Mental Math 1

Algebra Level 2

True or False :

1 > 0.99999 1 > 0.99999\ldots

True False

This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and, finally, (c) loading the non-javascript version of this page . We're sorry about the hassle.

61 solutions

Yash Dev Lamba
Feb 4, 2016

PROOF

Let 0.9999.... = x 0.9999.... = x . Then 10 x = 9.9999.... 10x = 9.9999.... .

Now subtracting the first equation from the second, 9 x = 9 x = 1 0.9999.... = 1 9x = 9 \Rightarrow x = 1 \Rightarrow \boxed{0.9999.... = 1}

Alternate way :

9 10 + 9 1 0 2 + 9 1 0 3 + 9 1 0 4 + = a 1 r = 9 10 1 1 10 = 1 \frac{9}{10} + \ \frac{ 9}{10^2} + \frac{ 9}{10^3} + \frac{ 9}{10^4} + \ldots = \frac{a}{1-r} = \frac{ \frac{9}{10} } { 1 - \frac{1}{10} } = 1

Let's focus on the real issue - the question was rigged to begin with "True of False"? There was never an OR in the question - so everyone is wrong regardless of your answer.

Chelsea York - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

Pardon me?

Whitney Clark - 3 years, 5 months ago

You know, in my opinion.. When some cannon,missile, or projectiles are being launch or shoot , diffrent 0.000001m is causing diffrent location... I think 0.999..9 is different from 1

Edward Harry - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

Noones saying 0.000001=0

Johanna Antonelli - 5 years, 4 months ago

It did NOT say 0.999...9. The nines go on FOREVER.

Whitney Clark - 3 years, 5 months ago

I came to post a proof thinking that it would clear up all of the misconceptions, but clearly concepts proven by mathematicians can't outmatch the brilliance of Internet commenters.

Wikipedia has half a dozen different proofs all showing the same answer, so if someone can't understand at least one of these methods, I don't know what else can be done other than to shrug and move on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

tl;dr - The bottom line is that .999... is defined as real number that equals 0. It doesn't have to make sense. It's just what it is in mathematics.

Jen Luigi - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

It doesn't.

Vedran Čačić - 2 years, 5 months ago

All of the proofs assume real numbers only and not infinitesimals. With infinitesimals, it is objective fact that . 999... is smaller than one.

Fluffy Mc. Potatoe Pies - 2 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

It's a fact? Well, facts can be proven; prove this one.

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 2 months ago

1 is never 0.9999. That means 0.99999 and beyond don't exist anymore.

Armando Escalante - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

It is not 0.9999 it is 0 0 . 9 \overline{9}

Yash Dev Lamba - 5 years, 4 months ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

Correct !

Giannis Laderos - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

Yanno, cuz Wikipedia is ALWAYS right....lmao sorry I had to lol

Pete Mindick - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/10012.5.shtml Wikipedia's reliable to a point.

Johanna Antonelli - 5 years, 4 months ago

since 9.99999... is undefined as how many 9's are after the decimal point then all calculations done on your proof are just estimations not accurate calculations. We can say that when you subtracted equation one from equation 2 you will have 9.9999-0.99999= 8.99991 Therefore, it is not 9. Your mistake is in assuming that if there are 5 digits after the decimal point they will still be 5 digits after we multiply that number by 10. That is a trick you can play on little kids, not on mathematicians. So, no matter how many digits after the decimal point your first number has, the second number after multiplied by 10 will have one less digit. And please do not refer to Wikipedia for accuracy. Anyone can edit those proofs. As for the sum of the geometric sequence, do not forget is a geometric sequence, hence it is infinite and so again the answer is rounded and estimated to the best value that is the closest value to the real number but not exactly the real value, since infinite itself has no exact value.

Ardiana Bani - 3 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

It's recurring. So there's no end to 99999 so the ans is correct

Abhishek Singh - 3 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

Agree. No wonder Georg Cantor went mad.

Tony Gaskin - 3 years, 5 months ago

What illogical explanation are you giving you subtract 9x=9 How? Its an approximation so explanation is wrong

Dileep Purushothaman - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

It's not an approximation, but an infinite decimal.

Whitney Clark - 3 years, 5 months ago

if x is 0.9999 then 10x would be 9.9998(using 4th decimal rounding as it was originally rounded to 0.9999), so minus the x off it again would be 8.999, so it still doesn't equal x or 1. Rounding a number up doesn't make it the same, this is common sense.

Dumb version: x = 0.9, 10x = 9, 9x = 8.1, 9x isn't 9.

Matthew Clark - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

Wrong. Hilbert's hotel, always has room for one more guest.

Tony Gaskin - 3 years, 5 months ago

The nines go on forever, not just five of them.

Whitney Clark - 3 years, 5 months ago

This isn't a proof. You divided by one in your attempt to prove. Divide by 0.9999... and you don't get the same result. So the two numbers aren't equivalent.

Michael VanAuker - 4 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

What result do you get?

Whitney Clark - 3 years, 5 months ago

I like how you divided by a number that takes an infinite amount of time to even type :-D

Denis Schüle - 3 years ago

I disagree with your proof. You completely drop the greater than sign. You have to keep both sides equal, you can't just go throwing in parts tell it looks like it works. If you want 0.9999999... = x then your equation has to be 1 > x. And I'm afraid to tell you that multiplying it by 10 doesn't change that 1 > .99999.... Now if you had argued that divide .9999 by 3 and you get .33333 which in turn is equal to 1/3 you can argue that. But the problem is that your using a little jump that in reality is just a limit that gets so close that it never actually equals 1/3. Using limits from Calculus, you'd understand that 0.9999.... Is never going to equal 1.

Ethan Sorensen - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

'x = 0.9, 10x = 9, 9x = 8.1, 9x isn't 9' im not adding any numbers, its rounded off to the first decimal and then calculated, how do you not understand that.

Matthew Clark - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

It doesn't work if you round. No one is saying 0.999 = 1 they are saying 0.999... = 1 0.999 and 0.999... are not the same.

Lee Hughes - 4 years ago

Log in to reply

@Lee Hughes is 1> 0.9999... - NO! The correct answer without context of the language to be defined within what numbers are a language of counting. There is no proof that creates a summation of explaination for teh question in reference, no matter how many high minded fools their are. yes, 1/3 +1/3+1/3 must be one, but that is a fractional base and relates another concept. So math as a langague of precision and calculation, in reality, 0.9999... is less than 1. In relating of language of math it is a proof called filling the error which is mostly just hogwash. Since many of the proofs, I can do something like. Is 14 > 5. I could make a proof that would state it is not by teh same premise, because its abusing the same loop hole of math language. Not math itself its term of measure. What that measure is underdetermined and htus than changed the context of its numerical relation. change 14 > 5 to let 14 = A let 5 = B A > B then carry on with this supplemental root. I quite dislike teh shit hole india and its kind ,but I would be ruleld a jerk, but they have devasted teh system and centralised and robbed western canandiasn and flooded teh hsores wit h weird society, that has stolen just like in teh days of the fall of rome form their theft of works and then use of capital and undermining markets and then free reign and purchase, Iw oudl choose 10 good and great minds over a the hoard of the earth of the billions in which, act and do and steal nd never see, like little disgusting runts... all their criems they care not, and thus they create asoicety inwhcih their a care not they love ot create homeless people. I want none of these breathen within teh domain of me, a sick people full of nonsense, jsut like asiatics for some degree. the nthere is the other cloud of nonsense... truly a cruel world of lies and misleading tha tdevlaues life. but for those that are aware, most leave teh shores and move and make a new home when the hoard make camp and move in, through hall sorts fo the same linguistic nonsense... Yes that is arelation to the question ,because math is a language, and without context or measure it is abritray to what is beign defined, and the question doesn ot have parameters and so the most honest answer to what is being asked is ... Is A > B if A is 1 and B is 0.999,,, and or if A is also 3 > then if B is also 2? that is the applied logic.. brialiance is another shitty thign, fuck trudeau and then taxation of billions from canandians killing them off to replace them wit ha bunch of thieves... military is jsut as bad, clearly peope ldo not know law or culture, but make it so as to parrot a game of thieves. a cruel group.

Artemirr Lazaris - 3 years ago

Log in to reply

@Artemirr Lazaris oh man, why are there so many mathtards in the world? And why do they still decide to do math puzzles?

Denis Schüle - 3 years ago

Well, how big is that jump? If you think about it, you'll see that it's exactly 0.

Vedran Čačić - 2 years, 5 months ago

Wow, the first one is a bit trippy for my logic ahahaha. Anyways, does this have a basis in limits as in dx being very close to zero and is then approximated as such?

Alfonsus Umboh - 4 years, 6 months ago

The sum of infinite series as you have done above takes in to account the limits and derivatives ,right? I would rather say 0.999999... -> (tends to) 1. But how come its equal.I guess the proofs stated above is not valid coz sum of infinite terms in a GP is APPROX equal to a/(1-r);not exactly equal to.

Nithin Shaju - 4 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

What does "tend to" mean in this context? With respect to what variable?

And the sum of infinitely many terms of geometric progression is exactly equal to 1 over 1 minus its quotient.

Vedran Čačić - 2 years, 5 months ago

Interesting point.

To my eye, if x = 0.9999999999... then 10x should equal 9.99999999999...0, ie there are infinity-1 nines, and therefore a difference between 10x and 10 of 10^(1-infinity) - but of course infinity is not a rational number.

Andy Boal - 4 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

Infinity - 1 is still infinity. moving the decimal does not make 0.999... 9.999...0 it makes it 9.999... infinity is not a number and cannot be treated as such. If you do try an treat it as a number you get odd stuff happen

1* infinity = infinity 2* infinity = infinity divide by infinity 1=2

Lee Hughes - 4 years ago

Infinity is not a number at all!

Whitney Clark - 3 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

I like how you just placed a zero in there as if 0.999... was a finite number to begin with :-D

Denis Schüle - 3 years ago

Log in to reply

@Denis Schüle I did no such thing, sir. Hit Reply on the correct comment next time.

Whitney Clark - 3 years ago

Lol, dumb. It's still not equal

Benjamin Amoss - 4 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

Why? What's dumb about it?

Whitney Clark - 3 years, 5 months ago

Very elegant proof.

Brach Anders - 3 years, 11 months ago

9 multiplied by 0.9999... is equal to less than 9, however you have it listed above as equal to 9. This is why I don't accept the above to be true.

Devon Wagner - 3 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

No, 0.9999... is multiplied by 10. Just move the decimal point, and 10 0.9999... = 9.999.... The nines go on forever, so the difference is 9 0.9999... = 9.

Whitney Clark - 3 years, 5 months ago

I showed this solution to my high school math teacher in 1969.

Fred Spitler - 3 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

What did he say

Ed Hanlon - 2 years, 12 months ago

This is really just a trivia question on if a convention has been adopted that an infinite decimal will be called equivalent to the limit it approaches at infinity even though it only asymptotically approaches it.

Brian Todoroff - 3 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

that's one of the smartest comments here. 0.999...=1 literally is just the definition of the minit of the corresponding series. as with increasing amount of 9s, it approaches 1.

Denis Schüle - 3 years ago

By this logic we can argue that no number is larger than another number.... because their is always a number right next to it which has its same approximate value. I think that you are mixing up limits with actual values for this problem. Although it can be shown mathematically that 1 ~ .999999999999999... They are not the same number and 1 is still to the left of .9999999999... on the number line, which is the standard for determining if a number is greater than another number. What your proof is showing is that for most purposes .9999999999999... is indistinguishable from 1; it is showing a problem with notation which gives you an answer that is a fallacy. What you have done is what I like to call mathmagic, something you can prove but is inherently false...

In real life we use significant figures and this will never happen. Tools will always give us values that terminate because atoms are quantum in nature and come in packets. Nice proof though.

Matthew Brutlag - 3 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

Mathematics, while helpful in real life, is NOT real life. You cannot go on forever, but decimals CAN.

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 9 months ago

Yes, the number line is quite helpful to get the right intuition. Look: every two different points on a line determine a segment. Every segment has a length. What is the length of that segment?

Vedran Čačić - 2 years, 5 months ago

There are some notational issues (... vs. overline) with the post but I think most people get that the precision is unlimited. I agree that the solution provided is valid, my question regards whether a different definition of the real numbers or possibly '>' would change the answer. Specifically, I am wondering about the introduction of the infinitesimal from nonstandard analysis. The nonstandard version of '>' might make the statement true.

Fred Eisele - 3 years, 2 months ago

I know this method but still it doesn't make a sense cause if it is like this then we can write 0.99 instead of 1 in our daily life.

So even do it is proven that 1 is equals to 0.99 still it's not practical in our day to day life.

mathew varghese - 2 years, 12 months ago

Log in to reply

No, the nines go on forever, so it's .999999...

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 9 months ago

Can't be answered with this info. 1.02 = 1 1.02 > .9999999... .98 = 1 .98< .999999.... It's a trick significant figures question, not real math

walt winslow - 2 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

It wasn't asking about 1.02, actually.

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 9 months ago

If we assumed that x= .9999 and prove that x= 1 then the assumption itself is wrong and hence the answer is also wrong !!!

Hari Singh Sidhu - 2 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

No, the nines go on forever.

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

If that was truly meant in the question, it should have more correctly defined that it was a limit, not an actual number

Benjamin Amoss - 2 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

@Benjamin Amoss That's usually what the ellipsis means.

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

@Whitney Clark Actually, no. An ellipsis is a linguistic tool that denotes a pattern that could be reasonably implied to a reader and commonly has the fallacy of being used too ambiguously. Here, and ellipsis would mean that this pattern did indeed continue forever, permanently setting this answer to true in that is always less than 1. A limit would have fixed that. I would read more into things before trying to post smart comments.

Benjamin Amoss - 2 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

@Benjamin Amoss What's the simple way of putting that without an ellipsis, then?

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 2 months ago

So: Is 1 minus 0.99999..... greater or equal to 0? Is 1 times 0.99999.......less than or equal to 1?

These questions involving 0.9999...... seem more like philosophy than math

Where is the end of the universe? When was the beginning of time? What is the value of infinity? Does God exist?

James Smith - 2 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

Except that the first one can be proven. The nines go on forever, so the difference is less than one, less than 1/10, less than 1/100, less than 1/1,000,000, etc., but not negative. Only zero fits that description.

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 11 months ago

The problem is, the assumption is incorrect, "if 0.999... = x, then 9.99... = 10x", you are escalating a tiny issue somewhere, there's a little bit of data being escalated 10 times, and you are ignoring that issue. So, yes, if you ignore some amount of data, 1 = 0.999...

Toni Almeida - 2 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

Yes, if you ignore 0, then 1=0,999... . That little bit of data is exactly 0.

Vedran Čačić - 2 years, 5 months ago

1 is greater than 0.999999... By definition. The proof is incorrect. So the problem here is finding out why the proof that was presented is incorrect. Or, we can accept the answer and just miss the moon by mere inches

Mark Clayton - 2 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

What is that definition? I was under the impression that the nines go on forever, so there are no inches to miss. By how much is it greater?

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 9 months ago

How has this question not been deleted yet?

Benjamin Amoss - 2 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

Because there's nothing wrong with it.

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

Sure there is, look at my other reply to your post. Starting with clear, understood constraints is essential in both theoretical and applied sciences.

Benjamin Amoss - 2 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

@Benjamin Amoss It's not my duty to hunt for your reply. What exactly is wrong with the question?

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 2 months ago

If 0,9999.... = x, then 9*x = 8,(9)1 and not 9. Therefore 8,(9)1 / 9 = 0,9999...

Your "proof" is wrong.

Miguel Montenegro - 2 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

What does 8,(9)1 mean? Can you give a way to find it on the number line?

Vedran Čačić - 2 years, 5 months ago

I am not convinced ... I mean if 0,99999999... = 1,00000000... the outcome could be that 0=1 and 9=0. I am not convinced you can say "0.9999...=x THEN 10x=9.9999..." . I am not convinced that you can use "something that is approaching to a number" as a number. In my opinion your demostration is a sort of "circular reference".

vittorio moia - 2 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

Can you use pi as a number? :-)

Vedran Čačić - 2 years, 5 months ago

That's only always true for finite decimals. Strange things happen at infinity.

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 2 months ago

This rubbish.

Laurie Morris - 2 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

With all due respect,his solution is completely mathematically consistent. (Note: "mathematically consistent" is not equivalent to "intuitively correct")

He summed the infinite geometric series and showed that the answer is 1.

If you want to discuss the problem,by all means go ahead.However, just commenting "This rubbish" and not providing any justification for your point doesn't really help anybody.

Abdur Rehman Zahid - 2 years, 5 months ago

9x = 8.99... with elementary arithmetic. If we are discussing limits, you should have made that clear.

Ray March - 2 years, 5 months ago

1/3+1/3+1/3=1, 0.3333...+0.3333...+0.3333...=0.9999... and 1/3=0.3333... then 1=0.9999...

Amy Coderre - 2 years, 5 months ago

The first solution exceed infinity so is false. 1/3 does not equal 0.3333.. rather approximates to and infinity doesn't exist so the dots really have no meaning.

Mark Smith - 2 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

The dots do have a meaning; they mean the 3s go on forever. One third is greater than any 0.3333...33 and less than any 0.3333...34, and THAT'S what 0.3333... means.

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 2 months ago

Both of the ways you have used involve approximation, you cannot use approximation when the numbers you want to compare are so close to each other on the number line.

Avanish Dhapare - 2 years, 5 months ago

Everyone who disagrees with the completely correct proof should look at the definition of decimal representation. \boxed{\text{the definition of decimal representation.}}

And also to the non uniqueness of decimal representation...

Théo Leblanc - 1 year, 10 months ago

Instead of getting angry and arguing the point if you got it wrong, read the numerous proofs and sit back and think 'wow I didn't know that and now I do. What an awesome bit of general knowledge I've just learnt.'

This is an ill-posed question! There is no such number as 0.9999.... The number 0.3333... is defined because it is equal to the quantity 1/3. 0.99999... does not exist any more than some random irrational quantity such as 23.4685346....

Jay Rajgopal - 4 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

Thank you! Yes! Exactly!

Joshua Nesseth - 4 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

Yes, exactly. 0,999... exist in exactly the same sense as 23,4685346... . And 0.3333... . And 3,14159265... . As a real number. Bravo. :-)

Vedran Čačić - 2 years, 5 months ago

By that logic all numbers are just random (which they are) but that doesn't make it a bad question.

Lee Hughes - 4 years ago

If 0.333333333333... = 1/3, then wouldn't it be fair to say that 0.99999999... is equal to 3 x 0.3333333333333.... which then equals 3 x 1/3 = 1????

Rod Hutchings - 3 years, 8 months ago

0.99999... is not irrational. Irrational numbers cannot be written as a fraction i.e. a/b where a and b are integers. As shown in "Yash Dev Lamba's" proof above 0.9999... can be written as 1/1. Furthermore, rational numbers do exist, they are not imaginary, for example pi exists, it is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter and is a Real number.

Bill Jorgensen - 3 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

But pi is an irrational number isn't it?

Chris Barton - 2 years, 9 months ago

well actually, this video explains everything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

Brett Baumgartner - 3 years, 1 month ago

A limiting process never reaches the limit however long you carry out the process.

Phillip Couture - 3 years, 12 months ago

Log in to reply

I agree - I don't like anything that relies on 'infinity'. For any finite length the inequality holds.

Paul Bostock - 3 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

I also agree. They approach the same value asymptoticly

Rich Molyneux - 3 years, 1 month ago

I agree ahahaha relax everyone. Even if they are not correct, there is no reason to go on a tantrum. Discuss them calmly and if you're right then good on ya if not then you learnt something new

Alfonsus Umboh - 4 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

The whole point is that they are supposed to be right 100% of the time. Not 99.99...(pun intended) otherwise you will always doubt the integrity of the information. right!

Kelsey Kochan - 3 years, 4 months ago

1 = .999999...... + .000001..... to as many digits as you would like to go !!!!!!!! So that the concept of adding a digit is the SAME in both cases. That's when MATH is correct. You may say that this is not true at infinity, except that one can not get to infinity, that is why it is infinite.

Richard Bauaman - 4 years, 1 month ago

Jay Rajgopal Of course it does! What proof can you possibly produce in defense of the claim that 0.99999... doesn't exist?

Eirik Skogstad Andreassen - 4 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

Produce the number? Offer a value that computes to 0. 9 0. \overline{9} [not just it's assumed value @ -- c.f. 3 ( f r a c 13 ) 3( frac{1}{3}) ].

Better yet, offer a proof that 0. 9 0. \overline{9} isn't transcendental!

Limit claims are invalid because, while it is a proof of convergence (as a SUM), the limit value does not SUFFICIENTLY prove the value at the limit is actually in either the Domain or the Image of the Codomain.

[For a full refutation of the claims, see my post above--it's the long one with bars; or check out my overly-verbose diatribe on my profile about it...and other things]

Joshua Nesseth - 4 years, 2 months ago

Actually I go this right because I know the mathematical proposition, however the answer is wrong. It is a mathematical conundrum at the infinite.

at the infinite - 1 - 0.000...001 which equals 0.999...9999 is less than 1 and must be so. However it is a mathematical convention that this equals 1.

Ian Thomson - 4 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

0.9999..999 is not the same as 0.999..., 1-0.999... is not 0.00...001 it's 0.000... The 0's go on forever. Ergo the difference between 1 and 0.999... is 0

Lee Hughes - 4 years ago

Log in to reply

0.00...001 just is downright nonsense, created by some mathtards in this thread. they probably never learned what a periodic number is, therefor they are writing this shit.

"0.9999..999 is not the same as 0.999..." Um, yes it is.

It's infinitely many 9's eithwer way.

Even though writing it the first way makes you look a bit dumb. as if you need to emphasize that a number with infinitely many 9s does also end with 9s.

Denis Schüle - 3 years ago

That points to the "problem" though, does it not?

IF the proofs are valid (as at least one of them appears to be--the "1/3" one still seems to rely upon implicit rounding rather than rigorous assertions), then the problem is within the system as it stands, not in the interpretation of the conventions.

However, if it merely is a convention as you state, then how are the proofs invalid (as they must be if the findings are merely arbitrary)? [I'm not asking facetiously--I would actually like to know!]

Joshua Nesseth - 4 years, 6 months ago

1. 1000 Frenchman can be wrong!

2. By DEFINITION "0.99999.................................." is smaller than "1"

end of discussion.

Vladimir Orlovsky - 4 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

Unless there is an overflow condition where 1 becomes a negative number. Otherwise 0.999.. is infinitesimally smaller than 1 and it does not matter that it approaches 1 as the digits become infinite.

Steven Block - 4 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

yeh one is less than one. I have no idea why I picked false, for whatever reason I read it wrong, but then I checked the email that led me here, it was a English language of the wording in which caused my confusion. LMAO so I was stating that.. for clarity I was arguing teh same point, how easy I was taken up into this nonsense...

but my relation of my point was by reason valid my direction of side was incorrect and therefor failed ot be applied appriatly. I would say.... 1 is Greater than 0.99 done, bit forwhatever reason I read it as 1 is less than 0.999 and so somehow Iwas hyponotized with an ainabiltiy to diffuse what I was reading properly.. LMAO amazing, so I sound like a idiot nad an ass to some degree, LOL. I check the email and its teh same question, weird, I swear it was reversed in what the question was stating... I thought it said 1 is less then 0.999 or equal too. Not sure what I did there.. but it is funny... although hI did have a headache that day.

Artemirr Lazaris - 3 years ago

Yes you said it true 0.999.. is going to be always smaller than 1. The all proof given have some wrong assumption

Digvijay Gavas - 3 years ago

Incorrect. 0.9 recurring is the same as 1. It can be proven mathematically.

Chris Barton - 2 years, 9 months ago

I agree, looking at the rebuttals, rebuttal 2 makes the most sense. I completely agree that for practical purposes 0.999... is like 1 but being like on isn't equal to one. Especially in mathematics being specific is important.

Clarence Medema - 3 years, 8 months ago

But if .999999999999999999999 = 1 then what happens if i add .000000000000000000001 to it?

Lewis Temple - 3 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

0.9999999999 is not the same as 0.999...... If you add 0.000000001 to 0.999.... You will get 1.0000000099999.... And that's true at any point you decide to "stop", since 0.99999.... Is defined to be infinite

Stav Raviv - 3 years, 7 months ago

Ha ha. So true

Kelsey Kochan - 3 years, 4 months ago

But you cannot reach the 1 at the back. (In maths, it is virtually bullied by the 0's [nothing] and the 0's don't let the 1 have a chance to be seen)

Mohammad Farhat - 2 years, 9 months ago

So... If we have .9 repeating and add .0000000001 (infinite number of zeroes) to it, we get 1. You can't add anon-zero number to itself and get the same number. Also, this whole question is ridiculous because it assumes we can define infinity. It's a limit. It approaches 1, but it never reaches it. Whoever says .9 repeating is 1 needs to do me a favor... Write it out. Write out .9 repeating with infinite 9's and let me know about the 15th googleplex of nines if it still equals the same thing.

Ben Higgins - 3 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

if that number you add, the one with infinite zeroes, has indeed infinite zeroes, then there won't be any 1 at the end, therefore nothing to add.

L A107 - 3 years, 2 months ago

1 is the limit .9999..... approaches and never reaches. Therefore 1 is greater and so am I. Respectfully, God.

A Former Brilliant Member - 3 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

That’s the key - “approaches and never reaches” and the concept of limits is basic math. Infinitely close, but not equal.

Michael Blake - Aylesbury PS (1425) - 2 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

YES! Thank you!

I really have NO idea why this is so complicated. The concepts of limits and ontology somehow are too nuanced for the Brilliant staff and a good deal of people on here. I have tried to be patient (with varying levels of success, especially on here), but at some point this is just ridiculous.

Joshua Nesseth - 2 years, 8 months ago

Johanna Antonelli - I didn't particularly see "anger" until THEIR pushback was rejected. And tghe fact that there was a pushback is surely acceptable.... surely "healthy debate" should be welcomed and not merely given a put-down, which is what you are doing?

Geoff Holmes - 3 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

Exactly, and even if i don't disagree with the premises of 1 = 0.999... I already saw some people that uses fallacies to explain that, for example, "it is '1' because its so close to '1' that is '1'", this proves nothing, and its not semantically correct, if something is not "1" it is not "1" just because it is close to "1", there are way better answer than that.

So the debate should be very welcomed to people understand the basis of semantic and proofs and not just going there saying "it is right because i learned that it is right", if someone don't try to be their own devil's advocated they are probably easy to manipulate.

Sophia Cristina - 2 years, 6 months ago

what a stupid bit of stuff ..... lost a bit of respect towards brilliant after the fucking logics behind 1 is not greater than some number that starts with 0 .

Shovan Chowdhury - 3 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

And you have lost respect by using language like that!!?? : o I may nor have liked the answer given, but live with it (even if you continue to disagree)

One point, you state "1 is not greater than some number that starts with 0" however, IS the "(the) number that starts with 0" a number? Can it be, if it runs to infinity?.... Discuss!! : )

Geoff Holmes - 3 years, 5 months ago

But the numbers after the 0 and the decimal are an infinite row of 9s, which can mathematically be proven to be the same as 1.

Chris Barton - 2 years, 9 months ago

finaly !!! please tell all they are equal

James Hill - 3 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

They will never be equal!

Kelsey Kochan - 3 years, 4 months ago

You shouldn’t say it’s incorrect. No one got stumped on this one. 0.999... will always be smaller than one whole. Who comes up with this crap. You can’t just change the rules of math and round a number any time it’s convenient.

Kelsey Kochan - 3 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

It is not being rounded. It is infinite.

Chris Barton - 2 years, 9 months ago

Now i would counter pose that for 0.99999.... <x <1 is true and thus 0.999999..... < 1 is also true simply 0.9999... < ×-0.9999999.... < 1 satisfies that state ment of 1 can only be greater than some number if there is a number such that 1>a>b With b being 0.999999....... and a being 1-0.99999.... So a true statement is that 1>1-0.999999999......>0.9999999......no matter how many 9s there are which means that 1>0.99999.... is also true

Brandon Choate - 3 years, 3 months ago

this will show you exactly how wrong you truly are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

Brett Baumgartner - 3 years, 1 month ago

Agree with comments above. Perhaps stated another way, this appears to be simply definitional. 0.9999... isn't a number, but a definition which is limit (i=1->infinity) of sum of 9/10^i … which we can all agree equals 1. This question goes south once someone calls 0.9999… a number and not a definition (IMHO).

Michael Lipscomb - 3 years ago

Every single one of these proofs are an approximation. In every single definition of 0.999... which goes on forever, for infinity, it it some infinitesimal amount smaller than 1.0.

Jarrod Hitchings - 3 years ago

Log in to reply

The point is that this proof is in the real numbers, and in the real numbers infinitesimals don't exist.

Orlando Moreno - 2 years, 11 months ago

Nope. 1/9 is exactly 0.11111... Multiply that by 9 and you get exactly 0.99999... Nothing approximated there.

Spicy Brigadoon - 2 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

OK, wow. I was on the other side of this argument, but your simple proof has changed my mind. That is exactly right, and is the whole point. I think it's the idea of infinity that is difficult to grasp for many people, even myself!

Jarrod Hitchings - 2 years, 8 months ago

Because : A - You just typed learnt and B - If you go into a grocery store and there is a nick in an apple, you would prefer one without a nick BECAUSE IT IS A WHOLE APPLE. You can't math away the nick and fool anyone just like this proof is absurd.

Benjamin Amoss - 2 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

You can if the nick is so small it is literally nothing.

Jarrod Hitchings - 2 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

I'm not in disagreement or agreement here, just checking your semantics...

But then each time we discover new things in a macro or micro perspective, those small details should still be nothing, yet they aren't.

Mathematical precision is a matter for development of math and challenges to solve those problems with a precise answer is a matter also, so, mathematically speaking, the nick is so small, it is not literally nothing, it is a so so so so small nick, but still is literally a nick.

Not that i doubt that for mathematical definition or to solve mathematical problems we can say 1 = 0.999... But how can you say for sure or at least in a way it solves that fail of semantic that is saying "something different to another something is the same something because we said so", although is correct to say "we say something different is the same as another something because that is how our works ends up done", but still, it don't answer precisely the issue, is in fact, literally, 1 = 0.999...?

Sophia Cristina - 2 years, 6 months ago

1>0.99999 I don't see why that would be false. 1-0.99999=0.00001

Stefan Joeres - 2 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

no it does not the ... indicates that 9 goes on to infinity so it needs 0.0 (infinity ..... ) the the 1

Sean Houston - 2 years, 6 months ago

This one I happened to know and get it right when I saw it. Because I had a discussion about this same question 25 years ago in college with a friend. He was saying it is different numbers and I was arguing they were the same. Teacher confirmed I was right. 0.(9) is actually the same as 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.09... it is easy to see that it is an geometric progression with ratio = 0.1 Sum of all terms is given by the limit of 0.9 * (1-(0.1)^n) / 0.9 Any high school kid who was awake in math classes easily calculates this limit. It is 1. Hope I made sense. Ain't easy to write maths in mobile phone Best, Oliver Algarve

Oliver Christina - 2 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

YEs BUT it never ever ever gets to 1 so ...

Sean Houston - 2 years, 6 months ago

This is a bad question because it suffers from the same issue that so many Briliant questions do, which is that questions are clearly formulated/selected in order to “trick” participants... that the answer is contrary to common sense... so if you always choose the answer furthest from common sense, you’re going to be right in all of these cases... and says more about the psychology of those that pose questions and their process of selecting them than anything else. I see these questions correctly each and every time entirely without having to think about them at all... because I know the psychology.

Any series of science questions that can be easily answered with 100 % accuracy by adhering to a simple psychological rule is a garbage series of questions.

Ryder Spearmann - 2 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

I saw lot of those questions and i agree with you.

Sophia Cristina - 2 years, 6 months ago

The number of stuborn and salty people here is astonishing ^^

P MJB - 2 years, 7 months ago

So does 0.9999999..... = 1 I guess not so if not is it greater than one? I would think not. So ??? IF it does not equal 1 and if not is not greater than 1 Then ... Please explain that.

Sean Houston - 2 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

0.999... is exactly equal to 9/9, and is exactly equal to 1.0....

Jarrod Hitchings - 2 years, 6 months ago

either the question posed or the solution is fundamentally wrong. The solution has no logical base and math has to be logical

Sean Houston - 2 years, 6 months ago

draw a graph 0.9999..... goes on for ever ever close and closer to 1.0 BUT NEVER EVER getting to 1.0 so therefor it HAS TO BE LESS than 1 The solution offered is flawed.

Sean Houston - 2 years, 6 months ago

If the presented solutions are correct what happens to horizontal asymptotes? Is this not a paradox?

Thomas Trowbridge - 2 years, 5 months ago

So a difference of 0.000000.....01 is equal to 0 ? That is out of logic, out of mind sir.

Cherifi Mohamed Nidal - 4 months, 4 weeks ago

So it means in an open interval 0 to 1 instead of taking 0.999... I can take just 1 ,it does not seem right,it should be less

aman kharta - 3 years, 11 months ago

https://youtu.be/TINfzxSnnIE Watch this if you still think you're right when you got it wrong.

Patrick Newman - 3 years, 8 months ago

1 is actually greater than 0.999.... 0.999 aproaches 1 but is not the same thing, suspect the poser of the question was just trying to appear smart.

Pete Williamson - 3 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

It seems to me that the poser of the question is smart and right.

James Lochrie - 3 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

It seems to me tbat both you and he, the poser, are idiots. There is absolutely no way to argue that both are equal. They are not. Logic doctates this.

Richard Irving - 3 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

@Richard Irving Did you mean "doctates" or"diktats"??!! : 0

Geoff Holmes - 3 years, 5 months ago

0,9999999.............9 plus

0,0000000.....,,..,,,,.1

1 So one is always 0,000000......1 bigger than 0,999999....... so your solution is wrong

Albin Mauritz - 4 years ago

Log in to reply

There is no 1 at the end, if you put a 1 at the end it's a different number

Lee Hughes - 4 years ago

Log in to reply

people really are retarded.

"infinite amount of 0s" " if you put a 1 at the end"

INFINITE! END!

How can your brain manage to exist after trying to force these 2 things together? 2 things that literally negate each others existence?

Denis Schüle - 3 years ago

There's a different way to put this than "there is no 1 at the end", which I think confuses a lot of people. Sure, you can construct a number by

  • starting with a 0 and a decimal point
  • affixing an infinite amount of 0s behind the decimal point
  • and affixing a 1 after that .

There is even a name for such a number: ϵ \epsilon , pronounced as "epsilon" if you're unfamiliar with the Greek alphabet. Here's the thing, though: ϵ \epsilon is not a Real Number . Or, to put it more Mathematically: ϵ R \epsilon \notin \mathbb{R} . Rather, ϵ \epsilon is in what we call the Surreal Numbers .

In other words: the actual answer to this question is: "it depends" ....to be more exact, on the context . If we're in the context of the Surreal Numbers, then it can indeed be said to be true that 1 0.9999 1 \neq 0.9999 \ldots , with the difference being ϵ \epsilon . However, the only possible difference between 1 1 and 0.9999...... 0.9999...... is not a Real Number. So in the context of the Real Numbers, the difference becomes the closest available Real Number, which is obviously 0 0 . The only possible conclusion is that, in the context of the Real Numbers, the two numbers are equal. And, since the context of the Real Numbers is the default context, the correct answer to the question posed is f a l s e \large \boxed{false}

Ahsim Nreiziev - 3 years, 2 months ago

KYS. U r wrong

Niv C - 4 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

Just kidding. You're right. Soz

Niv C - 4 years, 5 months ago

1. \boxed{1.-} If 0.9999999999.... was distinct to 1 then there would be exist a real number x such that 0.9999.... < x < 1 (Impossible).

Theorem.- If x, y are real numbers and x is distintc to y(for example x < y), then there exists z real number, such that x < z < y and z is distinct to x and y.

Proof.- x < z = x + y 2 z = \frac{x + y}{2} < y . ..

2. \boxed{2.-} 0.9999.... = 9 10 + 9 100 + 9 1000 + = 9 10 1 1 10 = 1 0.9999.... = \frac{9}{10} + \frac{9}{100} + \frac{9}{1000} + \ldots = \frac{\frac{9}{10}}{1 - \frac{1}{10}} = 1

3. \boxed{3.-} 10 × 0.9999.... 0.9999999.... = 9.999999... 0.99999999... = 9 10 \times 0.9999.... - 0.9999999.... = 9.999999... - 0.99999999... = 9 \Rightarrow ( 10 1 ) 0.9999.... = 9 0.999... = 9 9 = 1 (10 - 1) \cdot 0.9999.... = 9 \Rightarrow 0.999... = \frac{9}{9} = 1

4. \boxed{4.-} Every real number has one unique decimal representation. For example, the decimal representation of 1 3 = 0. 3 ^ = 0.3333... \frac{1}{3} = 0. \hat {3} = 0.3333... . Certanly 1 3 \frac{1}{3} is a rational number and its decimal representation is 0. 3 ^ 1 = 3 1 3 = 3 × ( 0. 3 ^ ) 0. \hat {3} \Rightarrow 1 = 3 \cdot \frac {1}{3} = 3 \times (0. \hat {3}) which decimal representation is 1.

Note.- If you don't agree you can view reports and this link 5. \boxed{5.-} There is a last chance, 0,99999.... doesn't exist, then the statement is false too.

The thing I learned in math is that all numbers are constants. 1 is a separate number and 0.9999999999999..... Is also a separate number. You can always add more 9s to 0.9 to make it closer to 1 but will it ever equal 1? No. You can round to one but that still doesn't mean that 0.99999999999909... =1. Therefore I would say that 1>0.9999999999999999999999...

Danial Ali - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

This is why (and yes I am a PhD Scientist for 42 years) I hate math. Math should be direct and simple- no matter how many 0.9999999999999999999999999999999 you care to post- it can never equal or be greater than 1.0. If math is a game- so be it- IMHO - it should be a tool.

Bob Bruck - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

I love math for all the reasons you hate it. There's room for philosophical discussion and redefinition of our guidelines and rules themselves. It's not a game, it is a tool, it's just a different sort of tool for a different sort of problem :) You prefer working in a well defined sandbox, and I think believe it or not a lot of mathematicians actually agree that those undefined areas are annoying. It's just that you prefer quarantining them off and playing with what we know works - something I do when I'm doing information science, undefined behavior is an error - where mathematicians prefer digging into those areas and widening your defined sandbox.

Or tl;dr, don't hate the player, hate the game :)

There are contexts where 0.999... is one, and contexts where it is not 1. The debate is really over which context we mean when we use the "equals" operator.

Jessica Pennell - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Jessica Pennell I use the sandbox of STATISTICS in all my work. and- 1 is greater than 0.99999 ALL THE TIME!!!

Bob Bruck - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Bob Bruck I agree with 100% or in this case 99.99999999999999999999999999%

Fatima Lowe - 5 years, 4 months ago

@Bob Bruck You are correct that 1 is greater than 0.99999.But in the problem it is given that there are an infinite number of 9s after the decimal,in which case 1=0.999999.......

Abdur Rehman Zahid - 5 years, 3 months ago

By this logic .3 repeating isn't equal to 1/3? Is that really the conclusion we want to come to? Edit: In fact I would make the assertion that regarding rational numbers this is true and regarding real numbers it is false. On the real line .9 repeating is equal to one thus not less than. If we used less than or equal to it would be true.

Dann Schneider - 5 years, 4 months ago

If you are Ph D and you hate Maths, you are no a doctor... because maths is the Mother of Science...

Guillermo Templado - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Guillermo Templado I am a master at STATISTICS- not nonsense math!!!!!

Bob Bruck - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Bob Bruck lol im an undergrad math student and i can tell that having a phd in statistics and not appreciating math is nonsense

Chaow Wu - 5 years, 4 months ago

@Guillermo Templado You are not intelligent

Ryan William - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Ryan William NOT a counter-proof. That kinda makes YOU the "not intelligent" one, doesn't it?

Joshua Nesseth - 4 years, 2 months ago

@Ryan William Yup, I know I'm not intelligent,but I have enough wisdom to know that those who judge others without knowing them, or by a test that they believe is wrong... they probably are not very intelligent...

Guillermo Templado - 4 years, 3 months ago

I agree.. This doesn't ask you to round the number at all so its .99999... Not 1 ...this IS a decimal! Less than 1

Lacie Lanum - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

ok, if it's a decimal less tan 1 ,then what is the value of 1 - 0.99999999.....?

Guillermo Templado - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Guillermo Templado 0.00000000000---------(so on till 9s continue)1

Akash Agarwal - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Akash Agarwal and you know what is a definiton of a limit?

0,000000000000000...(infinite 0's)...1 = 0 ϵ δ \epsilon - \delta Definition

Guillermo Templado - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Guillermo Templado Nice example Guillermo

Chris Barton - 2 years, 9 months ago

It is 0.99999... Which means that the 9s are repeating. Therefore, it is never rounded. The 9s go on forever

Dillon Howell - 5 years, 4 months ago

agreed. obviously. 1>.anything

Gordon Strother - 5 years, 4 months ago

you know to sum a geometric progression? what is this 9 10 + 9 100 + 9 1000 + . . . \frac{9}{10} + \frac {9}{100} + \frac {9}{1000} + ... ? and look at this serie a n = 0.9999999 (n times 9) a_{n} = 0.9999999 \text{(n times 9)} , what is the lim n a n \lim_{n \to \infty} a_{n} ?

Guillermo Templado - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

Buddy, you have to understand that all you are doing with this is making the number larger than it was, but you're not making it equal 1. If you question why calculators would eventually result to 1, it's because they can only handle so many decimal places. Would you say that 1>0.99? How about 1>0.999? I would say those are true, and hopefully you would too. Now I know those two examples are of numbers that arent something like 1>0.99999999999999999... But they follow the same rules. Now if you do 1 - 0.99999999999999999999999999999.... You should definitely get a really small number. Not 0 because then you're saying that 0.999999999999999999999... +0 =1 which you and I both know is wrong. If you do it in a calculator, depending on the number of decimal places you might get a really small number, or you might get 0 only because your calculator wasn't programmed to handle that many decimal places. The question posted above was very simple: is 1>0.99999999999999999999...(no matter how many decimal places)? And the answer is yes... Only because numbers are constants, not variables....

Danial Ali - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Danial Ali I can't stand seeing these comments any more. Let me break this down as simply as it gets: The first point is that this is 0.9 REPEATING. That means the 9s continue infinitely.

What is 1/3 expressed in decimal form? 0.333333... repeating What is 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 ? 0.9999999... repeating

We can express the exact same equation in fractions as 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 3/3 = 1

David Soulodre - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@David Soulodre 0.3333... is always going to be an approximation - 1/3> 0.33333....just as 1>0.999.... ~= 1

Mike Orr - 5 years, 4 months ago

@David Soulodre https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--HdatJwbQY - Here is a proof that shows 0.99999... does not equal 1.

Darren Sonenstahl - 3 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

@Darren Sonenstahl There are viewers that point out where that argument is flawed.

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 9 months ago

@David Soulodre I can't stand seeing comments like yours and the fact that this site selling mathematical fallacies as truths. .9999.... will never be equal to one. Yes, when .9 goes on infinitely it approaches very close to one and can be considered as one but you have to use the squiggly equils sign (saying approximately one). Same thing goes when you try to decompose a decimal like .33333.... into a fraction. You can't say .333=1/3 because there is a rounding error. You can say .3333... approximately equals 1/3 and be considered as 1/3. And to break it down "simply" for you numbers are constants and .999... will never be equal to one. Thats like saying 9=10 only difference is the percent error.

Cave Head - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Cave Head Well, how about this? It is a known fact that all rational numbers can be expressed as decimals, and 1/3 is a rational number. So, what is the decimal equivalent of 1/3? It must be 0.3333.... repeating infinitely .

Siva Budaraju - 4 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

@Siva Budaraju 1/3 or 2/3 or 1x3 should be considered as calculatable equations not numbers

Volkan Tanju - 3 years, 10 months ago

@Danial Ali in the case above there is an infinite number of 9s, the cases you pointed out had finite numbers of 9. it is quite normal not to understand the concept of infinity, but if you ever did maclaurin series or taylor polynomials you would know that you can add up infinite numbers of things

Chaow Wu - 5 years, 4 months ago

@Danial Ali What you are actually doing is explicitly enumerating the last 10% of the ingredients that make up the number one, of which there are an infinite number. .9 repeating equals one on the real line. If we were discussing discrete mathematics, the kind that lives in computers I would agree with you. The irony is that the universe may not in fact be based on 'real' numbers but it is however a system we have devised.

Dann Schneider - 5 years, 4 months ago

@Danial Ali any number to the left of the decimal point represents a whole number, and any number to the right of the decimal point represents a part of a whole number. Under which rule of logic does a part of the whole represent a number equal to or greater than a whole number it is being compared to without that part of a number being added to a whole number that is equal to or greater than the whole number it is being compared to?

warin dmoak - 5 years, 4 months ago

@Danial Ali Ummm- yuppers!!!

Bob Bruck - 5 years, 4 months ago

Guillermo, you've glossed right over the controversy. I challenge you to use math to define 0.999... equalling one without using either the word "approaches", or any tool such as the limit tool which could be reduced to a form that uses the word "approaches" in its definition.

That's the controversy. When we say something "equals" something, do we mean that something "is" something, or that something "approaches" something? Or at the very least "evaluates to" something, since the value of the differential is indeed zero.

The differential here anyway does have some measurable properties. In this case, we are saying that between degrees, the value of the differential drops by a power of ten. And there is a very strong argument that anything with a measurable property, even if it does not have a value in some contexts, can not be treated as if it has a zero magnitude overall. For instance, if we were solving a differential equation that involved summing 1/10^i (where i means "index", not "imaginary"), and we set up a vector, we would have a nonzero eigenvalue for the vector.

The proper use of the equals operator is a purely semantic and arbitrary decision. Which, is why I called this a political problem and not a math problem. And that much, at least, I can prove.

Jessica Pennell - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Jessica Pennell have you read my solutions, only one solution? where am I wrong?

Guillermo Templado - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Guillermo Templado That's what I'm saying. You /are not/ wrong. You are completely right. It's just that there is another way to be /completely right/ and arrive at a different answer.

I don't know how to use latex here, but if we did just as a for instance, f(i) = f(i-1) + i/10 : i \ge 0 \wedge f(0) = 0

We could see, then, that it is never the case that f(n) = 1; f(n) is always less than 1. Again. Both of us used valid reasoning, we just arrived at different answers, because we were operating in different contexts.

Jessica Pennell - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Jessica Pennell 0,99999... is a limit, the aproximations, 0.9 , 0.99, 0.999 are another thing.

Guillermo Templado - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Guillermo Templado Guillermo, I think you are on the cusp of why this is controversial. "Is a limit" only makes sense to say if it's short for "is a limit of a function". The function in this case, 0.999... has to use the inputs we provided. Those inputs are "take a 0, then a series of 9s after the decimal". The series of 9s after the decimal /do/ follow the form - and these are /not/ approximations - 0.9, 0.09, 0.009.

The decision as to whether "..." should then include a diffential /after/ the series, is an arbitrary decision. However, I have just proved that the series itself /has to/ exist, and is /not/ an approximation or "another thing", if you are including "a limit" in your definition of what "..." should do.

Jessica Pennell - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Jessica Pennell And just to be clear. You are saying that "..." implies a limit. The people you are arguing with, on the other hand, are arguing that "..." can only be guaranteed to apply to a series. If you want to avoid controversy in any case, you have to say "0.999... approaches 1".

Jessica Pennell - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Jessica Pennell I'm not going to argue more. Think that you want

Guillermo Templado - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Guillermo Templado " I'm not going to argue more. Think that you want" is incredibly rude and dismissive :( I don't understand what I said or did to deserve that?

Jessica Pennell - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Jessica Pennell Sorry, I mean you are the only person who is able to find the solution. I can't help you more

Guillermo Templado - 5 years, 4 months ago

@Jessica Pennell It's a limit of a sequence not limit of a function. The sequence is a n = 0.9999999 (n times 9) a_{n} = 0.9999999 \text{ (n times 9)}

Guillermo Templado - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Guillermo Templado Guillermo, you are there :)

Before I go any further. The function I provided, mathematically, has to describe 0.999... and therefore what you just posted is merely a restatement of the function I provided. So since you are just restating what I said in another form, we'll be nice and use your form :)

Now. The controversy. Why is it a limit? Because you say so? If someone said, explicitly, that "..." was not a limit, and then provided the statement "for any finite real integer n, a at n is less than 1" as a proof that 0.999... was always less than 1, their proof would be correct in the context they described

In other words : whether 0.999 is equal to 1 or not is completely dependent on how we define the "..." operator.

Which is, itself, an arbitrary decision, which was to be shown.

Jessica Pennell - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Jessica Pennell bla, bla , bla

Guillermo Templado - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Guillermo Templado "bla, bla, bla" ? You aren't doing yourself or your position any favors in the eyes of any reasonable person who reads our exchange by being an asshole. I agree though, we're done discussing. I don't see this going anywhere. We've both stated our positions and neither of us will learn from the other.

Jessica Pennell - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Jessica Pennell Exactly , you make reason

Guillermo Templado - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Guillermo Templado Way to go. Not only are you missing the point, but you alienated the one person who had the patience to try and explain it to you in a reasonable fashion.

Tray Erwin - 5 years, 4 months ago

@Guillermo Templado Limits don't actually consider what happens AT the value in the limiting case, only what happens as the function APPROACHES said value. You could add another 9 behind the decimal until there are infinity of them, but 1 will still be greater. There's a zero out front for a reason.

Chase Fuller - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Chase Fuller Copying and pasting this everywhere here:

What is 1/3 expressed in decimal form? 0.333333... repeating What is 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 ? 0.9999999... repeating

We can express the exact same equation in fractions as 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 3/3 = 1

David Soulodre - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@David Soulodre Approximately

Cave Head - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Cave Head Well, how about this? It is a known fact that all rational numbers can be expressed as decimals, and 1/3 is a rational number. So, what is the decimal equivalent of 1/3? It must be 0.3333.... repeating infinitely.

Siva Budaraju - 4 years, 1 month ago

@Chase Fuller In the continuum of the real number line the limit is defined and the correct answer is .9 repeating does in fact equal one. The only way the answer listed is correct is if we are using rational numbers, however. 9 repeating isn't defined in the rational line therefore I'm forced to assume it's the real line and the answer is wrong.

Dann Schneider - 5 years, 4 months ago

In some professions such as lab tech o a machinist : .99999 cannot equal 1, if if did, things would not work

Patrick Dupuis - 5 years, 4 months ago

But what I learned was that 0.99999....has already added 9s forever. I also think of it as what can I add to 0.99999999.... to get 1 and there's nothing you can add because the 9s go on forever.

Christian C - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

Christian, while you're completely correct in your reasoning, the equally valid reasoning you are arguing against, is that the fact that it is impossible to complete the series 0.999... , since it goes on forever, and the fact that it is possible to complete the series 1, since 1 = 1.0 = 1.00 by the definition of a real number, we can't treat them as the same thing; we can only say that as you add more 9s, you get closer and closer to 1. The word that we can guarantee is proper for this situation is "approaches"

To put it simply, "0.999... approaches 1", everyone agrees that's the case. "0.999... is 1", is only the case if you look at the problem a certain way, and is not the case when you look at it the way I just described.

Or to put it even more simply, this is a blue dress / white dress thing.

Jessica Pennell - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Jessica Pennell I argue with the language you are using, and I don't think you quite grasp to concept of "infinity". You keep saying that that 0.999... (repeating) "approaches" 1. This is not strictly true. The sequence 0.999... only "approaches" 1 when the quantity of 9's after the decimal place "approaches" infinity. The question above implies that the quantity of 9's after the decimal place IS infinite, and therefore the only solution can be is that 0.999... (repeating infinitely) has the EXACT same value as 1. Two numbers are different, by definition, if they have a difference. The difference between 0.999... (repeating infinitely) and 1 is 0.000... (repeating infinitely) which, by definition, IS 0. So 0.999... = 1. People need to stop looking at this problem from a discrete mathematics point of view, and realise the it is a pure mathematical problem, and requires a proper understanding of infinity to truly understand it.

Bryce Paton - 4 years, 4 months ago

The solution uses the expression for the sum of infinite terms of a reducing GP. The expression is derived from the approximation of the binomial expansion. Thereby the answer of the expression is an approximation not the true answer.

Muthu Valliappan - 5 years, 4 months ago

Perfectly correct.

Mike Seebeck - 5 years, 4 months ago

I 100% agree

Kate Hashimoto - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

I only agree 99.999...% Wait! That's the same!

Chris Barton - 2 years, 9 months ago

I fully agree with you.

Jamal Kaizer - 5 years, 4 months ago

writing 0.999... is the same as saying 0 with an infinite number of 9's after the decimal (not the same as any quantifiable number of 9's). the very definition of infinite is "an unbounded quantity that is greater than every real number" (according to mathworld.wolfram.com).

Therefore, no real number exists between 0.999... and 1, where as there would be a number between 9 x 10^-n. You can not add more 9's to 0.999... but you can add more 9's to 9 x 10^-n

Stephen Ermshar - 5 years, 4 months ago

-Agreed. This is exactly what I was thinking

Anam Riaz - 3 years, 6 months ago

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Joshua Bowler - 3 years, 3 months ago

NOTE 1: if we multiply both sides with 100000000000000 then left hand side will be 100000000000000 and right side will be 99999999999999.99 and we can continue adding zeros with both the terms still left side is bigger than right hand side albeit bigger by negligible amount.

NOTE 2: 0.99999999999999 approaches 1 but it is not equal to one. on the other hand the left hand side number is 1. therefore, 1>0.9999999999999999999...

M. Ali Kemal - 5 years, 4 months ago

How is .9 repeating greater than one? .9 is a decimal, not a whole number. This is common since. It doesn't matter either way if its infinite or what, 1 will be greater than a decimal.

Tate Hawkins - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

0.999999... is not greater than 1;,,,,, 0.9999999... = 1

Guillermo Templado - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

0.99999 approximates to 1 but it does not EQUAL 1. COMMON SENSE DUDE.

Marcel Morin - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Marcel Morin Sorry but common sense won't cut it in this case, in that way it's similar to the Monty Hall problem.

It might take too long for me to describe the problem in full here, but basically it's this:

You're on a game show with three identical doors, one has a car behind it and the other two have goats. The host tells you to choose a door and you do. The host then opens one of the doors that you did not pick to show you a goat. The problem is as goes; should you change your chosen door to the other unopened one, or should you remain with your initially chosen door?

A: Always swap to the other door.

Your common sense should be telling you that it doesn't matter which door you choose as there's a 50% chance of either door having the car. As you might have guessed, this is not the case.

At the start you had a 1/3 chance to pick the correct door, it seems like you now have a 50/50 chance but you actually don't. Choosing the correct door at the start is only one out of 3 possible initial outcomes, and is the only initial outcome where switching looses as both other doors have goats no matter which door the host opened.

This shows us that in 2/3 chances you are more likely to win by switching your choice to the other door.

If you need more proof consult the wikipedia page

This proves that common sense has nothing to do with maths and often leads you to the wrong answer, as it does in the given 0.999... = 1 problem.

Aydan Heeley - 5 years, 4 months ago

@Marcel Morin THANK YOU MARCEL!!!! GEEZE

Bob Bruck - 5 years, 4 months ago

@Marcel Morin Copying and pasting this everywhere here:

What is 1/3 expressed in decimal form? 0.333333... repeating What is 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 ? 0.9999999... repeating

We can express the exact same equation in fractions as 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 3/3 = 1

David Soulodre - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@David Soulodre In real terms, 1/3 does not equal 0.33333... As we add more and more 3's, we may very well approach 1/3, but never actually achieve 1/3. In life, we may very well accept that for simplicity sake, but the actual equation you ascribe is wrong.

While we take 9 out to infinitum, we will continue to narrow the gap as we get closer and closer to one, but in real terms we will never get to 1. We have no concept of what infinity is, and after a while, it very well may be easier to round to 1, and only when we finally decide to round can we say that 1=.9999.....

At what point do we stop and actually declare that it is 1? That actually depends on what we are actually using the equation for?

Charles Means - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Charles Means The point at which we stop and declare that it is 1, is after an infinite number of repeating 9's. This takes an infinite amount of time. i.e. cannot be feasibly done. The beauty of mathematics (and the human mind) is that it (we) can consider (imagine) infinity and determine what occurs e.g. 1 = 0.9... (three 3 dots "ellipsis" means the 9's continue forever). We can't add extra 9's after 0.9... because it has already been done.

Leigh Thompson - 4 years, 3 months ago

How much can you add to .9 repeating to get 1? You can't answer that question because they are the same number. If they were different numbers, there would a difference between them. We accept .3 repeating as 1/3 and .6 repeating as 2/3, so .9 repeating is 3/3, or 1.

Jasleen Sidhu - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

1/3 a d 2/3 is only .3 and .6 repeating respectively because thats what the fraction divides out to be, 3/3 as logical or not as it may seem is 1, and only 1, because the rules state any fraction with the same number in the numerator as the denominator is equal to 1

Brady Daigle - 5 years, 4 months ago

There is an infinitely small number in between I.e. A=1x10E-i or lim x->i (i=infinitliy). I suck at maths but I know that you are wrong here.

Darko Sadžak - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

My first statement is proved.

Theorem.- If x, y are real numbers and x is distintc to y(for example x < y), then there exists z real number, such that x < z < y and z is distinct to x and y.

Proof.- x < x + y 2 \frac{x + y}{2} < y . ..

Guillermo Templado - 5 years, 4 months ago

"I know that you are wrong here" is not proof. Everything from the "but" onward could have been omitted.

Whitney Clark - 3 years, 5 months ago

That's only true when using surreal numbers. This site, (or question at least) does not use them

Jake Williams - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

No surreal numbers. Think about a segment that it's not a point, then the middle point is between them, and I'm not going to comment more. This is not nice...

Guillermo Templado - 5 years, 4 months ago

The Youtuber Vi Hart made two videos about why .999999... is equal to 1, and why it isn't. You should check them out.

Leo R - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

The video describing why it wasn't was an April fools joke.

Kayne Higgin - 4 years, 5 months ago

It's an infinite series, the sum of which is mathematically defined as 1. This reminds me of another question .. if you drop something from a height of 1 foot, at some point it will be at a height of 6 inches. Then 3 inches. Then 1.5 inches. And so on. If the height keeps dividing in half, how does it ever reach the ground?

Bill Glidden - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

It reach the ground because the height do not divide by half. I hate it when people twist a question to make it seems impossible. It does reach 6 inches, 3 inches and 1.5 inches but it did not reach there by dividing but by minus. And minus not equal to divide so it is possible to reach the ground because the question is misleading and wrong.

Weichen Laopeh - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

Division is just repeated subtraction i.e. 10 ÷ 2 can be interpreted as how many times can we subtract 2 from 10 until we reach 0. Similarly if an object is dropped at some time it will have travelled half the distance, at a later time it will have travelled half the remaining distance an so on ad finitum i.e. If the distance is d then d - (d ÷ 2) - (d ÷ 4) - (d ÷ 8) - (d ÷ 16) - … = 0 otherwise the object doesn't reach the ground.

Leigh Thompson - 4 years, 3 months ago

This is the famous paradox of Achilles and the hare.

Albert Kirsch - 3 years, 2 months ago

How is that possible because it cannot be true can it because i am a qualified maths Teacher and i do not think that answer to the question is correct.

Samuel Creed - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

I'm a qualified Mathematics teacher and 0.9… = 1 is true. Whether or not one is a qualified maths teacher does not alter the fact that 0.9… = 1.

Leigh Thompson - 4 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

I am an unqualified math tutor and the answer is correct. There are proofs.

Chris Barton - 2 years, 9 months ago

Never seen the first solution before. i like that one. Simple and easy to explain.

Edwin Arce - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

It does not work. It doesn't matter how small it is, there is a difference between point nine repeating and one, because point nine repeating is not a whole number, and one is. And, while 1/3 * 3 = 1, point three repeating times three is not equal to one, it is equal to point nine repeating. If you'd like, you can look at it this way; You have a ten by ten grid. that grid is equal to 1. All the squares on that grid are filled, except one in the corner. Is that still equal to one? The entire grid, when completely filled, is equal to one. But it isn't completely filled, there is one square empty. Or, that one square, is, in and of it self another 10 by 10 grid, this time equal to point one, and that grid is filled up save one square. And the square in that grid is another nearly full 10 by 10 grid equal to point zero one, again filled save one square, that square ANOTHER 10 by ten grid equal to point zero zero one, and so on and so forth for infinity. As long as there is that one square empty, or not entirely full, is the first grid that's equal to one full? as long as there is that infinitely small space in the grid that goes unfilled, it does not equal one. Therefore, there is no POSSIBLE way without rounding that point nine repeating could equal one. or I could just say as they are two differing real numbers there is literally no possible way for them to equal each other. There are three solutions proving those proofs incorrect. If I missed something, I apologize. Have a nice day. =)

Connor Uelmen - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

Its an infinite sequence, so the answer is actually one.

John Wang - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@John Wang Nope because you will always be 0.infinity+1 0s 1 away from one.

Allan Proudfoot - 5 years, 4 months ago

For 2 real nos. x and y we can have x<y or x=y or x>y...If I take x=0.9999... and y=1, we can certainly rule out the last possibility. Now if x=y we are implying that 1 can be divided into 3 parts perfectly which is obviously not the case. So the only possibility left is 0.999...<1. We can certainly use the idea of sum of an infinite G.P. to reach the conclusion that 0.999...=1, but we should keep in mind that this is only a limiting value, no matter how many 9's we add after the decimal the actual real no. that we obtain is always less than 1.

Krishna Jalan - 4 years, 3 months ago

It's sounds like say "the asymptote can be achieved". I don't agree, but I don't make the rules...

Rafael Martins - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

How about thinking "it can be achieved at infinity"? And yes I know that infinity is only a concept, not a number.

Margaret Zheng - 5 years, 1 month ago

That is as saying that when you run against Usain Bolt and let's assume he runs dubbel as fast as you, he will never pass you if you started 10m in front. As: 1) When he's at that 10m point, you are at 15m // 2) When he's at 15m, you are at 17.5 // etc. ... So "proof" that whenever he reaches the point you were, you are allready further away from it, so he never catch up ....

Well, if you agree with this statement, then and only then I agree with yours that 0.9999... = 1

Wouter Blondeel - 5 years, 4 months ago

While 0.999... does evaluate to 1, and the statement "1 > 0.999..." is indeed false for differentials that evaluate to 0, this is a political question, not a math question. The fact is, regardless which side of the debate you fall on - and whether we should say "0.999... approaches 1" or "0.999... is 1" is a controversial and open question - I think we can all agree most answers to this question are tragic missed opportunities to introduce the concept of differentials.

Jessica Pennell - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

The question doesn't state which numerical system we are working in thus there is no answer. For real numbers .9 repeating equals 1. I think this is the spirit the question was asked in even though it provides the incorrect answer. If we are dealing with rational numbers. 9 repeating doesn't formally exist but if we assume it'd an approximation then .9 repeating will always be less than one. This is a broken question and should be restated, it has nothing to do with politics like some people are asserting.

Dann Schneider - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

I stand corrected, I think your answer is the most correct and clearly stated of all the answers here

Jessica Pennell - 5 years, 4 months ago

NOW ITS A POLITICAL QUESTION- JESUS, MARY AND JOSEPH THIS IS GETTING ENTERTAINING. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bob Bruck - 5 years, 4 months ago

What exactly makes it "political"? If what you claimed is true, then that's all there is to it!

Whitney Clark - 3 years, 5 months ago

you say that there would be exist a real number x such that 0.9999.... < x < 1 ; yes, that number exists, but you can't find it because is a zero with infinites nine decimals; that number belongs to the irrational numbers. Personally I disagree with your point of view. Geetings Mr Templado.

carlos nino - 5 years, 4 months ago

While I agree that the limit tends to one, and I am fine with an arbitrary definition of that limit as the value, I suggest Xeno's paradox as a counter-argument. Instead of the hunter being only allowed to move halfway to the hare, the hunter is now allowed to move a larger fraction (.09, .009, .0009, etc.) of the way to the hare. But, as Xeno pointed out, the hunter still never catches the hare, because there is always just a little bit farther to go.

Al Konigsfeld - 4 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

Here's my counterargument to this: the hunter can catch the hare. Therefore .9+.09+.009+...=1

Zain Majumder - 3 years, 3 months ago

0.999... = 1 is true, given that our framework is the standard real numbers. If you begin to expand your definition of numbers to include infinitesimals, as with Conway's surreal numbers, then you might come to a different answer. Within that framework, you could interpret 0.999... to be 1-epsilon, which is a surreal number less than one, but greater than any real number less than one.

We could have a similar argument about whether parallel lines ever intersect. In euclidean geometry, they don't, but in non-euclidean geometry, they might. Mathematicians argued for years, and tried to prove that non-euclidean geometry answers were wrong, until finally they accepted it as another valid branch of geometry.

Brian Galebach - 4 years, 2 months ago

why did the problem became 9/10/1-1/10?

Padmanabha Katti - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

Look at this

Guillermo Templado - 5 years, 4 months ago

The inherent problem here is the number only approaches 1 infinitely. It will STILL be less than 1 no matter how many nines there are. Even an infinite number of significant digits wouldn't be enough. Broken question.

Andrew Matthews - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

Note quite a "broken question," but you can get different answers based on how you look at it. As far as theoretical math in the real number system is concerned, 0.9 repeating is exactly equal to 1.

David Soulodre - 5 years, 4 months ago

It will be enough because it is infinite.

Chris Barton - 2 years, 9 months ago

Correct. No further explanation needed.

Mike Seebeck - 5 years, 4 months ago

Try again. Learn limits. The correct answer is true, not false.

Mike Seebeck - 5 years, 4 months ago

When is now? Now is a single point in time between the past and the future that by the time you begin to perceive now it is already past inasmuch as 0.999999_ will NEVER quite = 1.

edward cunningham - 5 years, 4 months ago

Dear Guillermo, what about this then :

if 0.99999999.... + 1/100000... = 1 and if 0.9999999 = 1 then 1/1000000... = 0 then 100000.... x 1/100000.... = 0 then 1 = 0

Wouter Blondeel - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

× 0 \infty \times 0 is an indetermination

Guillermo Templado - 5 years, 4 months ago

You do not know the value of × 0 \infty \times 0 Because there are infinitely many zeros, 1/10000... is one over infinity, or zero. So yes, if 0.9999 = 1 and 1/100000...= 0 then 1 + 0 = 1. That is all you have proven here.

David Soulodre - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

Talking about infinity isn't needed , just replace 100000... by "a". then a x 1/a = 1 while when you say 1/10000... = 0 and then 10000.... x 1/10000... = 0

Wouter Blondeel - 5 years, 4 months ago

idk i had this explained to me in a much simpler way 1/3=0.33... 2/3=0.66... then 3/3=0.99... but 3/3 also equals 1 therefore 0.99...=1?

Peter Wang - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

The problem with using fractions to prove this is that 0.33 repeating has to be approximated and so it really isn't an exact answer. Using it in a proof isn't accurate either.

Chris Cheek - 4 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

You may write it as approximated, but it is not approximated. It is infinite.

Chris Barton - 2 years, 9 months ago

This is based on the fallacy that 1/3=0.33 and is wrong to begin with. 1/3 is close to 0.33 but not equal.

Laurie Morris - 2 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

Not 0.33, but 0.333333... with the 3s going on forever.

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 2 months ago

Oh my God .....My Teacher taught me wrong ..I have been studying wrong Math these all years..I thought there would be 0.000001 difference at last

Yathirajam Giridhar Goutham - 5 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

Except the 9s go on forever.

Whitney Clark - 3 years, 5 months ago

What a discussion this turned out to be

Hung Woei Neoh - 5 years, 2 months ago

You're not right in your fourth step: in fact, every number has 2 distinct decimal representations, this happens in any base in which we are working, even in non-integer bases.

Mateo Matijasevick - 5 years ago

It is a consequence of the base-10 number system. In base 3: 1/3 = 0.1 2/3 = 0.2 3/3 = 1 Every base will give rise to repeating decimals for rational numbers; they're just different for each base.

Albert Kirsch - 4 years, 6 months ago

What if we consider a hyperreal numberline?

Nicholas Patrick - 4 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

Then perhaps the answer is wrong. Similarly, if we allow complex numbers, then x² + 1 = 0 has a solution, but if x is real, will always be positive.

Whitney Clark - 3 years, 5 months ago

It doesn't matter how many approximations you put in your equations 0.9 repeating can not equal one because it never reaches it.

Chris Cheek - 4 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

It does at infinity

Leigh Thompson - 4 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

Then I suggest that you show infinity and what it is equal to and I will believe your proof...

Chris Cheek - 3 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

@Chris Cheek You can't, Chris. Infinity is infinite.

Chris Barton - 2 years, 9 months ago

The reasoning behind why 1=0.999... being equal is fine. I guess my question would be why would you ever need to write 0.9999... when you could just write 1. The example everyone keeps giving is also asinine 0.333..., why not just write 1/3. The only reason a calculator/computer does it that way is because it doesn't have a choice. The real question why is this alternate way of writing it even necessary?

Josiah McDonald - 4 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

Josiah, how would you calculate 1/3 + 0.514362751 ? (hint: I recommend converting the fraction to a decimal)

Chris Barton - 2 years, 9 months ago

This is grade school math and that means any number lower than one is in decimal or fractional notation. Therfore 1 is > any decimal or fraction that does not exceed 1 (for fractions the numerator would be greater than the denominator). Math is absolute and unchangeable 1>.999... and so on.

x0xKalipsox0x Paisley - 4 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

Where do you get the idea "[m]ath is absolute and unchangeable"?

As far as I can tell, all of mathematics is a human-created invention--following certain internal realities, but still a product of the same brilliant imaginations that brought you religious doctrines and literary epics. Much like a machine built by human ingenuity, it must follow its own limitations and rules of operation; but these are dependent upon how we built it and how well we understand the reality we operate it within.

Do not, however, mistake mathematics (or any analytic system) for anything more than a crude tool fashioned to illuminate something of the existence outside ourselves...no different or infallible than the other myths and legends before it.

Joshua Nesseth - 4 years, 4 months ago

Here's my problem with it. Mathematically you can work it to equal one. But just as .999... has an infinite number of 9s, 1.000... has an infinite number of zeros, and no matter how far out you go, in direct comparison, the two never meet at a same digit, and 1.00... will always be the larger value than 0.99...

Andy Graham - 4 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

What's the difference between the two numbers? What is 1 - 0.999999..., where the 9s go on forever?

Whitney Clark - 3 years, 5 months ago

you are wrong.

Ethan Nicholl - 4 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

Exactly what was wrong?

Whitney Clark - 3 years, 5 months ago

The given solution is correct. 0.99999...=1. To prove, consider the (uncontroversial) proof that 0.33333...=1/3. Let x=0.3333333..., then 10x=3.333333.... Therefore, subtracting, 9x=3 hence x=1/3.

Now just change the 3's to 9's above. This leads to 9x=9 which inplies x=1

Sean Tremba - 4 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

Sorry... just got the problem tonight... but math doesn't imply... math answers in fact... implication is a human answer... twist things long enough you can imply almost anything... and .999999 is only almost 1... to imply anything different would be to try and twist the facts... infinity is only any answer... not a solution

Michael Gregg - 3 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

No, 0.999... is infinite so it isn't almost 1, it is the same as 1.

Chris Barton - 2 years, 9 months ago

In addition your assumption of 1/3 is in itself incorrect (and certainly not uncontroversial, you are using an approximation as an equal to. This isn't true.

Chris Cheek - 3 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

0.33333 does not exactly equal one third. It is the same thing as saying that 3 is one third of 10.

Laurie Morris - 2 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

@Laurie Morris Sorry. The same as saying that 3.3333 is one third of 10.

Laurie Morris - 2 years, 5 months ago

Your very statement "......consider the (uncontroversial) proof that 0.33333...=1/3........" is dead wrong. 1/3 is a unique real number that exists between 0 and 1. It can only be expressed as an approximation in the decimal system. 1/3 certainly does not = 0.333333333333333.......... and will always be the larger number.

Don Rowan - 3 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

Get a gun and shoot it to you... 1/3 is an unique real number that... hahaha, don't make me laugh, do you know that there are 1 \aleph_{1} an uncontable number of reals numbers between 0 and 1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDZtbBZuqb0

Guillermo Templado - 3 years, 2 months ago

The problem is, the 3s go on forever, so they are the same.

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 9 months ago

yes, 1/3 does equal 0.333.....

Chris Barton - 2 years, 9 months ago

I feel that in all your answers there are a lot of conceptual errors. We definitely don't know about infinity, and you have assumed that 0.999999999... exists. You definitely can't apply the rules of simple algebra when dealing with something relating to infinity in any way(try reading more about Ramanujan's 1+2+3+.....=-1/12). Like, you should check again on the proof you gave by considering an infinite GP, whenever we sum an infinite GP, we never say that the sum is exactly equal to what the formula gave us but that it approaches that sum(you can read about this anywhere and you'll get a anonymous answer). There are similar errors in all parts, as I said earlier, conceptual errors. Though, I must emphasize that this is what I have learnt so far, and I definitely don't know everything, so I am pretty much neutral in this argument and would love to learn something new if I can, provided it is undoubtedly correct though.

Priyank Modi - 3 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

hmm, if we "definitely don't know about infinity" then i wonder how you work with ALL other numbers, like 1.0, because it have infinitely many zeroes at the and, do you assume 1.0 exists?

Braincracker Kochal - 2 years, 4 months ago

I can't see 1 being so obvious. I mean: I see it's not a trivial fact, that no number exists between .99999... and 1. I suppose that, just for The sake of completeness I would.like tó see a proof "reductio ad absurdum" type. kind of Let x be such a number .9999...<x<1. And then, deduce some contradiction...

Jose Torres Zapata - 3 years, 10 months ago

Wrong! It doesn't matter what abstract justification you want to come up with, 0.999... will never be 1, your starting argument is incorrect, since you can always add more 9s at the of the series to find a real number x such that 0.999.. < x < 1.

Mariano Gomez Bent - 3 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

Except the 9s go on forever. What could possibly come between point infinite nines and the number one? What is greater than infinity?

Whitney Clark - 3 years, 5 months ago

1) What is an asymptote? Approach but never reach. This is your 0.999... - not equal but "infinitely close" 2) In a base 10 system, any time you use a decimal point, the value will be less than one, no matter the number of decimal places you want to use. Thus, 0.333... is the base 10 representation of 1/3, a base 3 value.
3) An ad hominem attack doesn't give a better argument. Smart people can disagree without being disagreeable.

Doug Martin - 3 years, 10 months ago

Your explanation and reasoning sucks. 1 > 0.9999.. ALWAYS.

Michael Schore - 3 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

What is wrong with the reasoning? "Sucks" is not mathematical.

Whitney Clark - 3 years, 5 months ago

Michael, I am afraid that your explanation and reasoning sucks. 1 does equal 0.99999..... ALWAYS.

Chris Barton - 2 years, 9 months ago

Hey!

Do you know that no two rational numbers are consecutive? They'll surely have atleast one irrational number between them which disproves your first explanation.

The infinite series expansion is an approximation. (2nd one)

For 3rd and 4th, you cannot always use such multiplications for infinite series as these are not valid always. It may lead ypu to misleading results...

Yash Soni - 3 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

If no two rational numbers are consecutive, and there are no irrational numbers between 1 and 0.999.... then 1 and 0.999.... must be the same number.

Badda Bing!

Chris Barton - 2 years, 9 months ago

Using a practical situation, on a 1 yard wide table, starting at the left edge, I just rolled a marble to the right .999999...9 yard. Did it fall off the table? If not, 1 > .99999999999999999999.

Ralph Vitale - 3 years, 10 months ago

To all people who were wrong like me. if 1 > 0.99999... then 1-0.99999... = x Then what is the value of x ? Do you agree it's 0.0000... so 0 ?

Депіз Лоцвеят - 3 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

thechnicàly, it is 0,0(p+1)1

Dany Boudreault-Desbiens - 2 years, 7 months ago

From the geometric perspective can be explained in the asymptotic curve. Even in calculus as well, through limits and continuity, we call it for every x tends to 1 (blah blah), not x=1. When we say x--> 1, it means x can be 0.99999999...., the solution can be approximated as 1. It is actually a polemical issue when the limit goes to infinity. There is no such thing as infinity as we can only think in terms of finite numbers, not infinity. There is no such thing as infinity exists as long as there is a finite value nearby exists..For example, in logarithms, until the domain becomes 0, we cant conclude the function's value infinity. If the domain is 0.00000....1, then we can only say the function tends to infinity, which can be approximated as infinity. The usage of the word impossible for the solution 1 was incorrect as it is indeterminate. The intermediate value would always end up with 1 placed one digit after the last 9. As we do not know where the last 9 goes, the intermediate value if always indeterminate, but not impossible. The solution 2 sounds really illogical to conclude with an absolute statement. One has to understand, Tyler's series of expansions are on the basis of asymptotic nature of the graphs, which means, they always tend to one value, which does not mean they reach out to that value. I don't have to talk about solution 3 at all. The solution goes on the lines with the representation, still one has to assume the 0.99999999..... would somehow after infinity digits, would become 1. We can only see the trend, but we can never see it becoming 1, as it is after infinity digits, it itself says, as the number of digits is indeterminate, we have to agree that 1>0.9999999....

Pranav Thoutam - 3 years, 7 months ago

1 is more than 0.99999999....... for all the reasons listed in the comments. The sort of mathematical nonsense exhibited by the "proofs" of those who say it is not is why so many students today are turned off by math and are convinced it takes some kind of special brain to do math.

Bud McGuire - 3 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

What do you mean? Math is not nonsense.

Whitney Clark - 3 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

Bud, maybe it does take some kind of special brain to understand the proofs.

Chris Barton - 2 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

@Chris Barton You mean like a logical one?

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 2 months ago

For solution 1, lets assume only integers exist in the world. I know this is a terrible assumption, but lets do it for the fact that it is true. Therefore by your definitions 2=1, as there is no number that exists between 1 and 2, which means we can assume that 1 is 2.

Scott Wagner - 3 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

But you can't just assume that only integers exist!

1.5 is between 1 and 2, so 1≠2.

However, 0.99.... and 1 have no real number in between them, so they are equal!

Siva Budaraju - 3 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

mnb ymhnb mnb hn b tvgf,kb hnb hn (me bashing my head on the keybord) 1>.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999.....=true

Joshua Bowler - 3 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

@Joshua Bowler No, the nines go on FOREVER. That's what the ellipsis means.

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 9 months ago

This is so wrong on so many levels.

Martin Brause - 3 years, 3 months ago

Your premise here is flawed. You propose 1 as a theorem to prove your case but that is only valid for real numbers and 0.9999999999... is not real. If it were real then 4 conflicts as this would require >1 decimal representation ergo it disproves your hypothesis by virtue of contradiction.

Craig Mitchell - 3 years, 5 months ago

The numbers are only equal if we approach infinity, which is impossible and hence these are not equal.

Moonzarin Esha - 3 years, 5 months ago

What a joke. How condescending to say “it’s ok, getting stumped is part of Learning”. WOW. Respect has been lost today.

Kelsey Kochan - 3 years, 4 months ago

So I suppose the problem here is the assumption of those in favor for the statement being false that 0.9p (p means period) is a real number, hence the axioms for real numbers apply. However i feel 0.9p is a transcendental number like pi for instance. Also there is something called the "Dichtheit der reelen Zahlen"(basically meaning the real numbers are a continuum), so even if 0.9p would be a real number , we could always find a number inbetween it and 1 hence making 0.9p < 1.

And if I daresay so myself , apply negative pressure you dogs of a female persuasion

Benjamin Ölke - 3 years, 4 months ago

1-0.9999999..... is a number that by definition is both smaller than 1 hence the subtraction from and at the same time larger than 0.999999..... regardless of the number of nines so the proof actually holds 0.99999..... <1-0.9999999..... <1 so 1>0.999999......

Brandon Choate - 3 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

Make the substraction untill infinite and beyond

Guillermo Templado - 3 years, 3 months ago

Same logic as "2-2..... is a number that by definition is both smaller than 2 hence the subtraction from and at the same time larger than 2. Regardless of the number of nines so the proof actually holds 2 <2-2 <2 so 2>2 ." Seems legit.

Orlando Moreno - 2 years, 5 months ago

Bullshit. 1>.999999999999. Not even debatable

Tom Tumath - 3 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

No, it was a number where the 9s go on forever.

Whitney Clark - 3 years, 1 month ago

Tom, it is not only debatable, it is in fact mathematically provable. Just because you do not know a proof does not mean you are correct.

Chris Barton - 2 years, 9 months ago

All it seems you have done is disprove the theorem, not prove the equivalence.

Patrick McDonald - 3 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

How do you mean?

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 9 months ago

1/3 has no real decimal representation

Joshua Bowler - 3 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

...in base 10. In base 3 it is 0.1

Albert Kirsch - 3 years, 2 months ago

Yes it does, it just goes on forever.

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 9 months ago

This is where proper use of and application of terms and syntax is important. Obviously, .9999999999999.... is 1. I don't think there is much debate. The issue revolves around deception -the use of the of limit definition as lim x-> infinity would clarify what is being said. Basically, 0.9999... is not robust or specific -its lazy.

John Piccolo - 3 years, 2 months ago

Just because something is not between two numbers doesn't mean that they are not distinct. Consider the following set: [1,2,3] Sure, 3 is indeed distinct to 1 as 2 is in-between 1 and 3. But 2 is also distinct to 1, despite the fact that there is no integer between these two numbers. Hence, the fact that 0.99999...=1 cannot be proven simply by saying there is no number between these two numbers. Hence the first proof is invalid. I have no qualms about the algebraic proofs.

Maksim Lisau - 3 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

The proof works for the reals because the reals are dense. There is always another real number between two distinct real numbers (rationals too). Natural numbers don't have this property.

Orlando Moreno - 2 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

The problem remains, though, that it DOESN'T prove there is not a number between the two values. If we are to take the asymptotic view, the value comes perpetually closer to 1--however, the limit of a value is a bounding operation, not an ontological property.

Moreover, doesn't one first have to prove that 0.999... is even in the reals?

Joshua Nesseth - 2 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

@Joshua Nesseth What reason do you have to believe otherwise?

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 2 months ago

So keeping this in mind you would say that 2<1.99999999...? And so on. And eventually you would say that: infinity<than the biggest number.9999...? Nice logic you got but you got the answer wrong. 1>0.999...

Slobodan Ivkovic - 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

No, 2=1.9999999.... How did you come up with that 2 is less? Or that it would seem that way?

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

What you said.

Chris Barton - 2 years, 9 months ago

If x = 0.9999...., does 1-x = 0.11111..... If so, then if x=1 , then 1-1 = 0.1111......

Jim Graham - 2 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

No. Why should 1-x = 0.1111...? Check that by adding the columns.

Whitney Clark - 2 years, 9 months ago

It would be more like "If x = 0.9999...., does 1-x = 0.00000.....1 If so, then if x=1 , then 1-1 = 0.0000.......1"

Marcelo Rojas - 2 years, 7 months ago

If the given solution is true, then 4 - 3 = 0.99999..... And 1x3 = 2.99999....
And 1 - 1 = 0.0000.....1

Terry Moseley - 2 years, 9 months ago

I posit this is relatively correct, with the exception of #3.

9.9 repeating - .9 repeating would equal 9, not 9.9999 or you have not subtracted anything.

Mike T - 2 years, 8 months ago

The debate involves the comprehension of infinity that is beyond the ability of a finite brain.

Geoffrey Beresford Hartwell - 2 years, 6 months ago

Let me give you another one - .999 repeating can also be expressed as a solution of an equation for x as f(x) approaches 1. The space between the parabolic curve of the answer set and the value f(x)=1 may become infinitesimally small, but if 1 is the limit of the exponential curve, it is never actually a valid answer of the describing equation. .999 repeating cannot be equal to 1 because geometry does not allow it.

Tim Druck - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

haha, what are you saying?

Guillermo Templado - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

What I'm saying is that the irrational number .999~ is best expressed as the solution to an exponential equation where the solution set approaches 1 - think of it in terms of the expression of a parabolic or other exponential curve where the slope approaches infinity as the solution set approaches 1. No matter how far you extend the curve, or the axis representing the value x=1, the curve and the axis never intersect, they only become infinitely closer and closer as the function is extended in relation to the Y-axis. This is simple 11th-grade Precalculus.

Tim Druck - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Tim Druck Ok, I now understand you. What happens at the infinite between the slope or assymptote and the curve? well, it's what happening here.

Guillermo Templado - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Guillermo Templado There's nothing happening at the infinite because..... It's infinite. You will never reach it. That's the whole concept of infinite, it is never ending. Also your examples of limits, those just reinforce that they are not equal. 1 is the limit, it will never reach it. It will become exponentially close, but we're not looking for close.

Tom Koska - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Tom Koska This is correct. Just as numbers can be infinitely large, differences can be infinitely small. My background is in reactor physics - I'm a graduate of Navy Nuclear Power School. I can assure you that those very tiny numbers mean a lot when you're calculating mass-energy conversion. 1/1M is a huge number when you multiply it by the square of the speed of light.

Tim Druck - 5 years, 4 months ago

@Tim Druck A parabola is not an exponential function, it is a 2nd degree function. Beyond that though, if you set the asymptote on your function to be 1 then you have set the problem up to give the answer you want. Looking at this problem on a parabolic or exponential function is not valid proof. It can be looked at with simple arithmetic, or a summation with infinite terms.

David Soulodre - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@David Soulodre Arithmetic is even simpler. .999~ cannot be 1 because it's simply not. 1 is a rational number, .999~ is not. Not to mention that the summation (or difference, which is just a negative summation) of two numbers that results in an irrational number will never simply become the rational quotient simply because it extends into infinity. Again, the difference is infinitesimally small. Or, to say it simply, the asymptote cannot be achieved.

Tim Druck - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Tim Druck All of 0.1111..., 0.2222..., 0.3333..., etc. are rational, so why not 0.9999...?

Whitney Clark - 3 years, 5 months ago

u r saying 2=1

Engr M Umar Sajjad Awan - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

u r saying 1>1

Alex Zhang - 5 years, 4 months ago

Um, 1 is greater than any decimals, please fix your problem, your equation is much harder than it needs to be, 1 is larger than .8 or .9 or whatnot no matter how long it repeats. The starting number is zero then continues with extra parts, it will never make a full one unless you round. Chill peeps.

Arabella Durby - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

You weren't burdened with an abundance of schooling, were you?

David Soulodre - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

Sorry , I didn't know where else to put this , but I agree with her , why complicate things up? I wouldnt say its common sense but It is as simple as it gets and there's no need to use any formulas that has been used here , there's a question is 1> 0.999recurring ? and you simply look at the 0.999recurring and then wait , we see this is simply 0.something and without question it is known to every one who did math in school or people who dedicate their time and effort into becoming experienced in the subject that 0.something no matter even if its a .9 recurring to infinity or not ,will always be less than one , always due to the fact that the 0 is in front of the point , if you all still disagree then I have no simpler way to put it. And just to point it out, the very mention of the words politics reminded me of something I believe in , not just blindly believe , its proven , always remember that politics , law , math , science etc. Basically rules were all created by humans , and humans make mistakes , its seen in law and politics the most , I wouldn't be surprised if it was in maths as well which leads you to believe that .9 recurring is equal to one , and a word of encouragement to everyone is don't be afraid of going against certain rules , if you notice a problem in it or its not just quiet right then try and change it , rules was not carved in this holy stone which we can't dare to interfere with when we were first born here , remember , humans prone to making mistakes , others have to identify and correct it

sachin rambirith - 5 years, 4 months ago

I'm just curious what "abundance" of schooling you had that you are:

a) willing to be so dismissively rude to someone with a cogent response; &

b) willing to simply discount an idea off-hand without offering any proof to the contrary.

Whatever schooling you had, I would look for more--it obviously wasn't enough to introduce you properly to maths OR manners.

Joshua Nesseth - 4 years, 2 months ago

If you know that 0.9999999... + 1/100000... = 1 and if you state that 0.9999999... = 1 Then you state that 1/10000000 = 0 So 1000000... x 1/100000.... = 0 So 1=0 What about that ??

Wouter Blondeel - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

I'm surprised noone has refuted you yet! [Not really--they have no refutation. It's the curse of poorly-proven theorems...]

Joshua Nesseth - 4 years, 2 months ago

You can't just multiply by infinity and divide by infinity at leisure. That's like saying 1 = 0 because 1•0 = 0•0 and the 0's cancel. Just like you can't divide by 0, you can't multiply and divide by infinity.

Siva Budaraju - 4 years, 1 month ago

1) Why is it impossible that x s.t. ( 0. 9 x < 1 ) \exists x \text{ s.t. } (0.\overline{9} \, \leq \, x \, < \, 1) ? [Also, why must x 0. 9 x \neq 0.\overline{9} ?]

[If you are, as I assume, invoking the sandwich theorem, you would be assuming ahead of time that 0. 9 = 9 [ n = 0 1 1 0 n + 1 ] = 1 0.\overline{9} \: = \: 9[\displaystyle\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \, \frac{1}{10^{n+1}}] \: = \: 1 --an assertion that may, in fact, be true; but one which you must prove BEFORE you assert it, lest you merely beg the question.]

 ___________

2) You have proven that the infinite sum converges to this value, but not that the number (as written--i.e. 0. 9 0.\overline{9} ) is actually equivalent to the infinite sum you use to cite convergence ( 9 [ n = 0 1 1 0 n + 1 ] 9[\displaystyle\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \, \frac{1}{10^{n+1}}] (nor, again, do you offer a rigorous proof of the admittedly valid convergence of this infinite sum).

[I do realise the assumption underlying this is that you can simply "rewrite" 0. 9 0.\overline{9} as the infinite sum, but I would argue that these two objects have very different ontologies--specifically, one is a representation of a (possibly irrational) number, while the other is a(n, again, admittedly convergent) infinite sum. You must furnish proof of their equivalence BEFORE you assert the equivalence of both values to another independent value.]

 ___________

3) The algebra in this is not (necessarily) valid, as you are multiplying a(n, again, possibly) irrational number by 10 (since we are not assuming, a priori, that 0. 9 0.\overline{9} is able to be written as a ratio).

If we assume only that x = 0. 9 = y x \: = \: 0.\overline{9} \: = y , we find we can only prove x = y x \: = \: y .

If we assume (problematically, of course) that x = 9 [ n = 0 1 1 0 n + 1 ] x \: = \: 9[\displaystyle\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \, \frac{1}{10^{n+1}}] , the algebra simplifies only back to the original value of 9 [ n = 0 1 1 0 n + 1 ] 9[\displaystyle\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \, \frac{1}{10^{n+1}}] .

[Basically, while the algebra APPEARS to be accurate, you are substituting (without justification) one distinct value for another--here 10 ( 0. 9 ) 10(0.\overline{9}) for 9. 9 9.\overline{9} . While this SEEMS to work for other values of repeating single decimals (e.g. 10 ( 0. 6 ) = 6. 6 10(0.\overline{6}) \: = \: 6.\overline{6} ), this is only valid because the underlying ratio-based math still holds (using the above example, 10 ( 6 9 ) = 60 9 = 6. 6 10(\frac{6}{9}) \: = \: \frac{60}{9} \: = \: 6.\overline{6} ), something that CANNOT be said (at least without justification) for 10 ( 0. 9 ) 10(0.\overline{9}) , which (as mentioned above) cannot be assumed (beforehand, at least) to be equal to 9 9 \frac{9}{9} (as this would merely be, again, begging the question).]

 ___________

4) You assume 0. 9 Q 0.\overline{9} \, \in \, \mathbb{Q} ; again, an assumption I am not saying is invalid, only which requires evidentiary support beyond its a priori assumption (which would merely be begging the question).

[Specifically, I am asking for the proof (apart from the conventionally assumed maxim that all repeating decimals are Rational Numbers) that 0. 9 0.\overline{9} DOES present itself in a simplified ratio form. Furthermore, the assertion that all repeating decimals are alike is, likewise, not backed up by evidence--only by vague similarity in structure. (Also, cf. #3)]

Joshua Nesseth - 4 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

Though I am not quite sure what was going through my mind, I ended up writing "real" where I meant "rational" in the above post. I have since tried to fix the mistakes, but in case I missed one or two...

[The intent should be clear, but it is never safe to assume]

Joshua Nesseth - 4 years, 6 months ago

This is horseshit. If it's not equal to, it must be either greater than or less than. No matter how many nines you put behind that decimal, it is not equal to, and clearly not greater than. I'm astounded by the crap questions I'm getting lately.

Andrew Mullen - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

What if the nines are infinite in number? Not a million or a googol, but infinity. How, then, would 1 be greater? What would the difference be?

Whitney Clark - 3 years, 5 months ago
Saud Fatayerji
Feb 7, 2016

1/9 = 0.11111111...
2/9 = 0.22222222...
...
8/9 = 0.88888888...
Therefore
9/9 = 0.99999999...
But also
9/9 = 1

This was the only one that made sense to me

Mahatma Gandhi - 4 years, 2 months ago

Simplest and cleanest proof for this problem.

Leo Tamburro - 4 years, 5 months ago

I personally think that this solution is invalid (I don't refute the premise).

Aaron Condron - 3 years, 7 months ago

9/9 can never be equal to 0.9999999...

Dan Dovey - 3 years, 3 months ago
Rishi Gangadhar
Feb 15, 2016

We know that 1/3 = 0.3333... and hence (1/3) 3 = 0.99999.....
But, (1/3)
3 = 1. Therefore, 1= 0.999999999....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--HdatJwbQY - This shows why 0.999... does not equal 1.

Darren Sonenstahl - 3 years, 9 months ago

Part 2 of why 0.999... does not equal 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSlS2xE8rH8

Darren Sonenstahl - 3 years, 9 months ago
Jack Murphy
Feb 6, 2016

What you have to realize is something that is conceptually difficult for many people. The number 0. 9 0.\overline{9} consists of an infinite number of digits after the decimal place. It can not be said the "another nine can always be added" because that would assume the sequence is terminated. There is no number between 0. 9 0.\overline{9} and 1. For an even crazier proof, look up the sum of all real numbers. You will find that i = 1 3 = 1 / 12 \displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^3 = -1/12 This is an actual proof and has many physical applications. It is not comprehendable and is extremely counterintuitive, but we know it to be true.

actually the sum is not equal, it's just extremely related to -1/12

Allen Chen - 4 years, 3 months ago

The sum of all real numbers is obviously not -1/12, they screwed up somewhere. By definition, if a n>0 for all n, sum of a n for n=1 to max of n is positive.

Aaron Condron - 3 years, 7 months ago

It's not equal. In fact, the sum is a divergent series. However mathematicians have used Zeta Function Regulation to show "mathematically" that this is = -1/12

Rick Zhou - 3 years, 5 months ago

What you wrote only means the sum of the first 3 i’s and there is no operation. I think you should check your sigma notation rules. Also, these are not really related. One is a simple proof that shows two different representations of the same number. The other is a widely misunderstood concept of physical infinity. The sum of all natural numbers is closely related to -1/12 as shown in many physics examples, but the numberphile proof is a trick and they are leading you to a false conclusion. They assume that the series 1, 0, 1, 0 is convergent at 1/2 when it doesn’t converge at all. It certainly is a cool concept, but you need to learn a little more before chastising people about what is conceptually difficult.

massimo 22 - 3 years, 4 months ago

as it is written there it makes no sense. only the sum sign without any content (that should be in terms of i) makes no sense. so I can't say for sur if you are right or not as you missed to write some parts.

Denis Schüle - 3 years ago

You were doing so well until you said the sum of the naturals equals =-1/12

This is an obviously divergent sum but can be associated with the value -1/12. You cannot say it is the value of the sum though.

Hywel Normington - 2 years, 7 months ago

Isn't that proof nuts? I . . . can't understand it - I guess it is good I can't understand it because If I were able to I'd be psychotic. (I think you wanted your upper number to be infinity, not 3, by the way)

Matthew P - 5 years, 4 months ago
Fellian Tsuyoshi
Feb 7, 2016

let x=0.99999...

and 10x=9.999999...

If we subtract these two then 9x=9

And then divide by 9: x=1

Therefore 1 = 0.9999... and is not greater than 0.9999...

No if you substract 9.9999... - 0.99999... you got epsilon. Because multiplying by 10 is deleting one 9 after the coma.

Olivier Lancien - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

That would be correct if there was a finite number of 9s

Fellian Tsuyoshi - 5 years, 4 months ago

Wouldn't .99999... * 9 = 9.9999...1?

Tim Robison - 3 years, 9 months ago
Lorin Mueller
Mar 20, 2018

Forgive my ignorance. Is this a problem that could be simultaneously answered either way? One of the proofs said there had to be a number that you could add to 0.9999.... to make it equal to one, otherwise there was no difference. Wouldn't that number (or expression) be . 1 .1^\infty ?

In other words 0.9999... + . 1 = 1 0.9999... + .1^\infty = 1 therefor 1 > .9999.... ?

It just seems to me that this is an expression that is neither true nor false. It can exist as both true and false based on the perspective one takes.

If you add 0 to any number it is obviously still the same number :) In your case the “ 0.1^inf” is something that when taking the limit becomes 0

christopher Gölles - 2 years, 10 months ago

EDIT: just see this video https://brilliant.org/wiki/is-0999-equal-1/ try to answer it. what is inbetween 0.999... and 1. you cant. you cant add another 9. there is no digit inbetween 9 and 10. I mean 9 and 0. modular arithmetic. has nothing to do with it.

@Lorin Mueller I mostly agree. 0.999... and .1^∞ both exist, but their values are indiscernible from 1 and 0 respectively. Only, .1^x approaches 0 for all x<∞ and ∞ gets to break rules like things equal what they were approaching. Because why? Because well IDK I might even be wrong but there was otehr better sollutions that dont involve saying that ∞ breaks rules real numbers have to follow.

also, 1/0 = ±∞ if you're not doing limit calculus. people just say it doesn't because it breaks the notion of function notation (no more than 1 y-value for each x-value). You know what else does? √4 = ±2 but that's clearly true.

Also, see my solution pls!

chase marangu - 2 years, 6 months ago
Frank Giordano
Oct 27, 2016

as long as time exists, this will be false !!!

Sorry. May I know what YOU SAID!

Mohammad Farhat - 2 years, 10 months ago

i don't understand what you're asking, i just wrote something, didn't say anything. what i wrote is "as long as time exists, this will be false !!!". of course if time was never invented to explain our existence, Math would be moot lol

Frank Giordano - 2 years, 9 months ago
Albert Kirsch
Apr 4, 2017

This business of repeating decimals is an artifact of the number system. Consider base 10: 1/3 = 0.3333...., 2/3 = 0.666666..... and 3/3 = 0.9999999..... But in base 3, 1/3 = 0.1, 2/3 = 0.2, and 3/3 = 1.0 and the whole problem disappears. No need for fancy proofs once you realize that choosing a different base makes the problem evaporate (though it now makes repeating decimals out of other fractions, but the same argument applies. These are artifacts, nothing more.)

This. People seem to find trouble with this statement because they don't realise that 0.9... is just another way to represent 1 in base 10. The fact that values have more than one possible representation shouldn't be so troublesome.

Javier S. - 3 years, 5 months ago

but there will probably be some thing that make trouble in base 3 as well. but I'm really not used to work in other bases so I won't try to find a good example. However division by 2 might cause some issues.

Denis Schüle - 3 years ago
Ethan Keen
Feb 7, 2016

When you subtract a number from itself, the result is zero. For instance, 4 – 4 = 0. So what is the result when you subtract 0.999... from 1? For shorter subtractions, you get:

1.0 - 0.9 = 0.1

1.00 - 0.99 = 0.01

1.000 - 0.999 = 0.001

1.0000 - 0.9999 = 0.0001

1.00000 - 0.99999 = 0.00001

Then what about 1.000... – 0.999...? You'll get an infinite string of zeroes. "But," you ask, "what about that '1' at the end?" Ah, but 0.999... is an infinite decimal; there is no "end", and thus there is no "1 at the end". The zeroes go on forever. And 0.000... = 0.

Then 1 – 0.999... = 0.000... = 0, and 1 = 0.999.

John Adams once stated the following:

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

Regardless, of all the attempts to devise "proofs" of a falsehood, let's simply solve this with facts:

Fact: 1 is greater than 0.9 by a total of 0.1 -- therefore, 1 > 0.99 by 0.01, 1 > 0.999 by 0.001, etc.

Fact: a decimal occurs as a statement of a partial number--in this case, 0.99999... as the decimal statement indicates that no whole number exists, a partial number in and of itself cannot hold a greater value than a whole number.

Fact: No matter who infinitely small the repetition of decimals becomes, the difference between 1 and the decimal number becomes infinitely smaller, but never truly disappears.

Conclusion: 1 IS greater than 0.99999..., if only ever by an increasingly smaller amount, and I am greatly concerned about a scientific and mathematical mindset that would so openly disregard facts and evidence in attempt to provide a "proof" to a falsehood.

Steve Peters - 4 years, 3 months ago

In fact all the debates here are : why are we defining 0.9999... = lim x->infinity (1- (1/(10^x)). But we know all that the concept of the limit mean that the fonction is approching a real L, but it is clear that is it is not L. By convention (in our mind we say it is L, but if it were the case could be two representation with the same attribute; then it is a math philosophy problem). Remember the finite limit is ∀ε>0 , ∃α>0 tel que (∀x∈I et |x−x0|<α) ⇒ |f(x)−l|<ε|. The existance of a real 0.9999... mean the existance of ε. This is what is the difference between 1 and 0.999... For 1 : ε =0 , for 0.9999 : ε is a real not equal to 0.

Olivier Lancien - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

it's convention that if L is the limit of a sequence a(n), then the limit for n->infinity of a(n) is L. that is literally what 0.999...=1 says.

Peopl just are too dumb to believe that or understand any proof of that. Yet they also can't explain or find any of the numbers (that would need to exist then too) between 0.999... and 1.

Denis Schüle - 3 years ago
Davis Parks
Feb 6, 2016

The proof would go: X=1/3 X=.33... 10x=3.33... 9x=3 9*1/3=3 is a true statement. Every algebra text book ever supports this statement.

Think of os basis addition. .3333333333 .3333333333

+ .3333333333

.9999999999

It can never equal 1 unless you round

Cedric Nah - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

What about .999...=.9+.09+.009 +...... Infinite geometric progression for which sum is .9/(1-.1) =1

Mathematically it works

Dileep Purushothaman - 5 years, 4 months ago

I think you are missing what the dots after represent. It is a non-terminating decimal.

Chris Johnson - 4 years, 7 months ago
Chris D
Jun 5, 2017

Honestly it feels like instead of math skills this question is rather "I wonder if you know the little trivia I know :^)"

Aram Lindroth
Feb 10, 2018

Most confusion comes from not fully understanding the notation used in the problem. Many people will often automatically think that 0.99999... 0.99999... represents an arbitrary term of the sequence a n = i = 1 n 9 1 0 i a_{n} = \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{9}{10^{i}} , and not the limit lim n i = 1 n 9 1 0 i \lim_{n \to \infty} \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{9}{10^{i}} . That is, they will consider an arbitrary but only finite number of decimal places. Obviously, every term of the sequence ( a n ) (a_{n}) is strictly less than 1 1 , but the limit lim n ( a n ) \lim_{n \to \infty}(a_{n}) is exactly equal to 1 1 . Knowing in advance that the ellipsis means a limit is all that is necessary to correctly solve the problem.

Jainil Ajmera
Feb 13, 2016

Let x = .99999...

Hence, 10x = 9.99999...

10x - x = 9x = 9.99999... - .99999... = 9

Thus, 9x = 9

And, x = 9 9 \frac{9}{9} = 1

Hence proven.

Dylan Conroy
Feb 7, 2016

1/3 = 0.3333333..... 2/3 = 0.6666666..... 3/3 = 0.9999999.... = 1

Edward Salmon
Feb 7, 2016

Proof: 1/9=0.111111111... 8/9=0.888888888... 1/9+8/9=9/9 9/9=1 0.111111....+0.8888888..... = 0.99999999.... 0.99999999...=1

Mohammad Farhat
Aug 17, 2018

EVERYONE CALM DOWN! I REPEAT! CALM DOWN!

Now just go here and here and see if you are correct

Maximos Stratis
Jul 14, 2018

1 and 0.9999... are just different ways to represent the same thing. Just like 1/3 and 0.3333...

Rajeev Rath
Jun 29, 2018

This could be proved in yet another simple way , easy enough to do in some seconds itself.

As 1 3 \frac{1}{3} = 0.3333333333...................

Multiplying with 3 on the both sides , simply results

1= 0.99999999999999999............

Jenn L
Jun 17, 2018

Basically, if 0.9999...... is infinitely going on forever, then at some point it has to reach 1. Like, take a square for example. You half it, and color one section. Then you half the uncolored section, then color one of THOSE sections. Continue. At some point, all of the square's going to be colored. Because I explained this using an enclosed space, it makes more sense right? Therefore, 0.99999.... is equal to 1.

Well don't bring infinite sums with infinite 9's cuz it is confusing for some other people. Still nice try for explaining it to people

Mohammad Farhat - 2 years, 10 months ago
Aratrik Samanta
Apr 8, 2018

1/3 equals to 0.33333333333333... , 2/3 equals to 0.66666666666666... , then 3/3 in theory should equal to 0.999999999999... but 3 divided by 3 is 1, therefore 0.999999999...= 1

Ava Masse
Mar 10, 2018
Marcus Woods
May 10, 2017

Though I did get this question right, I must admit it is not very well written, and it really needs the repeating symbol over the decimal on the right and not the ellipses. The use of ellipses is quite disingenuous, as it technically means "an omission." It does not mean that something is being repeated. It could be .999998 for all we know, and not the 3/3 the question attempts to imply.

Brian Hole
Dec 20, 2016

1/9 = .11111... 2/9 = .22222... 3/9 = .33333...(3/9 = 1/3) 4/9 = .44444... 5/9 = .55555... 6/9 = .66666... (6/9 = 2/3) 7/9 = .77777... 8/9 = .88888... 9/9 = .99999... (9/9 = 3/3 = 1)

Therfore .99999... = 1.

Kieran Thompson
Feb 7, 2016

0.999999=x so 9.9999999=10x so 10x-x=9X 9X=9 So x=1

I don't think 9x=x. if you substract 9.9999... - 0.99999... you got epsilon. Because multiplying by 10 is deleting one 9 after the coma.

Olivier Lancien - 5 years, 4 months ago
Joash Ong
Dec 24, 2019

I put 0.99999..... horizontally into my phone calculator and when I flipped it vertically I showed 1.00000...

Jared Haertel
Jan 16, 2019

1 3 \frac{1}{3} = 0.33333...

If you multiply both sides by 3 you get:

3 3 \frac{3}{3} = 0.99999...

1 = 0.99999...

Chase Marangu
Nov 25, 2018

1 = 9 + 1 10 = 9 + 9 + 9 + 9 + 10 10 10 10 = 9 10 + 9 100 + 9 1000 + 9 10000 = 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 + = 0.9999... 1 = \frac{9+1}{10} = \frac{9+\frac{9+\frac{9+\frac{9+⋯}{10}}{10}}{10}}{10} = \frac{9}{10}+\frac{9}{100}+\frac{9}{1000}+\frac{9}{10000}⋯= 0.9+0.09+0.009+0.0009+⋯ = 0.9999...

Mark Reynolds
Oct 22, 2018

Your answer is incorrect. Although each 1 of the 10 are each tending(to infinity), to 1, it does NOT mean that each number IS 1. For example - let's just use 3 decimal places then 10x 0.999 (to infinity) is not 10. It is 9.999. What the proposer has done is made 9 of the 'ones' into one each and then made the 'one' left over 0.999 to infinity. It doesn't matter how infinitesimally small it is, you have used two different values for one. Johanna below went on to cite some rubbish about read the proof. This is simple, you accept that 0.999 is not one. Why are you trying to say 0.999to infinity is one? Question, if this was graphed, would the line ever converge with the axes? No. It tends to it but will never touch it.

The whole point is that there are infinitely many 9's, it never ends and thats why they are equal.

There are countless proofs in this thread and on the internet, go read some.

Hywel Normington - 2 years, 7 months ago

The problem with your answer is that you use the word "IS", which implies identity, while the proofs given use the word "equals" (as signified by the '='-sign). The numbers 1 and 0.9999... have equal value but are not identical because 1 is a natural number (ℕ) while 0.999... is not (IMO).

Matthijs Wensveen - 2 years, 6 months ago
Michael Tritle
Sep 23, 2018

1 = 1/3 + 1/3 +1/3 = .333... + .333... + .333... = .999...

Bruno Athie
Aug 25, 2018

I think one of the simplest ways to think of this is that x-y=0 only if x=y, and if you subtract 1 - 0,999... the result is a 0 followed by an infinite number of zeros and a 1 in infinity, which is exactly the same as 0. Therefore 0,999... must be equal to 1.

Gary Golub
Jul 15, 2018

.333333......=1/3

.666666......=2/3

.999999......=3/3=1

Wrong! .333333 does not exactly equal 1-3.

Laurie Morris - 2 years, 5 months ago
Yong Tat Tan
Jun 18, 2018

There are many different proofs of 0.9999..=1 and here is one of them:

1/3=0.3333... 1=3 * 1/3 = 3 * 0.3333... = 0.99999...

Hence,1=0.9999...

Joshua Lowrance
Feb 23, 2018

There are many solutions to this problem. The simplest is this:

1/9 = .11111111111111...

9/9 = .999999999999...

Rick Zhou
Jan 7, 2018

Note that 1/9 = 0.11111... So 9/9 = 1 = 0.9999.... Thus they are equal.

Laura Gao
Dec 26, 2017

The difference between 0.999999... and 1 is 0.00000000...1

but since there are infinite zeros you never get to the 1 at the end

so 0.00000000...1 = 0 0.00000000...1=0

so they must be the same number

/

suppose x = 0.999999999... x=0.999999999...

multiply by 10 10 x = 9.99999999999... 10x=9.99999999999...

subtract x 9 x = 9 9x=9

divide by 9 x = 1 x=1

Brian Kolins
Oct 9, 2017

Um... it isn't a "Debate" anymore than is 2+2>4? It is a fact... 1/9=.111111, 2/9=.22222,... 8/9=.88888, so 9/9=.99999=1.

Bruce Fulton
Sep 28, 2017

Either answer is correct depending on what you want to believe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-fUDqXlmHM

That's not how maths works.

Hywel Normington - 2 years, 7 months ago
Bernardo Mayrinck
Sep 17, 2017

1/9 = 0,11111...

2/9 = 0,22222...

3/9 = 0,33333...

4/9 = 0,44444...

5/9 = 0,55555...

6/9 = 0,66666...

7/9 = 0,77777...

8/9 = 0,88888...

Then, 9/9 = 0,99999... = 1

Mr. Kid
Aug 20, 2017

May you should reach the answer from your teacher and ask him

Matt Kanaly
Aug 11, 2017

Simply explained: Calculate and read the Decimal for 1/9, 2/9, 3/9, 4/9… 8/9 then what is 9/9? We know this is one, but judging by the pattern, it is also .9999…

Lee Hughes
Jun 3, 2017

1-0.999... is 0.000... there are infinite 0's after that decimal point there is no secret 1 at the end. so what's the difference between 0 and 0.0 and 0.000 and 0.0000....

If you allow infinitesimals (which some branches of number theory do have) then yes there is a difference. Generally though infinitesimals are not used and this there is 0 difference between 0.999... and 1

Jared Beaufait
May 31, 2017

The easiest solution that even a fifth grader could do is as follows 0.99999...=x 10x=9.9999... 10x-x=9.9999...-0.9999... 9x=9 x=1 so without doing a bunch of crazy stuff we can say 1=0.9999... also ... means to infinity

Rob Bednarik
Mar 26, 2017

IF 1 can be expressed as 3 x 1/3 or 3 x 0.3333333...

AND 3 x 0.3333333... can also be expressed as 0.99999999...

THEN 1 = 0.9999999...

Piyush Kumar
Dec 30, 2016

What do you get by proving this?? 0.9999999.....=1 1.0000000.....=1.00000000...001 1.00000000...001=1.0000000....002 Series goes on.... And on You get 0.999999999......=infinite

Mike Higdon
Nov 22, 2016

It comes down to the axioms of mathematics. Really the basis is the statement: x-y=0 if and only if x=y.

This is a fundamental axiom that is assumed as true mathematically.

So, let's assume 1 \ne 0. 9 0.\overline{9} . That means, there exists a number z such that 0 < z < 1- 0. 9 0.\overline{9}

Now your goal is to find z. This would prove, that 1 is not equal to 0. 9 0.\overline{9} .

Unfortunately, no matter how small you choose z to be, because 0. 9 0.\overline{9} extends infinitely (think decimal places), we can never pick z such that 0<z<1- 0. 9 0.\overline{9}

While I agree with all of these proofs, I remember my calculus and how an infinite number of decimals will still never reach a whole number, even though we assume that whole number. He concept is that it gets ever close but never reaches. Is this a paradox?

Chad Welle - 4 years, 6 months ago
Mario Napolitano
Feb 14, 2016

1/3=.3333..., so 1=.9999..

Vũ Dollar
Feb 14, 2016

1/3 = 0,33333... We multiple both sides by 3, which gives us 1 = 0,99999...

Repeating decimals put into fractions are over 9. For example, 0.333333333.... is 3/9. 9/9 is 1.

Manali Badwe
Feb 8, 2016

If 1/3 is 0.3333..... and 3 times 1/3 is 1 then 3 times 0.3333..... is 1 meaning 0.9999..... is equal to 1

x=0.99999... 10x= 9.99999... 9x = 10x - x = 9.99999... - 0.99999... = 9 9x = 9 x = 1

Stanislaw Cos
Feb 8, 2016

Its basic mats. 1/3=0.33333333... (infinite number of 3). If u multiply both sides by 3 you get 3/3=0.9999999... 3/3=1 . As simple as that. Prove me wrong.

Okay [ 1 3 0. 3 ] [ \frac{1}{3} \mapsto 0.\overline{3} ] , but it is NOT the case that 0. 3 1 3 0.\overline{3} \mapsto \frac{1}{3} .

This derives from the fact that we define 0. 3 0.\overline{3} as 1 3 \frac{1}{3} because of the computational reality of ( 1 / 3 ) ( 1 / 3 ) ; there is nothing in 0. 3 0.\overline{3} that offers us no basis for asserting it "should" be equal to anything rational, or even algorithmic!

The real problem here, of course, is proving that it IS a (algebraic, rational) number and that that number is equal to one. All proofs so far are flawed. Offer up one that isn't, and you can rest your case. Until then, you have A LOT more to prove.

Joshua Nesseth - 4 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

You actually can get 1/3 from the 0.3 recurring, just let it equal x and solve for it.

Hywel Normington - 2 years, 7 months ago
Dillon Howell
Feb 7, 2016

1/3=0.3333... repeating. So 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 is equivalent to 0.3333... + 0.3333... + 0.3333...

1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 3/3 = 1 0.3333... + 0.3333... + 0.3333... = 0.9999...

Therefore 0.9999... = 3/3 = 1

Bill Roberson
Feb 7, 2016

1/3 = .3333... on forever. 1/3 •3=1, but .3333...•3=.9999..., so 1=1/3•3=.3333...•3=.9999...

Manav Mathews
Feb 7, 2016

There is a very simple proof for this 1/3+2/3=3/3=1 1/3=0.333333... 2/3=0.666666... 1/3+2/3=0.333333...+0.666666...=0.999999=1

Alice Andrews
Feb 7, 2016

0.33333.... = one third; 0.66666.... = two thirds; therefore 0.99999.... = three thirds; three thirds = one; so 1 is not greater than 0.99999....

Sean Alexander
Feb 7, 2016

This is how I came to the conclusion that .9999999... = 1:

1 = (3/3) = .9999999...; therefore, 1 = .999999...

More evidence:

(1/3) + (1/3) + (1/3) = (3/3) which is the same as saying .333333... + .333333... + .333333... = .999999...

Conclusion:

.999999... is simply a less convenient way to write 3/3 (or "1"). I don't see any practicality in choosing .999999... (infinitely repeating 9s) over simply using the fraction equivalent or even more simply, just writing "1"!

Jasleen Sidhu
Feb 7, 2016

Here's another way of looking at it.

.9 repeating = .9 + .09 + .009 + ...

Thus, it is a geometric series. A sum of a geometric series if a/1-r. a is the first term in the series, and r is what each term changes by.

So, a is .9, and r is .1

.9/1-.1 = .9/.9 = 1

The only problem with that, of course, is that it can be shown that n = 1 inf 9 ( 1 1 0 n ) = 1 \sum_{n = 1}^{\inf} 9 ( \frac{1}{10^{n}} ) = 1 ; so, by assuming the decimal point is a geometric series, you already assume the answer.

Add to this the fact that any infinite sequence is, itself, the LIMIT of that infinite sequence, the claim of "equivalence" is problematic--the limit of a function at a value does NOT imply the value is equivalent to it's limit, only that the limit (if it exists) is that value. Quite often (it could be argued here, as well) the value of the limit does not exist within the domain of the function; this is especially true when the "value" we are approaching is infinity (a NON-value).

Finally, until you can offer a computational number (as a ratio, or as a distinct value) that gives the value of 0. 9 0. \overline{9} , you have not offered a "proof".

Joshua Nesseth - 4 years, 3 months ago
Austin Workman
Feb 7, 2016

1/3 = .333... Multiply both sides by 3. 1=.999

The alternative, 1/9=.111... *9 1=.999...

0.66666... = 6/9 = 2/3

0.55555... = 5/9

0.99999... = 9/9 = 1

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%3E.999

Wolfram alpha has the answer.

Brian Jansen - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

It's not 0.999 though. It's 0.9 recuring

Fellian Tsuyoshi - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

Than it's .99999 repeating? figured it was not repeating.

Brian Jansen - 5 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Brian Jansen That's what the ... means

Fellian Tsuyoshi - 5 years, 4 months ago

It does not equal 1 its AN APPROXIMATION OF 1

Marcel Morin - 5 years, 4 months ago

You are giving too much power to the three dots (...)

Henry Torres Blanco - 5 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

Come again?

Fellian Tsuyoshi - 5 years, 3 months ago

The problem with this is, though, you are assuming the answer without having any logical progression.

If 6 9 = 0. 6 & 5 9 = 0. 5 \frac{6}{9} = 0.\overline{6} \text{ \& } \frac{5}{9} = 0.\overline{5} , it is not necessary that 9 9 = 0. 9 \frac{9}{9} = 0.\overline{9} .

It is, of course, necessary that 9 9 = 1 \frac{9}{9} = 1 ; yet, this does not necessitate either of these also are equal to 0. 9 0.\overline{9} .

[The implied connection, of course, is based upon the reversal of the assertions in the above formulation--specifically, it is NOT (necessarily) that x = 0. 6 x = 6 9 x = 0.\overline{6} \, \implies \, x = \frac{6}{9} , but INSTEAD x = 6 9 0. 6 x = \frac{6}{9} \, \implies \, 0.\overline{6} , a very important distinction to make.]

Joshua Nesseth - 4 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

Joshua you don't know what you are talking about.

Hywel Normington - 2 years, 7 months ago

5 pending reports

Vote up reports you agree with

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...