.999.... (Repeating) is equal to one?

Math is logic applied to quantity, so that doesn't apply.

You're saying 1 + 1 does not equal 2.

Now using Trivialis handle.

No, because 0.999 is not one. One is one, it is not 0.9999. Just because you can say it is with a certain equation doesn't make ti correct, math can be flawed.

@Mark: Omg I know. You went on CE? That's old.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

.9 repeating is not equal to 1. This has mostly to do with how infinities of various sorts are defined.

For example, the set of all integers is an infinitely large set, but it can be proved to be smaller than the set of all real and imaginary numbers.

The same old argument that "Since it doesn't look like 1, it's not 1".

You see the ... after the 9's? That indicates infinite 9's. You don't see the significance of it.

That's cardinalities, which is something else.

edited 9th Sep '11 7:25:41 PM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

I understnd the math behind it. But all the writing on paper doesn't diminsih the fact it isn't 1.

Take on man out of a trillion people. It is not 1 trillion.

Math is the problem, not the equation.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

Take 1 out of infinity. Its still infinity. you're arguing things on too small a scale.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

Again, you're arguing for 0.999, which equals 999/1000, and not 0.9_, which equals 1/1.

What equation are you talking about, exactly?

edited 9th Sep '11 7:32:39 PM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

In math sense, then my example don't matter.

But in a practical and logical sense, 1 is 1, not 1.0000_1, nor 0.999_ (_is the repeating sign).

edited 9th Sep '11 7:34:23 PM by Erock

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

And why? Do you have proof?

There's no such thing as 1.0_1 in real numbers.

edited 9th Sep '11 7:40:00 PM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

I have reasoning. You have math.

It's not a math argument with me, it's logic. Using math to debate a quite existentialist argument is invalid.

Even so, I refuse to continue this argument for the sake of my sanity.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

Look, I'm using reasoning and logic embodied in math. And all I'm hearing is "it doesn't look equal and it's not equal".

That's same as saying that 1 + 1 is not 2 because they don't look the same.

You have yet to say any further.

Now using Trivialis handle.

1+1 doesn't equal 2. As soon as you put that plus sign there, it's not a number.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

No, because the 0 in 0.99... removes any semblence of being 1.

But whatever, I've seen the math before.

edited 9th Sep '11 7:54:02 PM by Erock

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

Like how the 0 in 0.5 removes any semblance of being 1/2.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

Strange things happen when you introduce the concept of infinity. Many of them are unintuitive.

Much like this problem.

This "faculty lot" you speak of sounds like a place of great power...

The 0 in 0.5 makes it not 1.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

Like how the 0 in 1.0 makes it not 1.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

That's not it. The symbols "1", "2", "1+1" and ".9_" are representations. 1 + 1 and 2 are expressions that yield the same value. The net value, which makes a number, is 2. Same applies for the question at hand. 1 and .9_ are not two different numbers with kind-of-same weight. They are the same number, represented differently.

I've been tired long ago of the attitude "It's not equal because it isn't, and because it doesn't look like it!" I immediately refer to 1 + 1 = 2 even though they look completely different.

@Erock, you're saying that 0.X normally implies a ones digit of 0 and not 1, it's less than one. My response is that, 0.abcd... is defined as the sum 0 + 0.a + 0.0b + 0.00c + 0.000d and so on. You add them up and you get 1, just like when you add up 1 and 1, each less than 2, you get 2.

Now using Trivialis handle.

The 0 in 0.5 makes it 0.

the future we had hoped for

it reminds me of the "Halving the orange" type of thing. eventually you get 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32+1/64+... until eventually you get 1/infinity.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

Actually that sums to 1, Enkufka.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

@Erock: So you reject reality and substitute your own? That's not even an argument, it's just opinion you want to hold...

Give me cute or give me...something?

The 1/3 = .3 repeating is actually mathematically false. 1/3 has no exact value in decimal mathematics so .3 repeating is the closest we can get. (Such a division equation is inherently unsolvable without arbitrarily terminating it and/or using remainders.) When you take .3 repeating and multiply by three, the effect is not the same as multiplying 1/3 by 3/1.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Wow. Just wow.

Actually, it is. 1/3 is equal to the limit of 3/10, 33/100, 333/1000, etc.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.