if you have created two new essences, you may not combine them in reality to make a single essence... So, half apples are essences, but you cannot them make whole apples out of halves...

Not trying to be facetious here, but how is the whole defined? True you can't combine half dogs to make a whole, however an incomplete dog would still be whole?

Not to be facetious here, but all dogs as conceived are incomplete; but dogs, no matter how incomplete when compared to the the concept: Dog, so long as they are alive are complete compared to the reality: Dog...But life too is an infinite, and the division of dogs destroys that infinite which is also an essential part of all dogs as conceived...Dead dogs as a catagory is more finite, but even their we cannot hope to cleave together that which has been cleaved.
Juggernaut
Philosopher

Posts: 1342
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:07 am
Location: Michigan

### Re: 1=.999999...?

Rocket wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:It's correct. Infinity is nonsense.

10(.999[bar]) would be = 9.99[bar]0, which is nonsense (nothing can follow after the "[bar]", i.e., beyond infinity).

The difference between 1 and .999[bar] would be = 0.000[bar]1, which is nonsense (see above). So the difference between 1 and .999[bar] is = 0.000[bar], which is 0.

Pardon me for being obvious, but infinity is not finite, thus there is no such thing as beyond infinity. The [bar] notation is simply a representation of that which would otherwise be futile. I can not recognize how it is nonsense.

So the difference between 1 and .999[bar] is = 0.000[bar]1, not 0.000[bar].

If you don't mind me trying to correct you... Anything we cannot see the end of is infinite, and logically, should be considered as such... If we try to to conceive of a set of infinites, which is to say, an bounded infinity, we find that we cannot conceive of such an animal...There is always an infinity plus one...
Juggernaut
Philosopher

Posts: 1342
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:07 am
Location: Michigan

### Re: 1=.999999...?

Juggernaut wrote:
Rocket wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:It's correct. Infinity is nonsense.

10(.999[bar]) would be = 9.99[bar]0, which is nonsense (nothing can follow after the "[bar]", i.e., beyond infinity).

The difference between 1 and .999[bar] would be = 0.000[bar]1, which is nonsense (see above). So the difference between 1 and .999[bar] is = 0.000[bar], which is 0.

Pardon me for being obvious, but infinity is not finite, thus there is no such thing as beyond infinity. The [bar] notation is simply a representation of that which would otherwise be futile. I can not recognize how it is nonsense.

So the difference between 1 and .999[bar] is = 0.000[bar]1, not 0.000[bar].

If you don't mind me trying to correct you... Anything we cannot see the end of is infinite, and logically, should be considered as such... If we try to to conceive of a set of infinites, which is to say, an bounded infinity, we find that we cannot conceive of such an animal...There is always an infinity plus one...

I disagree. If you can have infinity plus one, then it can have a plus two, plus three,...,plus infinity. Infinity plus infinity is not logical, thus neither is infinity plus one. You would have simliar luck dividing by zero.  Rocket

Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:24 pm

### Re: 1=.999999...?

Rocket wrote:
Rocket wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:It's correct. Infinity is nonsense.

10(.999[bar]) would be = 9.99[bar]0, which is nonsense (nothing can follow after the "[bar]", i.e., beyond infinity).

The difference between 1 and .999[bar] would be = 0.000[bar]1, which is nonsense (see above). So the difference between 1 and .999[bar] is = 0.000[bar], which is 0.

Pardon me for being obvious, but infinity is not finite, thus there is no such thing as beyond infinity. The [bar] notation is simply a representation of that which would otherwise be futile. I can not recognize how it is nonsense.

So the difference between 1 and .999[bar] is = 0.000[bar]1, not 0.000[bar].

If you don't mind me trying to correct you... Anything we cannot see the end of is infinite, and logically, should be considered as such... If we try to to conceive of a set of infinites, which is to say, an bounded infinity, we find that we cannot conceive of such an animal...There is always an infinity plus one...

I disagree. If you can have infinity plus one, then it can have a plus two, plus three,...,plus infinity. Infinity plus infinity is not logical, thus neither is infinity plus one. You would have simliar luck dividing by zero.[/quote]
Infinity is not logical... All of reality that we cannot hold objectively, as an object is an infinite... Is there finite justice, finite love, or finite liberty??? No.. Life is finite at some point, but it cannot be conceived of as an object, or as being only a single point in time... We take for granted in most respects that all of existence is an infinite; but not because it is logical...If it is logical it must also be true, and we look for logic for truth...If we cannot demonstrate it as true, it cannot possibly be considered as true, but only possible at best...Now, to see what infinity is, it is a projection of the present intact to a future time, even when we know from reality, the ultimate logic, that all things change with time...

You can stack infinities.. They are not real...You can stack unrealities too...The only problem is that two infinities is not one bit more infinite, or unreal...
Juggernaut
Philosopher

Posts: 1342
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:07 am
Location: Michigan

### Re: 1=.999999...?

Juggernaut wrote:
Rocket wrote:
Rocket wrote:Pardon me for being obvious, but infinity is not finite, thus there is no such thing as beyond infinity. The [bar] notation is simply a representation of that which would otherwise be futile. I can not recognize how it is nonsense.

So the difference between 1 and .999[bar] is = 0.000[bar]1, not 0.000[bar].

If you don't mind me trying to correct you... Anything we cannot see the end of is infinite, and logically, should be considered as such... If we try to to conceive of a set of infinites, which is to say, an bounded infinity, we find that we cannot conceive of such an animal...There is always an infinity plus one...
I disagree. If you can have infinity plus one, then it can have a plus two, plus three,...,plus infinity. Infinity plus infinity is not logical, thus neither is infinity plus one. You would have simliar luck dividing by zero.

Infinity is not logical... All of reality that we cannot hold objectively, as an object is an infinite... Is there finite justice, finite love, or finite liberty??? No.. Life is finite at some point, but it cannot be conceived of as an object, or as being only a single point in time... We take for granted in most respects that all of existence is an infinite; but not because it is logical...If it is logical it must also be true, and we look for logic for truth...If we cannot demonstrate it as true, it cannot possibly be considered as true, but only possible at best...Now, to see what infinity is, it is a projection of the present intact to a future time, even when we know from reality, the ultimate logic, that all things change with time...

You can stack infinities.. They are not real...You can stack unrealities too...The only problem is that two infinities is not one bit more infinite, or unreal...

In the world of math, calculus demands the need for infinity due to hyperreals. This is where infinity exists as a number, but like you point out, it's not a actual number. It is illogical it the sense that you can't put a finger on it. It is in fact a placeholder in order to complete the formula which requires it's existence. But are you suggesting that infinity is not true because it can't be proven? It is a projection, but projections are not necessarily the truth.  Rocket

Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:24 pm

### Re: 1=.999999...?

Rocket wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:It's correct. Infinity is nonsense.

10(.999[bar]) would be = 9.99[bar]0, which is nonsense (nothing can follow after the "[bar]", i.e., beyond infinity).

The difference between 1 and .999[bar] would be = 0.000[bar]1, which is nonsense (see above). So the difference between 1 and .999[bar] is = 0.000[bar], which is 0.

Pardon me for being obvious, but infinity is not finite, thus there is no such thing as beyond infinity.

Exactly my point.

The [bar] notation is simply a representation of that which would otherwise be futile. I can not recognize how it is nonsense.

So the difference between 1 and .999[bar] is = 0.000[bar]1, not 0.000[bar].

"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".) Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist

Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

### Re: 1=.999999...?

Juggernaut wrote:
Rocket wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:It's correct. Infinity is nonsense.

10(.999[bar]) would be = 9.99[bar]0, which is nonsense (nothing can follow after the "[bar]", i.e., beyond infinity).

The difference between 1 and .999[bar] would be = 0.000[bar]1, which is nonsense (see above). So the difference between 1 and .999[bar] is = 0.000[bar], which is 0.

Pardon me for being obvious, but infinity is not finite, thus there is no such thing as beyond infinity. The [bar] notation is simply a representation of that which would otherwise be futile. I can not recognize how it is nonsense.

So the difference between 1 and .999[bar] is = 0.000[bar]1, not 0.000[bar].

If you don't mind me trying to correct you... Anything we cannot see the end of is infinite,

Wrong: anything we cannot see the end of seems infinite (to us). All we can infer from p is p.

and logically, should be considered as such... If we try to to conceive of a set of infinites, which is to say, an bounded infinity, we find that we cannot conceive of such an animal...

So it's inconceivable to us, and therefore non-sensical to us (we cannot see, hear, feel, taste, or smell such an animal, nor imagine how it looks, sounds, feels, tastes, or smells).

There is always an infinity plus one...

Infinity is not a number, so no.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".) Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist

Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

### Re: 1=.999999...?

Juggernaut wrote:
Rocket wrote:
Rocket wrote:Pardon me for being obvious, but infinity is not finite, thus there is no such thing as beyond infinity. The [bar] notation is simply a representation of that which would otherwise be futile. I can not recognize how it is nonsense.

So the difference between 1 and .999[bar] is = 0.000[bar]1, not 0.000[bar].

If you don't mind me trying to correct you... Anything we cannot see the end of is infinite, and logically, should be considered as such... If we try to to conceive of a set of infinites, which is to say, an bounded infinity, we find that we cannot conceive of such an animal...There is always an infinity plus one...
I disagree. If you can have infinity plus one, then it can have a plus two, plus three,...,plus infinity. Infinity plus infinity is not logical, thus neither is infinity plus one. You would have simliar luck dividing by zero.

Infinity is not logical... All of reality that we cannot hold objectively, as an object is an infinite... Is there finite justice, finite love, or finite liberty??? No.. Life is finite at some point, but it cannot be conceived of as an object, or as being only a single point in time... We take for granted in most respects that all of existence is an infinite; but not because it is logical...If it is logical it must also be true, and we look for logic for truth...If we cannot demonstrate it as true, it cannot possibly be considered as true, but only possible at best...Now, to see what infinity is, it is a projection of the present intact to a future time, even when we know from reality, the ultimate logic, that all things change with time...

You can stack infinities.. They are not real...You can stack unrealities too...The only problem is that two infinities is not one bit more infinite, or unreal...

In the world of math, calculus demands the need for infinity due to hyperreals. This is where infinity exists as a number, but like you point out, it's not a actual number. It is illogical it the sense that you can't put a finger on it. It is in fact a placeholder in order to complete the formula which requires it's existence. But are you suggesting that infinity is not true because it can't be proven? It is a projection, but projections are not necessarily the truth.[/quote]

To try to determine a particular cause of an effect out of a seemingly infinite number of possible causes is what Aristotle called the fallacy of affirming the consequent... I think this fallacy can be turned onto the future when any one tries to project a train of events going forward into infinity... Logic has a certain object, to explain an observed reality, such as one and one being two, or two and two being four, and if this line of equasions were long, say of four and two being six, and six and two being eight, with each step standing as though a link in a chain leading back to a starting point... But as General Patton said; you can't push a string...You cannot push a chain of logic beyond the finite with any hope of having it illustrate any truth....I think we push logic into the future to give us new ideas, or new theories to work out, rather than giving us any particular truth...
Juggernaut
Philosopher

Posts: 1342
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:07 am
Location: Michigan

### Re: 1=.999999...?

Wonderer wrote:
Yorick wrote:]Already at this point, we disagree. I am of the opinion that the cube is exactly 1 inch in height so the rest of the example fails. The rest of the example is based on the assumption that the cube is *not* 1 inch in height which is what it attempts to show so it shows nothing.

this example was made to show what actually happens when you multiply .999[bar]. i didnt use the cube example to prove anything... there was other explanations for that.

but in the same way that the cube example doesnt prove ur theory wrong ur theory dosen't prove my cube example wrong.

if.999[bar] =1 than it wouldnt start out with a .9...

i keep concluding that you people are all slightly confused and are as a result appealing to the majority

0.9999... = 1

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

This may be a rediculous question, i suck at math...
But this proof 'transforms' .999 into 1, is there a reverse proof, one where X would beggin as 1 and then equal .999, like could you reverse this proof in a way... it seems impossible to me, but i am allways amazed with what theoretical mathamatics can come up with!  Pessimistic_Realist

Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:25 pm

### Re: 1=.999999...?

[quote]Pessimistic_Realist wrote:
Wonderer wrote:
Yorick wrote:]Already at this point, we disagree. I am of the opinion that the cube is exactly 1 inch in height so the rest of the example fails. The rest of the example is based on the assumption that the cube is *not* 1 inch in height which is what it attempts to show so it shows nothing.

this example was made to show what actually happens when you multiply .999[bar]. i didnt use the cube example to prove anything... there was other explanations for that.

but in the same way that the cube example doesnt prove ur theory wrong ur theory dosen't prove my cube example wrong.

if.999[bar] =1 than it wouldnt start out with a .9...

i keep concluding that you people are all slightly confused and are as a result appealing to the majority

0.9999... = 1

Thus x = 0.9999...
10x = 9.9999...
10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999...
9x = 9
x = 1.
[/quote]
There is nothing theoretical about it...It is obvious that one as an abstraction never equals one in reality just as no abstraction, or form equals the reality it represents....I would prefer to think that since no unit is the equal of any other, that when one is found, nothing can be less than one, so all other ones are one plus... But if the next person wants to conceive of his ones as being infinitely one, then more power to them... In any event, one has to be in a certain ratio to two, and that is the measure of one, just as one is the measure of two, and if that ratio must wait on infinity to be show true, then it is not much use... The value of numbers is in their utility, because math is easier to work with than reality...If that process is gummed up because of some nonsense configuration of one, even if it is possibly true, it is not useful, and so is beside the point of math...

This may be a rediculous question, i suck at math...
But this proof 'transforms' .999 into 1, is there a reverse proof, one where X would beggin as 1 and then equal .999, like could you reverse this proof in a way... it seems impossible to me, but i am allways amazed with what theoretical mathamatics can come up with!
Juggernaut
Philosopher

Posts: 1342
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:07 am
Location: Michigan

### Re: 1=.999999...?

This problem if it can be called that simply illustrates peoples inability to conceive of an infinite number of decimals. It literally never ends until infinity is reached, thus as .999... Approaches infinity it becomes closer and closer to 1 and is equal to one at the infinite limit.

in the same way 1/3, in decimal form is infinitely followed by 3s so .333 approaches 1/3 at the limit of infinity. If you can grasp that it's really that simple, you have just grasped at least a trace of the infinite.
"I am God": Dawkins

Logic it's not just for smart people anyone can play! Sidhe
BANNED

Posts: 1893
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:53 pm
Location: England

### Re: 1=.999999...?

the problem is that when i visualize it it actually doesn't equal 1 at the "infinith" decimal place, it equals "infinitely close to but less than 1"

in reality numbers don;t function with an infinite amount of decimal places.

pragmatically we forget about teh imprecision that comes along with .333 because we can simply add another 3 to make it more precise.

but no matter how many 3's we add, even an infinite number of them, the precision is still there
Whatever makes you happy. Wonderer
Wonderer

Posts: 6216
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 10:06 pm

### Re: 1=.999999...?

Wonderer wrote:the problem is that when i visualize it it actually doesn't equal 1 at the "infinith" decimal place, it equals "infinitely close to but less than 1"

in reality numbers don;t function with an infinite amount of decimal places.

pragmatically we forget about teh imprecision that comes along with .333 because we can simply add another 3 to make it more precise.

but no matter how many 3's we add, even an infinite number of them, the precision is still there

Oh well I tried.  Your inability to comprehend infinity is of course, the problem (all our problems). How can you. One has to accept though if we look at a graph as it draws itself as far as we can before we die of old age that it is approaching 1, we have to assume given infinity that "eventually" - as infinity is unbound by considerations such as time - it will be 1. That's an axiom of maths, and a problem with encompassing infinity without our brains leaking out of our ears.

Infinity is extremely useful as it provides key proofs to the value of numbers by suggesting what happens at the infinite limit.

Of course the good thing is that if you add enough digits it's close enough not to matter, so we just tell our calculators to either throw out 0 or E (undefined usually), or 1.
Last edited by Sidhe on Mon May 04, 2009 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I am God": Dawkins

Logic it's not just for smart people anyone can play! Sidhe
BANNED

Posts: 1893
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:53 pm
Location: England

### Re: 1=.999999...?

Sidhe wrote:
Wonderer wrote:the problem is that when i visualize it it actually doesn't equal 1 at the "infinith" decimal place, it equals "infinitely close to but less than 1"

in reality numbers don;t function with an infinite amount of decimal places.

pragmatically we forget about teh imprecision that comes along with .333 because we can simply add another 3 to make it more precise.

but no matter how many 3's we add, even an infinite number of them, the precision is still there

Oh well I tried, your inability to comprehend infinity is of course, the problem. How can you.

haha, why don't you teach me?
Sidhe wrote:
One has to accept though if we look at a graph as far as we can before we die of old age that it is approaching 1, we have to assume given infinity that eventually as infinity is unbound it will be 1.
what?

if the pattern keeps getting closer to 1, but never reaches 1, why would you assume it reaches 1 eventually?

Sidhe wrote: That's an axiom of maths, and a problem with encompassing infinity without our brains leaking out of our ears.

Infinity is extremely useful as it provides key proofs to the value of numbers by suggesting what happens at the infinite limit.

either that or infinitesimally small numbers don't affect theoretical numbers in reality.

believe it or not i find it incredibly easy to understand this problem. i understand the way everyone else perceives it, and then i also understand it on a level i seem to be unable to communicate.

let's put it this way, in our reality, infinity isn;t good enough. if you added infinite 3's, you still need to add more. (infinity has a way of being imprecise)

what is infinity minus infinity?

what is 1 + infinity - infinity?

1/3 simply cannot exist as a decimal value without losing precision. i can understand what the number approaches, just don;t go assuming it will achieve a round value because we can see what it approaches.

you might as well say pie terminates.
Whatever makes you happy. Wonderer
Wonderer

Posts: 6216
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 10:06 pm

### Re: 1=.999999...?

Wonderer wrote:
Sidhe wrote:
Wonderer wrote:the problem is that when i visualize it it actually doesn't equal 1 at the "infinith" decimal place, it equals "infinitely close to but less than 1"

in reality numbers don;t function with an infinite amount of decimal places.

pragmatically we forget about teh imprecision that comes along with .333 because we can simply add another 3 to make it more precise.

but no matter how many 3's we add, even an infinite number of them, the precision is still there

Oh well I tried, your inability to comprehend infinity is of course, the problem. How can you.

haha, why don't you teach me?
Sidhe wrote:
One has to accept though if we look at a graph as far as we can before we die of old age that it is approaching 1, we have to assume given infinity that eventually as infinity is unbound it will be 1.
what?

if the pattern keeps getting closer to 1, but never reaches 1, why would you assume it reaches 1 eventually?

I said "eventually" there is no time frame to infinity. It is all time, everything, all there can be. Forever +1 is a contradiction in definition.

Sidhe wrote: That's an axiom of maths, and a problem with encompassing infinity without our brains leaking out of our ears.

Infinity is extremely useful as it provides key proofs to the value of numbers by suggesting what happens at the infinite limit.

either that or infinitesimally small numbers don't affect theoretical numbers in reality.

believe it or not i find it incredibly easy to understand this problem. i understand the way everyone else perceives it, and then i also understand it on a level i seem to be unable to communicate.

let's put it this way, in our reality, infinity isn;t good enough. if you added infinite 3's, you still need to add more. (infinity has a way of being imprecise)

what is infinity minus infinity?

what is 1 + infinity - infinity?

1/3 simply cannot exist as a decimal value without losing precision. i can understand what the number approaches, just don;t go assuming it will achieve a round value because we can see what it approaches.

you might as well say pie terminates.

It doesn't exist as a terminated decimal value, that is the point. It has a limit of infinity.

You might as well not try and say it terminates because it doesn't by definition except at infinity. You might as well if you ever want to study maths beyond 18 accept that the axioms are true, in as much as we can conceive of something which cannot be exceeded.

It's of course up to you what you want to say about maths axioms. But that doesn't mean .999... is not equal to 1.

.999.. does not terminate except at infinity, and neither seemingly does pis decimal places, even if we want it to.
Last edited by Sidhe on Mon May 04, 2009 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I am God": Dawkins

Logic it's not just for smart people anyone can play! Sidhe
BANNED

Posts: 1893
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:53 pm
Location: England

### Re: 1=.999999...?

and it doesn't mean it is.

I am more than satisfied with my understanding of math.

maybe you're getting me wrong and think I'm saying that .333 cannot or should not be used as being equal to 1/3. Pragmatically .333 bar does equal 1/3, it's just an error in logic to look at the pattern and say it equals one. looking at the pattern it's obvious beyond argument that the number approaches 1/3 but never reaches one third. this means that with infinite 3's it will simply be infinitely close to 1/3, making it pragmatically equal to 1/3.

people simply need to make that extra bit of effort to think the problem out
Whatever makes you happy. Wonderer
Wonderer

Posts: 6216
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 10:06 pm

### Re: 1=.999999...?

Wonderer wrote:and it doesn't mean it is.

I am more than satisfied with my understanding of math.

maybe you're getting me wrong and think I'm saying that .333 cannot or should not be used as being equal to 1/3. Pragmatically .333 bar does equal 1/3, it's just an error in logic to look at the pattern and say it equals one. looking at the pattern it's obvious beyond argument that the number approaches 1/3 but never reaches one third. this means that with infinite 3's it will simply be infinitely close to 1/3, making it pragmatically equal to 1/3.

people simply need to make that extra bit of effort to think the problem out

You mean mathematicians need to accept that their axioms are wrong and yours are right because you say so. You can try convincing them but I don't think you'll get anywhere, set theory and thus all maths depends on them. Without them you might as well bin it and start with something you like that doesn't apply to any number system we know. Your choice, I sincerely hope that it works for you, and have no problem with you saying that. Just don't study maths at degree level you'll be lost.

It takes no effort for me to say I cannot conceive of infinity.

Maths is about assigning values in an axiomatic self consistent manner, if you can't do that it is junk.

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/55748.html
Last edited by Sidhe on Mon May 04, 2009 8:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"I am God": Dawkins

Logic it's not just for smart people anyone can play! Sidhe
BANNED

Posts: 1893
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:53 pm
Location: England

### Re: 1=.999999...?

Sidhe wrote:
Wonderer wrote:
Sidhe wrote:

Oh well I tried, your inability to comprehend infinity is of course, the problem. How can you.

haha, why don't you teach me?
Sidhe wrote:
One has to accept though if we look at a graph as far as we can before we die of old age that it is approaching 1, we have to assume given infinity that eventually as infinity is unbound it will be 1.
what?

if the pattern keeps getting closer to 1, but never reaches 1, why would you assume it reaches 1 eventually?

I said "eventually" there is no time frame to infinity. It is all time, everything, all there can be. Forever +1 is a contradiction in definition.
so basically it's impossible for it to equal 1/3. right?

Sidhe wrote:
Sidhe wrote: That's an axiom of maths, and a problem with encompassing infinity without our brains leaking out of our ears.

Infinity is extremely useful as it provides key proofs to the value of numbers by suggesting what happens at the infinite limit.

either that or infinitesimally small numbers don't affect theoretical numbers in reality.

believe it or not i find it incredibly easy to understand this problem. i understand the way everyone else perceives it, and then i also understand it on a level i seem to be unable to communicate.

let's put it this way, in our reality, infinity isn;t good enough. if you added infinite 3's, you still need to add more. (infinity has a way of being imprecise)

what is infinity minus infinity?

what is 1 + infinity - infinity?

1/3 simply cannot exist as a decimal value without losing precision. i can understand what the number approaches, just don;t go assuming it will achieve a round value because we can see what it approaches.

you might as well say pie terminates.

It doesn't exist as a terminated decimal value, that is the point. It has a limit of infinity.
pie does?

pie most certainly does not, though there is likely an infinite amount of place values possible.

You might as well not try and say it terminates because it doesn't by definition except at infinity. You might as well if you ever want to study maths beyond 18 accept that the axioms are true, in as much as we can conceive of something which cannot be exceeded.

It's of course up to you what you want to say about maths axioms. But that doesn't mean .999... is not equal to 1.

.999.. does not terminate except at infinity, and neither seemingly does pis decimal places, even if we want it to.[/quote]

then at infinity, when there are more 9's to behold, it does not equal 1/3. the case is closed is it not?
Whatever makes you happy. Wonderer
Wonderer

Posts: 6216
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 10:06 pm

### Re: 1=.999999...?

Wonderer wrote:
then at infinity, when there are more 9's to behold, it does not equal 1/3. the case is closed is it not?

Only in your head yes. Which is fine by me, as I've seen to many of these threads to try and convince anyone of a firmly held belief.

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/55748.html

Try asking your question here there are much more rigid proofs of this than you know.

http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdispl ... 26875&f=80

Make sure you say can I see a proof of .999...=1 or they may just bin the topic through mathematical ennui.
"I am God": Dawkins

Logic it's not just for smart people anyone can play! Sidhe
BANNED

Posts: 1893
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:53 pm
Location: England

### Re: 1=.999999...?

Sidhe wrote:
Wonderer wrote:and it doesn't mean it is.

I am more than satisfied with my understanding of math.

maybe you're getting me wrong and think I'm saying that .333 cannot or should not be used as being equal to 1/3. Pragmatically .333 bar does equal 1/3, it's just an error in logic to look at the pattern and say it equals one. looking at the pattern it's obvious beyond argument that the number approaches 1/3 but never reaches one third. this means that with infinite 3's it will simply be infinitely close to 1/3, making it pragmatically equal to 1/3.

people simply need to make that extra bit of effort to think the problem out

You mean mathematicians need to accept that there axioms are wrong and yours are right because you say so. You can try convincing them but I don't think you'll get anywhere, set theory and thus all maths depends on them. Without them you might as well bin it and start with something you like that doesn't apply to any number system we know. Your choice, I sincerely hope that it works for you, and have no problem with you saying that. Just don't study maths at degree level you'll be lost.

It takes no effort for me to say I cannot conceive of infinity.

look I'm not trying to dictate "axioms". i'm just pointing out an inconsequential logical inconsistency.

what I'm saying is that an infinite amount of digits after a decimal place does not allow us to "round up" the number without losing some theoretical precision, even if it is infinitesimally small.

i don't know how i can say this in terms i havn't already. Imagine chopping down a tree. let's say with each chop you take down half of what is left on the tree.

how many chops will it take to get rid of the tree? infinite?

with such a chopping strategy there will always be a remainder, regardless of infinity or not.

the idea is to make the remainder so small it doesn't matter.
Whatever makes you happy. Wonderer
Wonderer

Posts: 6216
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 10:06 pm

### Re: 1=.999999...?

Sidhe wrote:
Wonderer wrote:
then at infinity, when there are more 9's to behold, it does not equal 1/3. the case is closed is it not?

Only in your head yes. Which is fine by me, as I've seen to many of these threads to try and convince anyone of a firmly held belief.

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/55748.html

Try asking your question here there are much more rigid proofs of this than you know.

http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdispl ... 26875&f=80

Make sure you say can I see a proof of .999...=1 or they may just bin the topic through mathematical ennui.

i appreciate that but i won't be needing any other opinions. i have been told the same thing about 50 000 times.

you see my head as being screwy, i see all you guys as being unable to see the logical error.
Whatever makes you happy. Wonderer
Wonderer

Posts: 6216
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 10:06 pm