Statement One: Let 0 . 4 9 = x
Statement Two: ⟹ 1 0 x = 4 . 9
Statement Three: 1 0 0 x = 4 9 . 9
Statement Four: ⟹ x = 0 . 4 9 = 9 0 4 5 = 2 1
Since from Statement Four: , 0 . 4 9 = 9 0 4 5 = 2 1 , multiplying both sides by 2,
Statement Five: ⟹ [ 0 . 4 9 ] ⋅ 2 = [ 2 1 ] ⋅ 2 = 1
Upon multiplying, we see that
Statement Six: [ 0 . 4 9 ] ⋅ 2 = 0 . 9 8 = 1
Statement Seven: But upon searching, famously, 1 = 0 . 9
Statement Eight: ∴ 0 . 9 8 = 0 . 9
But, it will break the "reflexive property of equality" .
Which Statement Is The Start Of The Mistake In The Said Argument?
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.
Also the nine recurring goes on forever so there can't really be an 8 at the end if there's no end
Yes. This is correct.
When I was younger I often used to call 0.0000000....1 as the smallest positive real number. Now I know that you can't place a digit in the end if you're stating by recurrence that there is NO END.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
It is qiute clear that when we multiply 2 with 0.49 recurring.. then it will not become 0.98 recurring
I am not sure.