Well, if 0.333... = 1/3, I don't see anything wrong with 0.999.. = 10

sure.
that is an equal sign, which means it's the same value on both sides.
9.999 is missing 0.001 in order to be the same as 10 which makes the two numbers unequal and therefore it's not correct to use the equals sign

1/3 is 0.23 so 2/3 is 0,34 you must be wrong.

>>688201703
it's 0.999... meaning it goes on forever, so in theory it's equal to 1

geometric series

10÷3= 3.333....
3.333...×3=9.999...
Therefore 9.999...=10

>>688201636
I mean 9.999... of course

>>688201986
>in theory
what about in reality?

>>688201636
.333 does not equal 1/3.

>>688201336
take it to >>>/sci/ you filthy animal

>>688202192
Math is completely independent of reality.

>>688202192
definitely in reality. can you think of an application where .9999 repeating wouldn't be as good as exactly 1? there is no possible tolerance in reality for it to not be perfectly true.

>>688202227
he says .333... is equal to 1/3
.333... being .3 repeating
which is equal to 1/3

>>688202227
>.333...
>333...
>33...
>3...
>...

op is a fag

he's also right

I'm gonna bully all of you faggots.

>>688202227
................................................

Okay so what about this,
Let's call 9.999.. B
So b=9.999...
B×10=99.999...
10b-b=90 so that's 9b
9b÷9 is 10

Find a flaw...

>>688201986
no, in theory it gets closer and closer to 1 forever but never actually reaches it
look up "limits" or learn about it in calculus
and stop making these dumb fucking threads
>>688201336

>itt people treating infinity as a number

Morons.

>>688202416
Yeah it wasn't based on anything like reality. And it can't be applied in reality either.
So I guess you're right

>>688202483
no but I don't see how appliance is really relevant here

1/3=.3333333...
2/3=.6666666...
3/3=.9999999...=1

Q.E.D. bitches

I asked dad who's like really good at math and he said that 9.999... isn't the same as 10

>>688203034
Hey my dad works at Nintendo

>>688202227
Kill yourself please.

File: Capture.png (64 KB, 851x727) Image search: [Google]

64 KB, 851x727

>>688203034

yfw you realize that a base-10 number system will inherently have difficulty expressing some numbers but that still won't change the fundamental nature of quantities.

>>688202745
fuck off with your stupid bait

>>688202859
It can be approximately applied in reality what the hell do you think we have been doing for the last couple thousand years.

>>688202930
but 1/3 isn't actually equal to .3...
it just gets more accurate as you add 3's

so 2/3 isn't actually equal to .6...

and 3/3 isn't equal to .9..

3/3 is simply 1

>>688201336
9.999.... exists only in meth

>>688203034
>good at arithmetic*
FTFY

I know and understand the logic and thinking behind this. But think of it this way
Have you ever heard the theory of whoever the fuck it was who was a really great runner. And this random dude challenged him to a 100m race on one condition, that the good runner guy could only take steps half as long as his previous one. So in the end he could never even get to the finish line

saying 9.999.... = 10 is like saying they both got to the finish line, except one of them only got infinitely close and in reality couldn't possibly get there.

It's because it's impossible with the mathematic system we use to divide 10 into 3 equal parts

x = 0.999...
10x = 9.999...
10x - x = 9x
9.999. - 0.999. = 9
x = 1

>>688201336
because woman =animals
nice

>>688201336
why proving you wrong when you are right

>>688203422
>approximately
>it's the same

chose one

>>688203784
never said it was the same but it can be applied in reality.

>>688203593
/thread

>>688203973
yeah, approximately

you can't split 10 into 3 equal parts. which is why you have to continue into infinity
You're infinitely close, but you won't quite get there

So sure, in theory

>>688203590
You be thinking about my man Achilles. And my man Zeno. And all those other guys.

I mean, you're simplifying just a little too much, but, yeah.

>>688204044
checked, rekt

>>688203263
your mathematical answer right here

>>688204211
Yeah over simplified, couldn't even name 1 person in the story. but >>688204202 this guy got it
Guess it's kind of getting the point across

Idiots you cant multilply that shit

>>688203593
This is the simplest proof.

>>688203423
>>688202227
When you add a "..." to the end of a repeating decimal it's implied that the repeating digit repeats forever, meaning that 1/3 does equal .33333...

I dunno why this samefag keeps pretending he's making a valid point

>>688201336

Its easy to prove wrong, just look at the symbols. They are clearly totally different from each other. If they were truely equal it would be:

10 = 10

OR

9.999... = 9.999...

They simply aren't the same.

>>688204558
Yeah, adding decimals to get as close to a third as possible.
But it still won't change the fact that it's not really a third, even if it's super close

>>688204743
you idiot

In an endless sequence of .99's, you're always an endless sequense of .01 short of reaching 1. This endless .01 could mean the difference on a supersubatomic level, and could even be the sole reason someone gets cancer or a sun collapsing under it's own gravity.

The endless .01 means a difference at some point, a butterfly can start a tornado with the flap of its feeble .01 wings.

>>688204855

Ever heard of Occam's razor? I've clearly demonstrated they aren't identical.

>>688204558
that doesn't mean .333... is = to 1/3
it just gets closer infinitely to 1/3 but never actually reaches 1/3

>>688204793
So do you just not understand the concept of infinity at all, or...

>>688204202
in math you can split ten into 3 equal parts. 10/3. In reality the number 10 is an artefact of the units used. so 10 feet/3 =10/3 feet =3.333... feet which you would say is "infinitely close but not quite there" (which btw is fucking meaningless) but 120 inches/3=40 inches doesn't have that problem which is absurd since they are the exact same thing.
Analogously the fact that 1/3 can't be expressed as a finite decimal is just due to our base, 10.
>>688204743
This is too stupid to be anything but an act. Nice try /sci/.

>>688204558
>repeat forever
>does equal
>forever
>repeat
>ends yet repeats forever
Can you quantify .33333... for me, without implying a range (like the number 3)?

>>688205236
Clearly, you don't understand the concept of finite things, or the difference between a finite and infinite set of things.

>>688205250

The fact you can't do anything but use name calling just further proves my point. They aren't the same.

>>688205235
>>688205236
well, you have to keep adding decimals infinitely. And for each decimal you add, you only get closer to a third.
You will never get to a third
And if you have to keep adding to a number, then it's not the same number

>>688205602
Oh, no no no no. Hold your horsie, bait anon.

That doesn't prove shit. It just means that there's name-calling.

>>688205424
>ITT people thinking infinity can be defined as a number
>.333... doesn't equal 1/3 you fucking inbreds

>>688205760
>ITT people who can't into theoretical maths.

>>688205083
Your argument is based off the assumption that there's always going to be room a .000...1 to follow the .9999... to make 10.

You do not understand the concept of infinity. Infinity goes on forever, there is nowhere to put that extra .01 because there will always be another .9 to put before it. The nines are infinite, they go on forever. There will never be a .1

>>688205734

I said "further" proves my point. The proof itself is right there in the comment, they aren't the same.

The question you should be asking is, if they aren't the same then how are they different?

>>688205424
>ends
where did you get ends from? Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a limit? The fact that we can assign a value to an infinite summation?
>>688205602
>explicitly uses the "The Object is its Representation" meme
>expects me to take him seriously.

It goes on forever, it is, in no way, equal to 10. 10=10. 1/sin=csc. 3/4=.75. 9.9999999..........................=/=10, if rounding, it APPROXIMATES to 10, that is only rounding, not actual equality. Not even slightly. Math, even if it's abstract in concepts, numbers, themselves are concrete. 10 only equals 10. Don't be a jackass.

>>688203263
>>688205760
oh, but it does.>>688206160

>>688206018
My assumption proves that. I state that in the 0.99.. sequence, there will always be a missing 0.00...1 to make it whole. And I tried to show the importance of that missing 0.00..1 by calling for supersubatomic physics

You are correct. Let's say 9.999... is X
X÷10 is 0.999...
With this we can take away the recurring places therefore 9/10 X Is equal to 9
9÷(9÷10) is equalocated to X as well as 10

>>688206039
O wait I get you now

File: WAKE.jpg (8 KB, 480x360) Image search: [Google]

8 KB, 480x360

>>688206295
>trying to prove something in maths by making up bullshit physics

Any two non equal numbers have an average that is not equal to any one of the original numbers.
1+0.999...=1.999...
1.999.../2=0.999...

Any questions? Every number has two valid representations, one being the simple elementary one and the other this endless 999... bullshit. Same fucking number.

>>688206487
The importance of one particle should not be underestimated.

>>688201986
Isn't this the same as infinity +1?

>>688205105
>I don't actually know what occam's razor means but I'm going to mention it in an Internet arguement so I sound like I know what I'm talking about

because infinite doesn't exist as produced by a tailor machine, then it doesn't exist logically. But you can assule it dods exist, but I bet you it's false ;)

>>688202499
Itt: grade 3 math skills

1/3 can be seen as a never ending number. It only ends if you would say the end is a 4
Cus later:
0.333 x 3 = 0.999
1/3 x 3 = 1
0.334 x 3 = 1.012 (<- actually a 1)

>>688203593
We already had hat earlier retards

>>688206643
MATH DOES NOT DERIVE FROM REALITY

1 stands for 1 whole.

0.9999.... stands for slightly not 1 whole

Case closed

>>688206975
Math does derive from counting sheep! Don't make them leave, I only know multiplicaton and addition at first,!

>>688206802
So disprove it.

>>688207165
truley genious

Everybody watch this and shut the fuck up

https://youtu.be/TINfzxSnnIE

>>688206051

You have it backwards, I'm saying the representation is the object. How can I take you seriously if you can't understand something that simple?

>>688206651
Oh but I do know what it means and my answer is the most simple and correct.

>>688205760
>not understanding that this is exactly what I meant

>can you represent an infinite number for me without implying that it's a range (infinite)
>greentext with contradictory concepts
>states that someone doesn't understand the difference (non-similarity) between the two things

Probably bait.

>>688206039
See the above.

>>688206051
I got end from >>688204558
>to the end of a repeating decimal
>a repeating decimal
>...
>implied that the repeating digit repeats forever, as in, it does not stop repeating and does not ever become another number

There cannot exist an end for something that has to, by definition, continue for the total amount of any given time in which the system occupies. That can't be observed. Only assumed.

A limit tends to imply that there is a point at which a discernible observation can be made on the set of values. An "end", if you will. Something of infinite summation can be assigned any sort of value- the problem arises when you're trying to be 1.0, not .99999.... accurate on where, or what, that limit is

"In mathematics, 'infinity' is often treated as if it were a number (i.e., it counts or measures things: "an infinite number of terms") but it is not the same sort of number as natural or real numbers."

So, you tell me what I'm getting wrong here according to the mean consensus.

>>688207498
I'm pretty sure he just phrased it wrong.

>>688206975
Lol where does it derive from then? God? The human mind?

Either way math has to have some connection to the real world and I don't see the problem in using that connection to prove the importance of an extremely small difference. Particles make for a good example if you ask me.

>>688207498

Good bait, but I'm not taking it unless you provide something more substantial to go along with it.

>>688207808
Hey, fine by me, Achilles.

>>688201336
Faggots don't even know trigonometry. It only approaches 10, infinitely. The difference is infinitely smaller and smaller, so for all intents and purposes, it's 10. Does not = 10 tho.

>>688203593
.999... can't be substituted for x because .999 isn't a real number

>>688203377
how is it bait if its a mathematical technique used to convert recurring decimals into fractions?
looks like someones feeling a little down today

>>688207165
we have used mathematical formulae to prove 1=0.999...
Yet you kids keep coming back complaining, but not even trying to prove anything.
Wymyn's studies? Arts major? Get the fuck out of here!

>>688207169
/thread

>>688207498
I can't even parse what the first sentence means.
The formal definition of a limit doesn't use infinity at all.
A limit does not imply an end.
>>688207665
Math is simply the fact that if you assume a set of statements are true (axioms or postulates) then you can prove some other statements (theorems). I don't it has to derive from anything. The mathematical truths are true whether or not it is written down or even conceived of.
>>688208002
simply ebin

>>688207665
Mathematics is a human concept created in an attempt to explain, calculate and predict the nature of the universe surrounding us. Just because something works mathematically doesnt necessary mean that there is a real-world equivalent.

>>688208704
If I wanted to kill myself, I'd climb to the number of your chromosomes and jump to your IQ.

>>688208101
Just read what you're saying.

Does A equal B just because it get's so close to it? If my dick shrinks into my body, does that at some point mean I have a pussy?

9.999...=n
0.1n=0.999... (n is ÷ by 10)
n - 0.1n = 9.999... - 0.999...
=9
0.9n =9
0.9n÷0.9 (this is 1n)= 9÷0.9 = 10
Therefore n = 10 and 9.999...

goddamn the american schooling system.

>>688208875
No, just means you have a small dick. Kys

>>688209158
What if it gets infinitely close to being a pussy, would you call it a pussy then? Don't think so.

>>688208875
math <> philosophy.
a mathematical question was asked, mathematical proofs were given.
it is a fucking fact.
1=0.999...
If you can't understand it, too bad. It is still true though.

But hey, stop bullshitting! Come up with a proof! You know, mathematics.

Otherwise, you just make yourself ridiculous.

>>688209286
It would be called a mutilated genital because you can't see whether it's a dick or a pussy.

>>688209286
yes. by god yes I would. lim dick {dick->pussy}=pussy

>>688209385
I'm curious as to how you figured out my major

>>688208004
It IS a real number, BUT it is not a natural number. Fuck.

Never one never ending number is pi are you telling me that is not a real number. A never ending number is called an irrational number

Literally anyone attempting to say 9.99999... doesn't equal 10 is a moron. It's a mathematical fact, not one of those problems someone posts which is deliberately fucked up to cause an argument.

>>688208864
>insult
>no actual argument proving me wrong

Who's the real retard here anon? Maybe you should look more into that whole killing yourself thing.

>>688209494
back to the point:

a) got proof? go ahead.
b) no proof?
b.1) be a man and admit it
b.2) keep whining
b.3) quickly close tab and spend time at a YLYL thread.

I take bets. My bet is b.2) for 10 more minutes, then straight to b.3)

>>688202748
It tends to a limit. It equals it. If you don't believe me. Tell me what you must add to it to make it 10?

>>688209955
Checked

>>688209990
You've just activated their trap cards.

>>688208513
You're having an exceptionally easy time twisting my words.

Let me help you help me help you by not greentexting.

You said, verbatim, in >>688208513, that "A limit does not imply an end", which followed your second sentence, "The formal definition of a limit doesn't use infinity at all".

You are contradicting yourself, firstly, by saying that a "limit doesn't use infinity at all" while later suggesting that a "limit does not imply an end".

You choose one, because of the following definitions of the word "Limit", found in my image to the left of my post.

The definition of "formal", is "being in accordance with the usual requirements, customs, etc.; conventional", or, to be "observant of conventional requirements of behavior, procedure, etc., as persons; ceremonious", when used "appropriately".

So, when looking for the "formal" usage of the word "limit" you stick with "the final, utmost, or furthest boundary or point as to extent, amount, continuance, procedure, etc" as a definition to adhere by. Examples would be "the limit of his experience; the limit of vision".

Lest this be bait.

>>688209990
In standard analysis it is impossible, but if you analyse it with infinitesimals in mind you can add one of those.

But in standard analysis you can't add anything.

>>688201336
0.9999... < 1
there. proof done

Also OP is a massive faggot

File: text.png (34 KB, 479x669) Image search: [Google]

34 KB, 479x669

>>688210137
Looks like in my faggoty furor I forgot the image, so here.

Just fucking...
https://www.google.hu/search?client=opera&q=0.9999&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Really, people? Fucking retards. Both sides.

Next argument:
1+1=2, an NSA scam to implant tracking chip into people's brains.

>>688202483
if its a multiplying factor of a huge number, for example the speed of light

>>688202606
she's* also right, and no she's not

>>688209955

Proof?

0.999.... does not equal 1 just like A does not equal B

0.999.... is an infinite sequence of 9's, 1 is a whole number. They never become the same thing just like A will never be B no matter how funny you write it. 0.999.... will get close, close enough to maybe even just call it equal to one because the difference is ignorable.

But ignoring a difference is something else than calling them equal.

>>688203590
YouTuber called Vsauce made a video on supertasks, performing an infinite amount of actions in a finite amount of time, I'm pretty sure it included the analogy with the runner. You should check it out.

>>688210137
no I meant the Epsilon-Delta Definition of Limits. Look it up

>>688201336
>replying to bait

you're the one making the claim

you're the one who needs to prove it

not us

>>688201336
Why do people still question this shit?
It tends towards 1, reaching it if not otherwise limited.

>>688210487

You're dumb.

>>688210593
thats not a proof. You're stating what you want to prove.

>>688202623

NEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

>>688210593
see
>>688210346

Really, after you had your trollBait fun, go and read. Nobody is THIS autistic.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE TO IGNORE! 1=0.9... Same number.

>>688211087
HARDER