Live data from Hacker News

0.999...= 1

en.wikipedia.org

251–260 of 647 posts

Re: 0.999...= 1

#251

There is no proof that will ever satisfy a person dead-set against this. Ever since I brought this home from school as a child, my whole family ribbed me mercilessly for it. If you tell a person that 3/6 = 1/2, they'll believe you - because they have been taught from an early age that fractions can have multiple "representations" for the same underlying amount. People mistakenly believe that decimal numbers don't hav…

I find the algebraic way convinces most people: x = 0.9999.. 10x = 9.9999... 10x - x = 9 9x = 9 x = 1

Because I wondered, it’s not a trick:

x = 0.444444...

10x = 4.444444...

10x - x = 4

9x = 4

x = 4/9 = 0.444444...

Re: 0.999...= 1

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have mis-stated yourself. Either that, or I don't understand what you're saying. Trying to rearrange it and remove as many negatives as possible, I started with your statement: > I don't see how a proof involving the standard arithmetic operations found within the rational numbers, but not including any concepts of limits, completeness, etc. is invalid. I think what you mean is that any proof that does no…

Here is a comment where I tried to clarify, but yes you seem to basically understand my point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23007600

My personal experience is that people want to argue from intuition about what 0.9999... means, and when you try to make it precise they say that it's obvious. Then they derive all sorts of nonsense and conclude that mathematics is all rubbish.

If someone really wants to understand it then I'll explain current mathematical thinking, including non-standard analysis and the surreals. But most people don't want to put in the work to understand how these issues have been resolved, and just want to argue from their intuition.

Re: 0.999...= 1

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was a child I was convinced by a pretty simple conversation with my father: Me: 0.9999... is not the same as 1 Him: Well if it's not the same is it more than 1 or less than 1? Me: Less Him: Okay then how much less is it? At this point I started trying to do 1 - 0.999..., using the methods I'd been taught, and after a few iterations of "borrowing" the 1 I realized the answer was 0.000... which I was pretty conv…

Hehe... smart man. Another one is that 1 / 3 * 3 = 1 0.333... * 3 = 1 0.999... = 1

"yes but 1/3 does not equal .333... it's just an approximation since there's no perfect way to represent 1/3"

Re: 0.999...= 1

#254
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you’re basically just a priori defining 0.9... to be 1. I think the point is not defining 0.9... to be 1, the point is that “...” means an infinite number of 9s. If you shift the decimal point by 1, then nothing changes, there are still an infinite number of 9s. If you shift the decimal point by 5 places, there are still an infinite number of 9s to the right. And here is the logical (induction) step: if you shift t…

> I think the point is not defining 0.9... to be 1, the point is that “...” means an infinite number of 9s. If you shift the decimal point by 1, then nothing changes, there are still an infinite number of 9s. If you shift the decimal point by 5 places, there are still an infinite number of 9s to the right. And here is the logical (induction) step: if you shift the decimal point by an infinite number of places, then t…

There is no "after infinity".

You can justify the idea by defining a decimal representation of a number x as a vector x_2, x_1, x_0, x_{-1}, x_{-2} ..., with x_n ∈ {0, 1, ..., 9}. Negative indexes are digits after the comma, positive indexes before the comma. You can recover the original number simply using

x = \sum_{n=-∞}^{n=∞} 10^n x_{n} (1)

(this sum always converges as long as x_n = 0 when n > N, for some big enough N ∈ ℕ).

For example, the number three is represented by x_0 = 1, x_n = 0 otherwise. 0.9... is defined as x_n = 0 for n >= 0, 9 for n 1. If z = x - y and for all x_n, y_n we have that x_n >= y_n, then z_n = x_n - y_n for all n. 2. If z = 10x, then z_n = x_{n-1}.

For the first operation, in order to be rigorous, we need to ensure that if z_n = x_n - y_n in the same conditions, then z = x - y. The proof of this part just consists of plugging the recovery formula (1): z = \sum 10^n z_n = \sum 10^n (x_n - y_n) = (\sum 10^n x_n) - (\sum 10^n y_n) = x - y. We can perform all those operations as we are guaranteed that (1) always converges.

Now, let y = 0.9... defined as in the example above (y_n = 0 for n >= 0, 9 otherwise), and let x = 10y (therefore x_n = 0 for n > 0, 9 otherwise). Now, define z_n = x_n - y_n, so that z_n = 9 for n = 1, 0 otherwise, which yields z = 9. As we demonstrated above, this implies that z = x - y, therefore 9 = 10y - y => y = 1, so 1 = 0.9... .

PS: I don't think one can make a proof without at least using some bits of limits to be able to switch between decimal representation as a vector and the number itself. However I don't think it's a problem, because you need the same bits to be able to talk of "0.9..." as a well-defined number.

Re: 0.999...= 1

#255

There is no proof that will ever satisfy a person dead-set against this. Ever since I brought this home from school as a child, my whole family ribbed me mercilessly for it. If you tell a person that 3/6 = 1/2, they'll believe you - because they have been taught from an early age that fractions can have multiple "representations" for the same underlying amount. People mistakenly believe that decimal numbers don't hav…

I've had the same experience, even debating this topic with engineers. I think there are actually two hang-ups. 1. People have had it drilled into their heads that humans can't comprehend infinity. It was taken for granted by philosophers, that an "infinite regression" is a logical fallacy (e.g., used in a proof by Thomas Aquinas), and that tricks such as infinity and the infinitesimal were not rigorous. Mathematical…

Couldn't you formulate a problem for extreme decimal-place accuracy based on the multiplication of errors in a physical process that's repeated in ways that multiply small errors into bigger ones?

Re: 0.999...= 1

#256
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no proof that will ever satisfy a person dead-set against this. Indeed. I've torn my hair out trying to convince smart people with PhDs in hard sciences and had to give up in frustration. I usually find that the most success can be had by kicking the ball to them immediately and having them define what they actually mean when they say "0.999…". If we're going to debate whether that thing equals another thi…

Ask for a number between .9 repeated and 1

So does this mean that an infinitely small number is zero? As in 1/∞ ?

Re: 0.999...= 1

#257
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The proof hinges on the definition of infinity. 0.9bar7 is a completely nonsensical number precisely because of the definition of infinity. Yes, I think you’re failing to accept the definition of infinity. You’re rejecting a proof that many other PhDs in math accept along with some notable mathematicians like Euler. I reject your appeal to authority; having an advanced degree doesn’t mean you’re somehow automatically…

> The proof hinges on the definition of infinity. 0.9bar7 is a completely nonsensical number precisely because of the definition of infinity. Yes, I think you’re failing to accept the definition of infinity. You’re rejecting a proof that many other PhDs in math accept along with some notable mathematicians like Euler. I reject your appeal to authority; having an advanced degree doesn’t mean you’re somehow automatical…

Okay, I understand what you’re trying to say. I accept that the proof does not define what “...” means formally, and that is the problem you have with it. The infinity is understood implicitly to have the property that the 9s never end. In that sense, I think the proof does make use of limits, it just relies on definitions not written as part of the proof. Isn’t that okay, doesn’t that actually happen very often? The proof also doesn’t define what addition, multiplication, and equality mean either, but other kinds of mathematicians might complain on those grounds. How complete is complete, and what is the purpose of a proof if not to demonstrate a truth economically, relying on, rather than restating, the already laid foundation? How could this particular proof be shown to have weakness or fail before adding rigorous definitions of limits? Would it be any more apparently true to a wide variety of mathematicians and students if it had the type of rigor you’re advocating?

Re: 0.999...= 1

#258

My 5 year old stumped me with this, and I had to look it up. He asked me why 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1, since it's equal to 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... which is 0.999... How can that possibly equal 1.000...? And is 0.66... equal to 0.67000...? I didn't have a good enough answer for him, so I had to look it up and found this page. I tried to explain it to him but since I'm a terrible teacher and he's only 5, it was hard…

Is this problem simpler than we want it to be? Meaning 1/3 is a concept stating there is 1 part of 3 total. If you have 3 total parts, added then it is a whole. Trying to shoe-horn it into the decimal system, similarly to try to represent pie as a clean number into the decimal system etc. Isn't the issue representing the number in one for and another, not the actual logic of the issue? idk

Re: 0.999...= 1

#259
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no proof that will ever satisfy a person dead-set against this. Indeed. I've torn my hair out trying to convince smart people with PhDs in hard sciences and had to give up in frustration. I usually find that the most success can be had by kicking the ball to them immediately and having them define what they actually mean when they say "0.999…". If we're going to debate whether that thing equals another thi…

Ask for a number between .9 repeated and 1

It's the smallest number bigger than 0.

Re: 0.999...= 1

#260
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The proof hinges on the definition of infinity. 0.9bar7 is a completely nonsensical number precisely because of the definition of infinity. Yes, I think you’re failing to accept the definition of infinity. You’re rejecting a proof that many other PhDs in math accept along with some notable mathematicians like Euler. I reject your appeal to authority; having an advanced degree doesn’t mean you’re somehow automatically…

>if you shift the decimal point by an infinite number of places, then there are still an infinite number of 9s to the right >0.9bar7 is a completely nonsensical number For the same reason that 0.9...7 isn't a meaningful number, you cannot move the decimal 'an infinite number of times' and then after this, look at what number you have left and see it still has infinite 9s left. It's like you're trying to perform trans…

> For the same reason that 0.9...7 isn't a meaningful number, you cannot move the decimal 'an infinite number of times' and then after this, look at what number you have left and see it still has infinite 9s left.

Yes you absolutely can, for exactly the same reason. 0.9bar7 is nonsensical precisely because you can move the decimal to the right an infinite number of times, and still have an infinite number of 9s before the 7.

> You can only move the point a countable number of times

Not true, the implicit definition of “...”, the very statement that there are an “infinite” number of 9s, means exactly the opposite of what you claim, it means you can move the decimal an infinite number of times.

Post reply on HN