 Extremeskins

# Does 0.9999 repeating 9 equal 1?

## Recommended Posts

This thread, while intellectually impressive, reeks of virgins.

##### Share on other sites

Being that they're two different numbers, they don't equal each other. I can't think of a situation where .9 repeating actually exists, but it's still a number. I think it's probably used most often to specifically say that a function will never equal 1.

##### Share on other sites

So the question is: can you reach infinity?

My answer is no. So .9 (9 repeating infinitely) does not equal 1.

##### Share on other sites

Being that they're two different numbers, they don't equal each other.

According to your philosophy, 1/4, 4/16, .25, 0.25, and .250 are all distinct and unique numbers.

##### Share on other sites

According to your philosophy, 1/4, 4/16, .25, 0.25, and .250 are all distinct and unique numbers.

But is .250 equal .2501 and .2499?

Didn't know that they were.

##### Share on other sites

But is .250 equal .2501 and .2499?

Didn't know that they were.

I took from it that .9 repeating == 1.

Therefore, .2509 9's repeating would equal .2501, and .249 9's repeating would equal .250.

Of course, I also agree with Zhouse on the concept of infinity. Seems like Man's attempt to simplify deal with horrendously large numbers. Doesn't seem to have a basis in reality.

And then you'll get Mathematicians talking about how some infinite sets are BIGGER than other infinite sets. Seems to me that it's a good way for us to wrap our mind around certain concepts, but I'm not convinced that anything in existence actually exhibits the property of belonging to an infinite set.

##### Share on other sites

The real question is does 36C, repeating = 36D? Or is 36CC different then 36D?

##### Share on other sites

mathematics is an abstract concept. whether an "infinite set" "exists in nature" is completely irrelevant.

##### Share on other sites

mathematics is an abstract concept. whether an "infinite set" "exists in nature" is completely irrelevant.

How do you figure?

##### Share on other sites

This thread, while intellectually impressive, reeks of virgins.

guilty ##### Share on other sites

How do you figure?

the mathematical concept in trigonometry of a "point" (which is itself *infinitely* small) is nonetheless absolutely fundamental, necessary, valid, etc.

i'd like to see someone write a modern video game, for example, without being able to use coordinates, or indeed any other abstract math concepts.

- Euclid

##### Share on other sites

I took from it that .9 repeating == 1.

Therefore, .2509 9's repeating would equal .2501, and .249 9's repeating would equal .250.

Of course, I also agree with Zhouse on the concept of infinity. Seems like Man's attempt to simplify deal with horrendously large numbers. Doesn't seem to have a basis in reality.

And then you'll get Mathematicians talking about how some infinite sets are BIGGER than other infinite sets. Seems to me that it's a good way for us to wrap our mind around certain concepts, but I'm not convinced that anything in existence actually exhibits the property of belonging to an infinite set.

What is bigger than infinity? infinity+1

##### Share on other sites

This isn't a philosophical question as some here make it out to be. You have to know what the definition of a real number is, and then it is as clear as day that .999999 repeating does in fact equal one.

So, for beginners, how do we construct the real numbers?

2) add in zero and the negative numbers to get the integers.

3) Define the rational numbers. These are formed by the set of all combinations (a, where a and b are integers subject to the condition that (a, = (c,d) if there exists an integer g such that (ga =c and gb = d) or (gc = a and gd = . So (2,4) = (1,2) just as you would expect. I'll assume you know how to multiply, divide add and subtract these numbers.

4) Define cauchy sequences. Given a sequence of rational numbers (a_i, b_i), the sequence is cauchy if for every rational number epsilon there exists a counting number n such that (a_i, b_i) - (a_(i+1), b_(i+1)) is less than epsilon for all i larger than n.

5) Given two cauchy sequences of rational numbers (a_i, b_i) and (c_i, d_i) , we say that two sequences are equivalent if and only if the difference between the two sequences approaches zero. Formally, (a_i, b_i) = (c_i, d_i) if and only if:

for every epsilon in the rational numbers there exists an n in the counting numbers such that

(a_i d_i - c_i b_i, b_i d_i) is less than epsilon for all i greater than n.

6.) the real numbers are defined to be the set of all cauchy sequences subject to the above equivalence.

*********************

So, with that in mind, what is the real number 1? it is the cauchy sequence (1,1,1,1,1,1,1.....) etc.

What about .999999999.... ? It's cuachy sequence is

.9, .99, .999, .999, .9999, .99999 etc

It is quite clear that the difference between the elements of these two cauchy sequences approach 0, therefor they are the same real number.

##### Share on other sites

This isn't a philosophical question as some here make it out to be. You have to know what the definition of a real number is, and then it is as clear as day that .999999 repeating does in fact equal one.

So, for beginners, how do we construct the real numbers?

2) add in zero and the negative numbers to get the integers.

3) Define the rational numbers. These are formed by the set of all combinations (a, where a and b are integers subject to the condition that (a, = (c,d) if there exists an integer g such that (ga =c and gb = d) or (gc = a and gd = . So (2,4) = (1,2) just as you would expect. I'll assume you know how to multiply, divide add and subtract these numbers.

4) Define cauchy sequences. Given a sequence of rational numbers (a_i, b_i), the sequence is cauchy if for every rational number epsilon there exists a counting number n such that (a_i, b_i) - (a_(i+1), b_(i+1)) is less than epsilon for all i larger than n.

5) Given two cauchy sequences of rational numbers (a_i, b_i) and (c_i, d_i) , we say that two sequences are equivalent if and only if the difference between the two sequences approaches zero. Formally, (a_i, b_i) = (c_i, d_i) if and only if:

for every epsilon in the rational numbers there exists an n in the counting numbers such that

(a_i d_i - c_i b_i, b_i d_i) is less than epsilon for all i greater than n.

6.) the real numbers are defined to be the set of all cauchy sequences subject to the above equivalence.

*********************

So, with that in mind, what is the real number 1? it is the cauchy sequence (1,1,1,1,1,1,1.....) etc.

What about .999999999.... ? It's cuachy sequence is

.9, .99, .999, .999, .9999, .99999 etc

It is quite clear that the difference between the elements of these two cauchy sequences approach 0, therefor they are the same real number.

:gus:

##### Share on other sites

Interesting stuff, much food for thought.

I still disagree with the mathematical concept of the infinite, but I've really run out of time to discuss it. My time's not infinite you know ... ##### Share on other sites

the difference between y<1 and y <=1 is the same as the difference between .99999 repeating. The difference is infintessimally small and cannot be recorded in a discreet manner, but it the distinction does exist.

.9999999 repeating to infinity is a solution for the inequality y<1. 1, however is not a solution for such inequality, it is a solution for the inequality of y<=1. Since they cannot be used interchangeably, they are not the same number.

##### Share on other sites

what is the second-closest number to 1 then?

##### Share on other sites

what is the second-closest number to 1 then?

mindblow.

##### Share on other sites

what is the second-closest number to 1 then?

there's no such thing. We don't live in a discreet world. We live in a continuous world where there's an infinite amount of points between any two points.

##### Share on other sites

the difference between y<1 and y <=1 is the same as the difference between .99999 repeating. The difference is infintessimally small and cannot be recorded in a discreet manner, but it the distinction does exist.

.9999999 repeating to infinity is a solution for the inequality y<1. 1, however is not a solution for such inequality, it is a solution for the inequality of y<=1. Since they cannot be used interchangeably, they are not the same number.

.999... is not a solution for that inequality because it does, in fact, equal 1. No one really comprehends infinity, there is no end, which we can't imagine.

x=.999...

10x = 9.999...

10x-x= 9.999... - .999...

9x=9

x= 1

.999...= 1

##### Share on other sites

1/9 = 0.1111111...

9*1/9 = 1

Seems to me like 0.9999... is indeed 1.

##### Share on other sites

question: the area of the function y<x is equal to the area of the function of y<=x. Does that mean that y<x == y<=x?

##### Share on other sites

The real question is does 36C, repeating = 36D? Or is 36CC different then 36D?

Useless without pics.

##### Share on other sites

Pi is exactly THREE!

:cool: