/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.56988592]

not many people here know that 0.99999... (0.9¯) is totally equivalent to 1, meaning they are different symbols for the same entity
the demonstration is very simple
let's call it "x"

x = 0.9¯

let's multiply each side by 10

10x = 9.9¯

let's subtract x from each side, which i remind you we defined as 0.9¯

10x - x = 9.9¯ - 0.9¯
9x = 9
x = 1

[Anonymous No.56988643]

>>56988592
Is this a concerned Pepe? I thought this was just a regular Pepe.

[Anonymous No.56988650]

>>56988643
yes you are not wrong, we could say that Pepe is slightly concerned by default

[Anonymous No.56988808]

>>56988592
If 0.99...9 = 1, then 0.99...9 = 0.99...8.
And 0.99...8 = 0.99...7, and so on, until, 0.00...1 = 0.00...0.
So basically if you start deliberately forgetting precision for no reason other than to illustrate a retarded point on 4chan, 1=0. Hurrdurr. It's like I'm in a highschool maths class again.

[Anonymous No.56988821]

>>56988808
you are either trolling or very wrong man, the things you said don't work (try to make a proof that look like the one in OP, you can't)
enjoy the reading: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999......

[Anonymous No.56988823]

>>56988592
here is another jewish trick:

have 100$ worth of link

price drops 10%

have 90$ worth of link

price goes up 10%

have 99$ worth of link

(jew laughing in back with his 1$ worth of link)

[Anonymous No.56988826]

>>56988592
oh you saw that YouTube short video too, did you see me in the comments?

[Anonymous No.56988832]

>>56988826
no i know it since college, sorry

[Anonymous No.56988841]

>>56988592
Only proof you need that math is fake and gay

[Anonymous No.56988855]

>>56988841
not really, or not for this reason: this is just a stupid example of 2 symbols meaning the same thing

it's exactly like saying that

0.5

is equivalent to

0.50
and to 0.5000
and so on, the same real number can have multiple representations and that's all

BUT if you want to know why REALLY math is fake, you should google "Banach–Tarski" (and the underlying axiom of choice)
have fun

[Anonymous No.56988863]

>>56988855
b-but 0.999 isnt the same thing as 1

[Anonymous No.56988869]

>>56988863
yes it is
copy this link in your browser
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999......

[Anonymous No.56988874]

>>56988592
blown away dude

[Anonymous No.56988882]

>>56988869
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999
i dont need to read this jewish pilpul

just take cm, is 0,99999cm the same thing as 1cm?
my extremely logical brain tells me that no, its not

[Anonymous No.56988885]

>>56988863
>>56988869
(if you add infinite 9s, of course!)

if you are not grasping it, think it like this:
what is the difference between 0,999... and 1? what is the number that you should add to the first to obtain the second?
well, it would be a single "1" after an INFINITE sequence of 0s (0.000000000000...1), which is impossibile by definition. You can't add anything at the end of an infinite thing because there's no end to it
that's how i "accepted" it

[Anonymous No.56988888]

>>56988882
see:
>>56988885

[Anonymous No.56988898]

>>56988885
alright that settles it

[Anonymous No.56988933]

>>56988821
I'm not trolling, and nor am I wrong. I have a PhD in inorganic chemistry so all my mathematics is based on pragmatic measurements. If you're complaining that I didnt use correct symbology; suck it, I'm on my phone and don't have latex loaded.
Counter my claim that: if 0.99...9 = 1, 0.00...1 = 0 and therefore that 1=0 if you willingly reduce precision by enough decimals. Don't just link to a wiki, and don't just ad hominem me. Discuss like a thinking man plz.

[Anonymous No.56988937]

>>>/sci/

[Anonymous No.56988955]

>>56988933
i've already explained it:
>>56988885

the number you wrote are wrong, this:
>0.99...9
is not equivalent to 0.9¯
if you want to use that form, you should use
0.999999...
with nothing after the ",,,", why? because it's infinite by definition

you can't write this number:

0.0¯1

math doesn't allow to put anything AFTER the period, why? because it's infinite, you can put something after infinity

so, this not-existing number:
0.0¯1
is in fact equivalent to 0
0.0¯1 = 0

meaning that the difference between 0.9¯ and 1 is zero, meaning they are the same number

[Anonymous No.56988959]

>>56988955
*can't

[Anonymous No.56989011]

>>56988933
if you have a phd ask your professor, or just be a normal person and open the wikipedia article (or google any math source you find reliable), which contains the notion that many many adults continue to refuse this very simple fact despite high education level (or the american schools are just in shambles)

[Anonymous No.56989021]

>>56988955
Its not equal 1 or 0. Its limit is converging to 1 or 0, but its never reaching those values.

[Anonymous No.56989030]

>>56989021
you are wrong in this case. This happens in every numeration system, as you can read on wikipedia. It's not a limit and it's not converging anywhere, they are literally 2 symbols for the exact same thing, like
0.67
is equivalent to
0.670

the difference between 0.999... and 1 literally doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.56989047]

>>56988592
When you multiply by 10, the decimals shift to the left so 10x - x = 9x = 8.9999..1

Take x = 0.999
10x = 9.990
10x - x = 9x = 8.991
x = 0.999

No matter how many decimal points x goes to, the same occurs. An extra 9 doesn't appear at the end because you multiplied by 10, so it doesn't work

[Anonymous No.56989062]

>>56989047
you are very very wrong
0.9999...
multiplied by ten is
9.999...
then you only subtract the part after the comma
so you go from 9.999... to 9, because that's how subtraction works
so you never ever get the 8.9999..1, which is an abomination by definition (you can't write it at all and it's nonsense: there can't be a number, the "1", after something that can't have any "after" because it has no end)

[Anonymous No.56989063]

I always found it intuitive because of this:
1/3 + 2/3 = 0.333... + 0.666... = 0.999... = 1

[Anonymous No.56989080]

>>56989063
YES, also that. Exactly.
Thank you

[Anonymous No.56989089]

>>56989030
Its converging because alternative representation of periodic fraction is a series which converges to its limit.

[Anonymous No.56989101]

>>56989062
What you said is like saying 9x10 = 99. I don't get how an extra 9 appears after you multiply by 10. And you yourself admitted you can't add a number because there is no end so how does that extra 9 come about? I don't disagree that 0.9 recurring equals 1 - the 'proof' you gave is not rigorous whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.56989112]

>>56989101
the extra 9 was always there bc there are an infinite number of 9s when u write 0.999¯

[Anonymous No.56989118]

>>56989101
Basically you can't apply rules for multiplication with finite decimals to infinite decimals.

[Anonymous No.56989122]

>>56989089
no, i know what you mean, like the series 1/2+1/3/1/4... that converges to 1. I'm telling you this has NOTHING to do with it.

>>56989101
Where the fuck the extra nine appears??

take this number:
0.55
multiply it by ten
5.5

did and extra 5 apper? What are you talking about??
if
x = 0.9999
then
10x = 9.999

you following me?

[Anonymous No.56989124]

>>56988592
Exquisite b8 OP

[Anonymous No.56989134]

>>56989122
1/2+1/3+1/4 equals 1.08...

[Anonymous No.56989138]

>>56989124
not a bait at all, i'm sensing i'm the one being baited due to the responses
this is very basic math, it's just an equation in which you literally do 2 things:
1) multiply each side by 10
2) substract x from each side
which are very simple and legit operations in any equation. Just incredible, i can't put it simpler that this, maybe with fractions is simpler for you and >>56989063 is right

[Anonymous No.56989159]

>>56988592
Even that's still purely theoretical

In the real world, we set something like x>0.8 as x=1 and x<0.2 as x=0 and 0.2>=x>=0.8 is all noise we throw away

[Anonymous No.56989162]

>>56989134
sorry it was the wrong one, the one i'm referring to is
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8... that finally converges to 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1/2_%2B_1/4_%2B_1/8_%2B_1/16_%2B_%E2%8B%AF

[Anonymous No.56989167]

>>56988592
How did you get into the lodge? This is forbidden knowledge.

[Anonymous No.56989173]

>>56988592
nigger arent you on the wrong board?

[Anonymous No.56989177]

>>56988592
Whole thread is a a fucking sell signal

[Anonymous No.56989195]

>>56989162
Yes this is a geometric series

[Anonymous No.56989222]

>>56989122
The extra 9 appears because you multiply by 10, all the digits shift to the left, then a 9 appears in the now empty spot.

I get the argument. It's just not a proof.

[Anonymous No.56989255]

>>56989222
it literally is lmao

x = y
it's 100% equal to saying
10x = 10y
the identity of x and y doesn't matter, it's always like that no matter what the x and y are

here, x is 0.999... and y is the same
so you write
x = y
and then after two legit mathematical operation (one multiplication and one subctraction which you can always do as long as you apply them to both sides) you getl
9x = 9
it's the simple, proven truth

[Anonymous No.56989291]

>>56989222
if it helps let's abstract the whole thing and put it like this:
if we define
x = y
then
10x = 10y
but also
10x - x = 10y - y
(because as we said, x = y)

do you agree with this on a general level? is there something wrong in these mathematical passages?

now replace "y" with 0.9¯ and here you go

[Anonymous No.56989543]

Repeating decimals cant be multiplied unless it is rounded or represented as a fraction. Your proof is thus boned.

[Anonymous No.56989623]

>>56989543
you are totally wrong and this is a valid proof.
You can multiply by 10 by shifting the comma to the right.

The mathematical operations involved are valid for evey real number, let's try with 5.

x = 5
10x = (5 * 10)
10x = 50
10x - x = 50 - 5
9x = 45
now divide by 9
x = 5

you see what happened? we got the truth, which is x = 5 (which we ourselves initially defined so, so there's not a purer form of truth whatsoever)

now let's to this again with a different value

x = 0.9¯
10x = (0.9¯ * 10)
10x = 9.9¯
10x - x = 9.9¯ - 0.9¯
9x = 9
now divide by 9
x = 1

what did we get?
x = 0.9¯ = 1

note that these passages
(0.9¯ * 10) = 9.9¯
and
9.9¯ - 0.9¯ = 9
are 100% legit, valid and permitted by math

[Anonymous No.56989794]

>>56989623
Go punch 0.999 repeating into a calculator and multiply it by any number then come back and tell us what you got. You will break your calc, or youll be punching until the heat death of the universe.

[Anonymous No.56989966]

>>56989794
calculators are not accurate representation of math, since they only allow a finite number of numbers

[Anonymous No.56989979]

>>56989794
"go punch in a calculator a number higher than 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999"
"you can't, so numbers are not infinite"

[Anonymous No.56990014]

>>56989979
Then do it with pen and paper. You cant, jackass.

You are having an imaginary playtime when you think youre multiplying 0.999 repeating by anything and getting an answer. It has to be rounded or a fraction.

[Anonymous No.56990023]

Decimal point system is flawed. Fractions mog

[Anonymous No.56990032]

Anyway, 0.999999999............
... Does equal to 1

[Anonymous No.56990058]

>>56990014
pen and paper are not representation of maths either lmao

to be fair, we actually can and do that
for example if we have to express a very large number, we do it like:

4*10^32321324

so we just write a power of ten, because writing the whole number would be tedious. For 0.9¯ we do the SAME EXACT thing and we write it like 0.9¯ (or 1, since they are the same thing precisely).
So i've already done it on "paper", here >>56989623

[Anonymous No.56990203]

>>56988592
FLOOR(1)=1, FLOOR(0.999...)=0, so not the same. Checkmate mathfags.
>inb4 floor is not defined for blabla
Seethe and cope.

[Anonymous No.56990304]

>>56990203
and there's the engineer

[Anonymous No.56990322]

[Anonymous No.56990326]

>>56988808
1/3 = 0,33333....
3*1/3 = 0,99999999...

if it's not =1, then were did the remaining 0,000..1 go?

[Anonymous No.56990418]

>>56990322
>>56990326
thank you fellas, i was fixated on the equation-form mathematical proof because i find it very simple and elegant, but probably with the fractions it's easier to see it for these monkeys

[Anonymous No.56990826]

>>56990326
What happens when you round 0.6 repeating to 0.67? Then add 0.3 repeating. You get 1.003333333333333. so
1.00333333333333333333=1

[Anonymous No.56990905]

Yes something that is infintesimally close to 1 is effectively 1.
Welcome to Intro to Calculus, your assignments are due every Monday at 6 pm.

[Anonymous No.56990940]

>>56990905
Keyword is effectively, which is not what OP is saying. He is saying it IS 1 bc he knows this will annoy people and waste their time.

[Anonymous No.56991340]

>>56990905
nothing "effectively" about it: they are 2 different symbols for the same number just like

0.56
is 100% equal to
0.560
there's no "round up" or the adoption of "practical" point of view in this, they are literally the same thing 100%

>>56990826
> when you round 0.6 repeating to 0.67
if you round up you are changing subject
if we are deleting things then sure, 0.999 is not equal to 1, because the difference between them is 0.001
but this can't happen if we are talking about 0.9¯, since the difference between that number and 0 is 0, meaning they are the exact same thing

[Anonymous No.56991426]

>>56988955
It would be more accurate to say that 0.9¯ is the closest mathematical value one can get to 1 without being the value 1. It is not the same number as 1 because some lazy brain acknowledges that it represents a value endlessly approaching, but never reaching one. Its a very precise value, of increasing precision, arcing toward one. But it by definition can never reach it. Just because some math jew says it can and other math jews agree doesn't make it so. You are the definition of a midwit sat in the center while retards and actual non-NPCs understand what you fail to grasp because someone you gave authority over you to define your world and perception says so.

[Anonymous No.56991467]

>>56990326
That level of precision cannot be reached in nature. It exists only in the mind. Cut a pizza into three completely equal slices of infinitely repeating value, you cannot. The calculator is programmed to output for the imaginary scenario and rounds the number to one just like the egghead OP does. Welcome to the math conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.56991508]

>>56991426
wrong. It's the same number 100%. Look it up or read the thread more carefully.

>>56991467
wrong again. If you are interested in stuff like that, there is plenty, you can google Banach-Tarski and find out. But this is NOT something like this, this is very very simpler than that, as you can see in the various proofs.
They are the SAME EXACT thing. NO difference WHATSOEVER, not even philosophical. Two symbols for the same thing.