Proof that 0.9999999 = 1
- Thread starter T-Bone
- Start date
waterproofbob
Junior Administrator
Another way of thinking about it that I prefer.
1/3=.3333333333333
2/3=.6666666666666
3/3=.9999999999999=1
It confuses me that so many take such issue with this. Infinity does seem to confuse.
1/3=.3333333333333
2/3=.6666666666666
3/3=.9999999999999=1
It confuses me that so many take such issue with this. Infinity does seem to confuse.
Rai
In Cryo Sleep
Revolution! grab yer torches, we're going to spain!!! *confused*
This really makes me wanna go emo...
About emo's
Downsides:
-Makes razors a scarce item.
-Bloodstains are hard to wash out.
-Awfull taste of music.
-They only think about themselves.
Upsides:
-Problem solves it self over time.
-Music can be stopped by use of a hammer.
-Bloodstains can be dodged and blocked, however, it can't be parried.
-Thinking can be stopped with a hammer.
-Problem can be solved with a hammer.
F.Y.I. That's how much it confused me...
And I'm using fossil fuels for favor, eat that, greenpeace!
This really makes me wanna go emo...
About emo's
Downsides:
-Makes razors a scarce item.
-Bloodstains are hard to wash out.
-Awfull taste of music.
-They only think about themselves.
Upsides:
-Problem solves it self over time.
-Music can be stopped by use of a hammer.
-Bloodstains can be dodged and blocked, however, it can't be parried.
-Thinking can be stopped with a hammer.
-Problem can be solved with a hammer.
F.Y.I. That's how much it confused me...
And I'm using fossil fuels for favor, eat that, greenpeace!
Wol
In Cryo Sleep
LoL, had my brother talk to me about that mathmatic with me a while ago (he's at university studying 2 maths courses). He also showed me an algebraic formula that can proove that 1 = 2, therefore 2 = 5 and therefore 10 = 1
Bearing in mind they usually forget some rules in those which is how they are possible usually a division by zero or something!
Theres a whole list .... here
Usually fun to confuse people when theyre slightly drunk though!
PsiSoldier
Well-Known Member
n = 0.9999999999^INF
10n = 10 (0.9999999999^INF)
9n = 10n - n
= 10 (0.9999999999^INF) - 0.9999999999^INF
= 0.9999999999^INF
Therefor n = 0.9999999999^INF
???
waterproofbob
Junior Administrator
Errrrr what. You appear to have massively confused a hugely simple piece of algebra. That or you don't understand how x10 works. Either way. Errrr What?
Or you are just restating what n is again but as we know that already I'm confused by what you are trying to do Psi?
T-Bone
In Cryo Sleep
All fine so far.
Incorrect!
9n = 10n -n
= 10 (0.9999999999^INF) - 0.9999999999^INF
= 9.999999999^INF - 0.999999999^INF
= 9
Multiplication always comes before subtration otherwise you would have ended up with 10 x 0 = 0 and not "n = 0.9999999999^INF". I dont know what the hell you did but it's wrong.
KillCrazy
Active Member
Multiplication always comes before subtration otherwise you would have ended up with 10 x 0 = 0 and not "n = 0.9999999999^INF". I dont know what the hell you did but it's wrong.
Thoroughly owned my good man Psi.
Ahey,
I am astounded at how far people will go in the name of mathematical righteousness...
For your enlightenment, T-Bone, let me restate what Psi wrote, there:
9n = 10n - n
= 10 (0.9999999999^INF) - 0.9999999999^INF
= 9 (0.9999999999^INF)
Therefor n = 0.9999999999^INF
That is what he meant, and that is, in fact, correct.
By the way, if I may ask, why did you feel the urge to prove that 1=1?
Cheers,
J.
Incorrect!
[...]
Multiplication always comes before subtration otherwise you would have ended up with 10 x 0 = 0 and not "n = 0.9999999999^INF". I dont know what the hell you did but it's wrong.
I am astounded at how far people will go in the name of mathematical righteousness...
For your enlightenment, T-Bone, let me restate what Psi wrote, there:
9n = 10n - n
= 10 (0.9999999999^INF) - 0.9999999999^INF
= 9 (0.9999999999^INF)
Therefor n = 0.9999999999^INF
That is what he meant, and that is, in fact, correct.
By the way, if I may ask, why did you feel the urge to prove that 1=1?
Cheers,
J.
Angelic
Active Member
Multiplying 0,999999999^INF by ten will not give you 9,999999999^INF, it will give you 10*(0,9999999^INF), because as we all know raising to a power comes before multiplying, much like multiplying comes before adding or substracting.
Try this:
2^6 = 64
2*(2^6) = 128
4^6 = 4096
Failbone is fail.
Angelic over and out.
EDIT: What Zooggy said.
Try this:
2^6 = 64
2*(2^6) = 128
4^6 = 4096
Failbone is fail.
Angelic over and out.
EDIT: What Zooggy said.
waterproofbob
Junior Administrator
Ahey,
By the way, if I may ask, why did you feel the urge to prove that 1=1?
Cheers,
J.
Indeed.
It is an odd thing to provide a "proof" for as you say you are proving 1=1
PsiSoldier
Well-Known Member
Yeah that's it. Not quite sure how I didn't notice I left it out
.BIDMAS
Brackets
Indices
Division
Multiplication
Addition
Subtraction
waterproofbob
Junior Administrator
the whole .99^inf is our stumbling block here. I'm not sure how to get 9 with a bar over the top of it and within the confines of what we are doing here that it was not writen as an indice.
Yes taking the standard ^INF to be the power of would make this all wrong but that isn't what T-Bone is writing he is just making it easier for us to read .9999etc. I'd not actually looked at it as an indice. If we were talking indices .9999^inf=0 anyway so as far as this makes goes it's entirely pointless anyway.
Yes taking the standard ^INF to be the power of would make this all wrong but that isn't what T-Bone is writing he is just making it easier for us to read .9999etc. I'd not actually looked at it as an indice. If we were talking indices .9999^inf=0 anyway so as far as this makes goes it's entirely pointless anyway.
PsiSoldier
Well-Known Member
So, not to the power of infinity?
0.999999 recuring, or 0.999999...? No confusion with them.
notaphishingscam
0.999999 recuring, or 0.999999...? No confusion with them.
notaphishingscam