You don't know what the sign for infinity is and you're telling me that 0.(9) is 1 (which it isn't). 0.000000000000 1 Also the infinity symbol is a sideways 8.....
0.(9) + .0000000000001 = 1.0000000000000(9) Try again. And yes, I use a typical notation for recurring decimals rather than "0.9 sideways 8".
The actual notation should be approximately 1. It is never = 1, it can only approach for infinity. Is, 1.(0)1, in other words all 0 for near infinity, but the last digit is a 1. Is it = 1?
0.9 becomes 1 when you want to end infinity, however 0.9 will always be 0.9 - it will never be 1 because it cant be 1. Let me tell you something - if you were sending a man to the Moon and you called 0.9 actually 1 you would screw up the entire mission. You know why? because 0.9 is NOT 1.
1.(0)1 is an impossible number. If there is an infinite number of 0s, then there can't be a 1 after them.
That's why they're called whole numbers genius..... That's why 0.9 is a fraction of a whole number. What you're doing is philosophizing with numbers...... This isn't a puzzle.... 1 is 1 and 0.9 is 0.9......... Two totally different numbers/concepts.
I figured that'd be the answer, so it is the same with all 9's. It gets infinitely close, but never quite = 1. https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/whole-number.html It never = a whole number.
Just because 0.9 goes on infinity doesn't mean it equates into 1 because it cant because 0.9 goes on forever. When the universe collapses it will finally end and will still be 0.9.
0.(9) doesn't end. That's precisely what It means to have digit that repeats an infinite number of times, that there is no end. 0.01 0.001 0.0001 It doesn't matter how many 0s you put between that decimal point and that 1. If it terminates with a 1 (or any other number) it can be proven NOT to be the difference 1 and 0.(9). That's because there is no difference, because they are two different ways of writing the same number. No 0.9 does not equal 1, you are correct. 0.9 and 0.(9) are two different numbers.
If 1 and 0.(9) are different numbers, than there should be a third number that is between them. What number is between 1 and 0.(9)?
I am aware. I am familiar with and have used Multiversal Polymorphic Quadratic Algebraic Equations to arrive and develop the New Form Calculus necessary to properly develop a Multiversal Model at MIT. Now you can't do or understand the New Form Calculus until you learn the syntax and symbology as we had to create new symbols that previously did not exist. A Muliversal Model is NOT the same as the Many Worlds Model as Many Worlds is just a PART of the Multiversal Model.....and the Many Worlds model did not properly account for M-Theory and Quantum Mechanics. If you are interested just send me a PM. AA - - - Updated - - - Again....he is right. But as long as you denote 0.999999^infinite.....then you are right as well. But his statement....."Dude philosophize all you like.... 0.9999999999999 is not 1."....is 100% correct. AA
I was under the impression that writing the number as "0.999..." or "0.(9)" implied an infinitely recurring digit. If I was wrong about that then I would certainly concede to to that. And I was never arguing otherwise.
Only Math people are aware of that and it ONLY applies to the math. At MIT there are many who were working with tolerances that went well deeper and beyond 0.999. And even I did not remember at first that writing it as 0.(9) means infinite. But that is because I work in Particle Physics, Cosmology and Astronomy thus I try to get others to crunch the math by offering PIZZA, BEER and OLD VIDEO GAMES!! LOL!!! AA
Fractional numbers are not whole numbers. 1 is a whole number. 0.(9) is not. there fore they are not =
So what is 1 - 0.(9)? Any number that terminates with or contains a digit that isn't 0 can be show to NOT be the difference between the two. 1 - 0.(9) = 0
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/howcan1.htm I think this question has been settled in high schools everywhere.
Look, I got to make some point here. 0.999.. indeed equals 1, but the proofs some of u (including me) have brought aren't precisely "proofs" - they're more like explanations. To actually prove it, u need to define numbers, and when u do, 0.999.. is actually *defined* to be the limit of the sequence (0, 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ..) and it can b easily proven to be 1. At most, the other "proofs" can explain why it's defined that way.
x=0.999... 10x=9.999... 10x-x=9.999...-0.999... 9x=9+0.999...-0.999...=9 x=1 =>0.999...=1; https://youtu.be/UeN_aeiorR0
Not sure if I'll get the notation right but, it will be 0.(1) away from the whole # 0. So not = 0, but very very very, infinitely close.
