It's that time again

>0.999...
>irrational
[citation needed]

please ban this faggot

the 99999 is behind a decimal therefore it's not a whole number which would be one. Also when you add a 9 infinitely you only divide it onto smaller dividends indefinably

TIL adding is dividing

has four equal signs
which one of them, in your opinion, fails?

I mean having .99999999 then saying I'm adding more nines therefor I'll eventually get a whole number is wrong because it's behind the decimal so even if you have .9999999 + another 9 it's just another lower step that doesn't quite reach it. Like tearing apart One object into pieces and adding a piece but everytime you add a piece there's always that _
.01 that is being held back.

>what is infinity

break it up in a lossless way then:

1 = 9/10 + 1/10
= 0.9 + 10/100 = 0.9 + 9/100 + 1/100
= 0.99 + 10/1000 = 0.99 + 9/1000 + 1/1000
= 0.999 + 10/10000
etc.

never a deviation from 1
not slowly growing toward 1, each line is exactly =1
at infinity, you have infinite amounts of 9s
and the 1/(100...) drops to zero

It's less than 1 by .0000...1

...

rather the 3/3 is a one and your math is wrong, or the 3/3 makes 3 wholes in which case why would 1 =3.

I think the ..99999.0 = -1 is funnier.

>hand waving
#1, #2, #3 or #4 ?

You are wrong if you assume that 1/3=0.3 because it is not. 1/3=0.33333....
Which also is not a rational number but an irrational one. Your claim is wrong m8.

>0.33333....
>irrational
[citation needed]

Those tiny flat lines above digits have a meaning, small penis boy.

I've read one. And its on Wikipedia, I'll not question anymore and believe that it's true.

1/3 = 3/10 + 1/30
this is the coolest irrational number ever

Sorry, didn't notice them at first look.

No man, 27 is the coolest.

>1/3
>which is also not a rational number

Am I having a stroke?

#2?

you claim that

3/3 =/= 3 * 1/3

wow, just wow

It is BY DEFINITION the LIMIT of the series [math] \sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty} 9 \left(\frac{1}{10}\right)^n [/math] which is 1.

He doesn't claim it, he put a little question mark, can't you see? It's like in primary school, when the teacher asks you a question and you reply with a question-answer hybrid like "Five?" because you in fact don't know jack shit and you're just trying to get lucky, but you gotta leave some escape route open so that you don't look like a complete retard.

>don't look like a complete retard.
completely failed

What is the circumference of a circle with r=0.999.....

So it's not equal to 1, it approaches 1 at infinity

>at infinity
yeah that's what the .... is

0.33.. base 10 = 0.4 base 12
0.4 * 3 = 1

OK lets prove that 0.99... = 1 in like five seconds.

x = 0.99...

10x = 9.99...

9.99.. - 0.99.. = 9

9x = 9

therefore 1x = 1

That proof literally gave me cancer

cancer at least develops

2pi

"0.000000...1"=0 Cause it makes no sense to have an infinite number of 0s and then something after all the zeros. The value after it will never come. 1-0.999... =0.000...1=0 so 1=0.999... QED

I think you're from /x/.

0.1 = 1/10^1
0.01 = 1/10^2
0.000...1 = 1/10^inf = 0

Woulnt it be easyer to think of it as a kind of a fractal? I cant remember exactly but there's something to do with it in where pythagorases therum presents a scenario where one of the sides cant be represented by a fraction. And my opinion on the matter is that 0.999... is still smaller than one, even if its rounded up to be one. Ie. 0.999...

see

You could define [math]0.\dot{9}[/math] to be anything you want, but mathematicians have decided it's the most useful if the rules of algebra worked with repeating decimals.

[math]n = 0.\dot{9}[/math]

[math]10n = 9.\dot{9}[/math]

[math]9n = 9[/math]

[math]\therefore n = 1[/math]

1/3 = 0.333...

2/3 = 0.666...

3/3 = 0.999...

>1/3 is not a rational number
Holy shit, that one made my day, thanks, user.

>0.99999.... = 1
True by definition. Learn about the definition of the real numbers and you won't end up with these retarded threads.

>0.9999... And one are different numbers.
Wrong, they are the same numbers.
They are in the same equivalence class of cauchy series of rational numbers. If you do not know what that means you shouldn't voice your opinion.

>The first one is a real irrational number while the second is a whole rational no
no

> I just specified the types of numbers
Falsely, that is.

this Seems pretty obv, why is this thread still posted?

>It is BY DEFINITION the LIMIT of the series ∑n=1∞9(110)n∑n=1∞9(110)n which is 1.
Wrong.
Read your definition again.

> a rational number is any number that can be expressed as the quotient or fraction p/q of two integers

Almost 1 isn't one mathematically but realistically may be close enough to count as 1.

>Almost 1 isn't one mathematically but realistically may be close enough to count as 1.
But that has nothing to do with what OP wrote?

Sure it does. He says a number that's less than 1 is a 1 when it isn't. Else he'd have to express it as 1=1.

youtube.com/watch?v=wsOXvQn3JuE

Here's a youtuber with a video.

there are several ways to write the same number
0.999... is notation for the sum of 9*(1/10)^n which is 1

I can also write it as 2-1
or e^0
or whatever

almost 1 isn't 1, it's slightly less in ops case.

1+1=2
1+.99999=1.99999

1=/=.99999

a thread in which mathmemers enjoy their one day in the sun over retarded engineers and high school students

>He says a number that's less than 1 is a 1 when it isn't.
1 and 0.999... ARE MEMBERS OF THE SAME EQUIVALENCE CLASS OF RATIONAL CAUCHY SEQUENCES. YOU COMPLETE AND UTTER RETARD. THEY ARE THE SAME BY DEFINITION.

THE
SAME
BY
DEFINITION

I really wish people would stop talking about things they do not understand.
You have not a single clue about mathematics and still are rambling about utter nonsense which you do not understand.

Delete your posts.

>1=/=.99999
Wrong by the definition of real numbers.

This isnt hilarious the hundredth time around what a surprise...

They can be equivalent, but they are not the same. Depending on the scale to which they are applied it becomes very revelant.

0.99999... -1 = 1-1
0.0000...1 = 0
-0.0000...1 * (-OP's IQ) = 0 * (-OP's IQ)
0.000...1 * (OP's IQ) = 0
OP's IQ = 0
So, if OP is right then he's retarded because of his IQ.
If he's wrong is retarded for being wrong

>what are calc 1 limits

basic stuff people

their 0.999... day

Which is 0

...

...

no i chose that because if 3/3 = 1(1= 3/3) then 1 has allready been exstablished and does not equal 3. then it would be the second because 1 =/= 3 if i chose the first as being wrong it would be because if 3/3 = 3 then the 1 =/= 3/3. you can't treat 3/3 as both a whole number as 3 in the second = and say that it equals one in the first =.

the pills help only when taken

no I just didn't know the answer and wanted to be told why I was wrong if I was. And I wasn't sure because both = signs by themselves can be correct 3/3 can = 1 and 3/3 can equal 3 but you can't take both of those apply them both and say that 3=1. so #1 or #2 it depends on what the denominator of 3/3 represents as a whole, so one can be wrong and the other right and that's interchangeable. So having to chose only one and saying that mine was wrong by proving the way in which the other could be right which throws of the calculation of the other, is I believe an example of moving the goal posts.

I can't tell which is worse, your understanding of mathematics or your understanding of English.

top kek

...

I read it again and it is right.

No, it is equal to 1.
0.999... is a symbolism denoting a Limit of a sequence, not a sequence.

I can prove infinitesimals and the axiom of infinity doesn't exist with your proposition.

0.999... + infinitesimal = 1
infinitesimal = 0
infinity = any number / infinitesimal
infinity = any number / 0

>upload date: Apr 1st

>0.9999... is an irrational number

Get ready brainlets
>Infinity/Infinity=1
>Infinity/Infinity + Infinity/Infinity =2
>1=2

kek

>They can be equivalent, but they are not the same
Wrong by definition.
Being in the same equivalence class is he definition of equality.

>Depending on the scale to which they are applied it becomes very revelant.
You are mathematical illiterate please delete your posts.
This seriously is insulting.

>I read it again and it is right.
No. Two real numbers are equal if they are members of the same equivalence class of Cauchy series of rational numbers.

i dont get it.

how do u go from 1 + 1 = 2 into 1 = 2?

just by simplifying the left hand expression?

inf + inf / inf + inf = inf / inf ???

>infinity = infinity + infinity
>infinity/infinity +infinity/infinity
>= (infinity + infinity)/infinity
>=infinity/infinity = 1

You can make this stuff up.

>Two real numbers are equal if they are members of the same equivalence class of Cauchy series of rational numbers.
Yes, and?

>infinity
No such thing.

zeno's paradox

>engineering
Irrelevant garbage.

1/3 = 1/5 + 1/10 + 1/50 + 1/100 + 1/300

actually hares run past tortoises erry day

Yep.

That's right, alright.