Mathematician: Usually, in math, there are lots of ways of writing the same thing. For instance:
As it so happens, 0.9999… repeating is just another way of writing one. A slick way to see this is to use:
One.
Another approach, that makes it a bit clearer what is going on, is to consider limits. Let’s define:
…
and so on.
Now, our number 
Taking 1 and subtracting all parts of the equation from it gives:
Then, we observe that:
and hence
But we can make the left hand side into as small a positive number as we like by making n sufficiently large. That implies that 1-0.9999… must be smaller than every positive number. At the same time though, it must also be at least as big as zero, since 0.9999… is clearly not bigger than 1. Hence, the only possibility is that
and therefore that
What we see here is that 0.9999… is closer to 1 than any real number (since we showed that 1-0.9999… must be smaller than every positive number). This is intuitive given the infinitely repeating 9’s. But since there aren’t any numbers “between” 1 and all the real numbers less than 1, that means that 0.9999… can’t help but being exactly 1.
Update: As one commenter pointed out, I am assuming in this article certain things about 0.9999…. In particular, I am assuming that you already believe that it is a real number (or, if you like, that it has a few properties that we generally assume that numbers have). If you don’t believe this about 0.9999… or would like to see a discussion of these issues, you can check this out.
lol. You need to know what each “number” is before you can take the difference. Of course the difference is zero, because you say that they are the same before you subtract, assuming you are subtracting “numbers”
While the mathematical argument presented here is correct, I have to say that limit and/or mathematical infinity introduced created confusions for many. What I wanted to say is that math infinity is really a math trick. It cannot and should not be real in the real physical world. Today this infinity plagues physics and its calculations. Maybe we need something new…
go to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsOXvQn3JuE site and get a mathematical proof that 0.999… doesnot equal to 1….
EMINEM, the video was published on April fool’s day for a reason!
The simplest explanation I’ve seen for this is:
1/3 = 0.333…
(1/3)3=1 = (0.333…)3=0.999…
1 = 0.999…
I don’t see how anyone can come to any conclusion other than 1=0.999… after understanding this.
1 / 3 = ??
Use long division. There are 2 parts: the quotient and the remainder. For every iteration.
First iteration is 0 R 1/3
Second is 0.3 R 1/30
Third is 0.33 R 1/300
Etc etc.
Where does your remainder go, Josh?
You don’t account for it anywhere.
The remainder is never zero.
How many 9’s are there in your 0.999… ?
Hey mathman,
There are infinitely many 9s in my “0.999…”. If it were anything other than infinitely many, then it would be less than 1.
And as far as 1/3, your “etc. etc.” is an infinitely repeating “0.333…”. I’m failing to see how anything you’ve presented has disproved what I said.
@mathman:
The remainder does not need to be accounted for. The division 1/3 is never formally complete if there is a remainder. Therefore, one must keep iterating the operations in long division. As the number of iterations n approaches infinity, the remainder does approach zero. That is what matters here. The number of 3s in the decimal expansion of 1/3 is infinite, and so is the number of 9s in the figure 0.999…
The Original author of the Proof below…used in this Thread 🙂
http://www.mathisfunforum.com/viewtopic.php?id=6069
It’s impossible for Infinite/Recurring 0.9 (0.999…) to ever equal 1
Because of the Infinite/Recurring 0.1 (0.001…) Difference! 🙂
Only by the using the + Calculation can it be possible (0.999…) + (0.001…) = 1
Anthony.R.Brown
Anthony R. Brown,
Your argument is flawed for the simple reason that the “infinite difference” you describe equivalent to 0.000…1 is not a number. It doesn’t exist in mathematics. It can’t exist in mathematics. It is more of a problematic number than 0/0 or defining a left-identity of exponentiation Phi such that Phi^x=x. It is simply nonsense.
Anthony,
Being someone who has researched and understands both sides of this issue, you will be told it’s nonsense by mathematicians. It’s their way of putting themselves above you to put you down. The issue with your argument is that 0.001… is defined as 0.00111111111111…. You are having a problem defining what the idea in your head is. 0.000…1 is also not a number. Mathematicians for some reason cannot visualize repeated division the same as they can visualize it in addition. There quick to use the word nonsense, and then in the next breath say that by adding infinite numbers they can have a finite result.
Hi Ángel Méndez Rivera
Your try at a counter argument…saying (0.001…) does not exist in mathematics ? can’t exist in mathematics if (0.999…) exist’s which it does! 🙂
The two are the related from the calculation 1 – (0.999…) = (0.001…) one cannot exist without the other!
Anthony.R.Brown
I had the reply below from Mathman…
Anthony,
Being someone who has researched and understands both sides of this issue, you will be told it’s nonsense by mathematicians. It’s their way of putting themselves above you to put you down. The issue with your argument is that 0.001… is defined as 0.00111111111111…. You are having a problem defining what the idea in your head is. 0.000…1 is also not a number. Mathematicians for some reason cannot visualize repeated division the same as they can visualize it in addition. There quick to use the word nonsense, and then in the next breath say that by adding infinite numbers they can have a finite result.
Then when I wanted to reply the message above is not shown ? so I will Answer below…
First of all what you are showing as 0.00111111111111…. is wrong! there is only a single (1) following the Infinite/recurring calculation so your example above should look like 0.00000000000001….
The amount of zeros depends on how far one wants to show the calculation regarding decimal places!
Example 0.9… has the infinite/recurring difference 0.1…
Example 0.99… has the infinite/recurring difference 0.01…
Example 0.99… has the infinite/recurring difference 0.001…
So as you can see the infinite/recurring difference is always the same length as the infinite/recurring 0.9 🙂
Anthony.
0.001….. = 0.0011111111111111111…..
Anthony do you know what you are taking about?
Hi Mathman
Yes I fully know what I am talking about but you appear not to ?
As I pointed out in your example ? = 0.0011111111111111111….. it is wrong there can only be a single (1) otherwise when you do the calculation…
0.0011111111111111111….. + 0.0000000000000000009….. it will equal something like = 0.0011111201111111111… ?
Where as the True calculation (with both sides the 0.9… and the 0.1… the same amount of decimal places)
Calculates 0.9999999999…. + 0.0000000001…. = 1
Regards Anthony.
The flaw in your logic is thinking that there is ever space for a 0.0…01. The number 0.999… repeating forever by definition has no room to add anything to it. The 9’s never stop to allow the insertion of any variation of 0.0001. And if there is no room to ever add anything to 0.999… infinitely repeating, then there is no space in between 0.999… infinitely repeating and 1, and therefore they are equal. If the 9’s stopped repeating at any point, you would be correct, but they do not stop repeating, so you are incorrect.
The ellipsis “…” mean “repeating”. I know what you are trying to say but you are using symbols incorrectly.
1/1000… would be a more accurate to convey your idea.
Hi Joshua
Your Quote:”The number 0.999… repeating forever by definition has no room to add anything to it”
A.R.B
The same as “The number 0.001… repeating forever by definition has no room to add anything to it”
They both run side by side! 🙂
0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999….
0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001….
It’s only when one want’s to make the Value (1) that the + Calculation is needed it’s the only way!
( 0.9999999999….) + (0.0000000001….) = 1
Sorry Anthony, you have not wrapped your head around what 0.999… repeating for infinity means. It’s the infinite part that’s really important. I promise you, you are wrong, and once you understand what infinitely repeating means, you’ll get it.
Anthony, no. They don’t run side by side. The number you describe as the difference between 1 and 0.999… doesn’t exist, because by definition, it is impossible to have a 1 after an infinite amount of zeros. It just is. There is no such calculation as the one you performed to be made because the number you describe doesn’t exist.
There is an undefined infinitesimal space between 0.999… and 1. Just because it’s undefined doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Mathman,
1. If it is undefined, then it does not exist. One implies the other.
2. No, there is no infinitesimal space between 0.999… = 1, and this can be proven.
0.999… = 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + … this is an infinite geometric series, which is evaluated and in fact defined by the formula a/(1 – r), so the sum 0.999.. = (9/10)/(1 – 1/10) = (9/10)/(9/10) = 1. As for the formula a/(1 – r), it can be easily derived and proven
( 1.1 ) x 0.9 = 0.99 ” One Decimal Place = ” 0.01 < 1
( 1.11 ) x 0.9 = 0.999 " Two Decimal Place's = " 0.001 < 1
( 1.111 ) x 0.9 = 0.9999 " Three Decimal Place's = " 0.0001 < 1
( 1 / 0.9 ) x 0.9 = 0.9… " Infinite Decimal Place's = " 0.1… < 1 "
Mathman,
You would be correct if the repeating 0.999… ever stopped, no matter how long it was. But the number that we are talking about literally never stops, and therefore does not leave any space. There is absolutley no number that would fit in between it and 1.
Most of the confusion over this matter seems to be about the nature of infinity, and how it applies to infinitely repeating decimals. The importance of wrapping our heads around what “infinitely repeating” means cannot be overstated.
Anthony,
(1.1)(0.9) = 0.99
(1.11)(0.9) = 0.999
(1.111)(0.9) = 0.9999
(1.111…)(0.9) = 0.999…. = (1/0.9)(0.9), because 1.1111… = 1/0.9. But any number divided by itself equals 1, so (0.9)/(0.9) = 1, therefore 1 = 0.9999….
Quote: “Joshua says:
You would be correct if the repeating 0.999… ever stopped, no matter how long it was. But the number that we are talking about literally never stops, and therefore does not leave any space. There is absolutley no number that would fit in between it and 1.”
A.R.B
Absolutely Correct!!! So now you and I agree it’s impossible for 0.999…to ever stop and become equal to 1 🙂
So how do we make 0.999… = 1 and that’s where we have the answer!…
( 0.999…) + (0.001…) = 1
{When great minds think alike Mountains can be moved!} 🙂
No, Anthony, you still don’t understand. The fact that it never stops is the very thing that makes it equal to 1. Again, I come back to encouraging you to take the time to actually understand what an infinitely repeating decimal is.
Hi Joshua
What you don’t seem to understand is that infinite/recurring 0.999… is a Calculation on a Number! and the number Starts as 0.9 (It’s not something that is just plucked from the sky from nothing!)
Your biggest mistake! is “The fact that it never stops is the very thing that makes it equal to 1” ? a Number that Starts < 1 can never be made to equal 1 unless the + Calculation is used!
Anthony, the number 0.999… with infinite 9s is not a calculation. It is a static number. The 9s are not constantly being generated, they exist (all infinity of them) at once. It does not “start” at 0.9. It exists as 0.999… with an infinite number of 9s. You don’t have to work up to it, it just is.
It is clear that you still do not understand what an infinitely repeating decimal is. You do not understand the basic premise of what we are talking about. Therefore, you can not speak to it in an intelligent or useful manner.
I’m not trying to be mean or anything, either. I appreciate people pointing out when I am wrong so I can learn what is correct. You clearly don’t understand the basics of this topic, therefore you are wrong, and it is an opportunity for you to learn something new and broaden your knowledge base.
“What you don’t seem to understand is that recurring 0.999… is a calculation on a number!”
This is wrong. 0.999… is a number. It isn’t a process, it already is a number. It doesn’t “start” out as 0.9. It already is and exists as 0.999…, it doesn’t start anywhere or end anywhere. It isn’t a changing or moving thing. It just is a number.
So Joshua & Angel…
Are both wrong! if they think (the number 0.999… with infinite 9s is not a calculation) ???
Because all the so called Proofs ? are based on some kind’s of Calculations!!!
Just to back that up…a Google search for 0.999… proofs shows (About 367,000 results) 21/09/2017
And they are all some kind’s of Calculations! 🙂
One fine example is shown below…with many Calculations!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999…
Anthony.R.Brown
Ángel,
a/(1-r) comes from a limit. The LIMIT of the infinite series is 1. The definition is flawed and contradicts the very theory of limits.
It may be impossible to have a 1 AFTER an “infinite amount”. That is because “infinite amount” doesn’t exist. Stop trying to quantify infinity. It is not impossible to describe the idea, however: 1/1000…
The very definition of limits show there is ALWAYS AN EPSILON.
n=1: 1-0.9= 0.1
n=2: 1-0.99 = 0.01
For ALL values n, there is a difference, or, contradictory to Anthony, there is always a space. If you travserse 90% of the remaining distance , ad infinitum, there will always be 10% of the last distance ahead of you. You’ll never complete the journey of say, 1 mile, going 90% each time.
I argue that “0.999…” is not a number at all.
Σ (n=1 to N) 9/10^n as N goes to infinity, implies there is always a rational number being added to the previous total. The number 1 has nothing being addd to it. Therefore they aren’t the same.
Also, ‘something’ that always has another addend can’t be a number. It’s contradictory because it always has another number being added to it.
Thus: 1-0.999(n-times) = 1/10^n
You may let n get as arbitrarily large as you like.
You cannot have “infinite amount of 9’s” though.
You can have the LIMIT as the number of 9’s gets arbitrarily large. This is a number. “Endless 9’s” really is nonsense when it comes to a number which should really be finite.
So then, for ALL n in N, that is, for every integer, there is a difference which is smaller than the last and never 0.
Learn what arbitrarily large means, and how limits really work, and what infinite means, and how infinity is applied in calculus. Infinity and limits go hand in hand. You don’t plop infinity wherever you feel.
LIMIT Cannot be used with Infinite/Recurring 0.9 (0.999…) because you will then Contradict the term (Infinite/Recurring) by forcing the .9’s to cut off at some point depending on where you want the LIMIT to be, regarding decimal places calculated,this is much the same as the cut off point used when Infinite/Recurring 0.9 (0.999…) is forced at some point to become equal to 1
So back to…
It’s impossible for Infinite/Recurring 0.9 (0.999…) to ever equal 1 (Unless you use a LIMIT) ? 🙁
And the Infinite/Recurring 0.1 (0.001…) Difference! (Also does not us a LIMIT)
Both are LIMITless 🙂
Only by the using the + Calculation can it be possible for (0.999…) + (0.001…) = 1
No, we do not get to choose where the limit is. The limit is a number larger than every element of the sequence of partial evaluations of a function, which means that the limit is larger than the sequence itself. In other words, the term of the sequence which equals the limit is itself located at an infinite position of the sequence. Any finite evaluation yields less than the limit. However, 0.99… has an infinite number of 9s, so it exactly equals the limit. We’re not cutting it off to equal 1, you’re cutting it off to equal less than 1, but you’re Not actually using the sequence of infinite nines, so you’re argument is wrong.
There is no such a thing as limitless in mathematics, and 0.000…1 is nonsense and does not exist.
Mathman,
Read my previous response to your argument. I already explained why your description of the definition of a limit is wrong and why the idea of there always being an epsilon is irrelevant when actually evaluating the limit of a function as the argument approaches c.
Quote: “Ángel Méndez Rivera says:
September 22, 2017 at 1:50 pm
No, we do not get to choose where the limit is.
A.R.B
Yes! you do by using it in the first place!
Quote: “Ángel Méndez Rivera says:
“However, 0.99… has an infinite number of 9s, so it exactly equals the limit. ”
A.R.B
How can an infinite number of 9s, exactly equals the limit (You have set!) which is 1 ? which is an Integer number > 0.99…
Quote: “Ángel Méndez Rivera says:
There is no such a thing as limitless in mathematics, and 0.000…1 is nonsense and does not exist.
A.R.B
Infinite/Recurring 0.9 (0.999…)
Infinite/Recurring 0.1 (0.001…)
Are both (Individually!) LIMITless they only have a LIMIT when added! together to equal 1
(0.999…) + (0.001…) = 1
@Anthony.R.Brown
They’re not using the word “limit” the way any reasonable English speaking person uses the word limit, they mean it in the mathematical sense. You can read about what a mathematical limit is here.
The Physicist says: Quote:”They’re not using the word “limit” the way any reasonable English speaking person uses the word limit, they mean it in the mathematical sense. You can read about what a mathematical limit is here.”
A.R.B
The word (LIMIT) however you define it ? or look it up on some Math sites ? is being used in a way… and the same way ? so as to make a Calculated Number,that starts life less than 1 somehow become equal to 1 ? 🙁
A better way to look at the problem is…
Infinite/Recurring 0.9 (0.999…) = Universe! 🙂
And if we place a Wall at the End of the Universe! ? there will still be Universe! behind the Wall…
0.9 (0.999…) Universe! { Wall = 1} 0.9 (0.999…) Universe!…
Anthony, no. There is no such a thing as a limitless number. Please, study the topic you’re talking on before you use terminology. The Physicist already told you where you can study the idea of what a limit is. Take the suggestion and study it.
Mathman,
There is a justified reason why challenging mathematics makes you a crackpot: we can prove that by challenging mathematics, you are wrong.
2. Euler did not define limits.
3. Also, a definition cannot be wrong. This is, ironically, the definition of a definition. So Euler’s definition of infinite summation is acceptable. Euler’s definition renders summation continuous in the entire complex plane, which is what it should be according to group theory.
4. It makes perfect sense to add an infinite number of things. We do it all the tim in physics, and we get observable results that we do observe consistently.
5. No, your term-by-term subtraction was done wrong. Subtraction is done digitwise right to left.
6. 0.999… is not a bad way to represent 9/10 + 9/100 + …, but rather it is the only to represent it since it is the very definition. It is how decimal representation works. It can’t also be represented as Sum[m = 1, m= n —> Infinity](9*10^(-m)), which can be shown to equal 1 since the sum is 0.9(1 – 10^[-n])/(1 – 1/10), and when n —> Infinity, this expression simplifies to 1. This is the limit.
7. Yes, I agree that f(x = c) does not equal lim x—>c [f(x)]. However, 0.999… isn’t equal to f(x=c), but rather equal to lim x—>c [f(x)]. 0.999…. IS the limit of the partial sums by the very definition of decimal representation, and the partial sum limits to 1 evaluated by Taylor-geometric series. By transitive property, 0.999… = 1.
Remember: infinite sums are a thing. Irrational numbers prove it. It has been proven. It isn’t a definition to say “we can add infinitely many things”. No, we can prove it mathematically. That being said, 0.999… = 9/10 + 9/100 + … by definition. Not debatable. Now, 9/10 + 9/100 + … = Sum [m = 1, lim n —> Infinity][9*10^(-m)]. This latter expression is a limit. Keep in mind that summation is a linear hyper-operator, which makes f(y) = Sum[k=x, y][g(k)] continuous for all continuous g. Now, also remember that by the very definition of continuity, lim (x —> c) f(x) = f(c). Hence, Sum [m = 1, n lim n —> Infinity][9*10^(-m)] = Sum[m = 1, Infinity][9*10^(-m)]. This implies that 0.999… is actually a valid sum and therefore a valid decimal representation. You can add infinitely many terms. Finally, the latter left hand side of the previous identity mentioned is equal to lim (n —> Infinity) 9/10[1 – 10^(-n)]/(1 – 1/10) = (9/10)/(9/10) = 1. By the transitive property, 0.999… = 1.
0.999… is or it isn’t equal to 1. if you are x distant to our Universe you are not in our Universe. no 3 dimentional universe is infinite unless all universe could be infinite too. 1-x=0.9999…. if you are x distant from our universe you are not in our universe. you might say x doesn’t exist, but, nether does 1/9 in base ten math. base ten is a rational universe of numbers there can be no number that equates to almost 1 but not 1 ,,or almost 1 is 1 in a rational universe.. at some point you have to say that if an infinite string of numbers representing both a fraction of a number and a whole number, then there must exist an infinity small number also exists that both equals 0 and almost 0 too. so x is more rational of a number that can add to .999999… and get 1.. base ten can’t solve it but logic can.. 0.9999.. is a number or it isn’t x is a number or it isn’t 1-x=0.9999…. or it doesn’t 1=0.99999… or it doesn’t
Jesse Sherer says:
December 1, 2017 at 6:41 am
A.R.B
= Nonsense! 🙁
0.9999.. is a number Less than 1 🙂
Ángel Méndez Rivera says:
September 24, 2017 at 5:02 pm
Anthony, no. There is no such a thing as a limitless number. Please, study the topic you’re talking on before you use terminology. The Physicist already told you where you can study the idea of what a limit is. Take the suggestion and study it.
A.R.B
Totally Wrong! Give me any Number you want ? and I will add any Number I want to it! Which makes any Number you provide {a limitless number} 🙂
“Totally Wrong! Give me any Number you want ? and I will add any Number I want to it! Which makes any Number you provide {a limitless number} 🙂”
No, you’re wrong. A limitless number is nonsensical concept which does not exist, because you’re failing to understand what a limit is. Let me tell you what a limit is.
Let f(x) be a function defined over the real numbers. Let e > 0 and let c be in the interval [c – e, c + e]. There exists a number as a function d(e) > 0 such that f(x), where x is in the interval above, is in the interval [L – d(e), L + d(e)]. This L is the limit.
More intuitively, suppose we have a special value c. Let x be closer and closer to c. Then when we plug f(x), it is closer and closer to L. This L is the limit.
Limitless simply refers to L being equal to some infinite number.
“Give me any Number you want ? and I will add any Number I want to it! Which makes any Number you provide {a limitless number}”
That has nothing to do with limits, Anthony. Again, the idea of a limitless number is nonsense. If I give you any number, say, the number 4, and you add any number to it, you get a new number. If you add 2, you get 6, if you add -1, you get 3, if you add pi, you get 4 + pi. There is no such a thing as limitless number. Adding a number to another number you already had simply produces a third number. It doesn’t make it “limitless” or anything illogical like that.
@Jesse Sherer:
“0.999… is or it isn’t equal to 1. if you are x distant to our Universe you are not in our Universe.”
This is only true if x > 0. However, in this case, x = 0. 0.999… and 1 are the same number. If you cannot obtain 0.999… by subtracting a number x from 1 if x > 0.
“no 3 dimentional universe is infinite unless all universe could be infinite too.”
This is nonsense. Whether our universe is infinite is independent of whether any universe can be infinite or not.
“1-x=0.9999…. if you are x distant from our universe you are not in our universe. you might say x doesn’t exist, but, nether does 1/9 in base ten math.”
1/9 does exist in base 10. It is equal to 0.111… x does exist too, and x = 0. Since 0 exists, it follows that x exists.
“base ten is a rational universe of numbers…”
Base 10 is simply a way of writing numbers. There is infinitely uncountable number of ways to write a number.
“…there can be no number that equates to almost 1 but not 1 ,…”
False. The number 0.999999999999 is very close to 1, almost 1, but not quite 1. This number exists. However, this number is different from 0.999… which IS equal to 1. It is not almost 1, but rather, it is 1.
“…,or almost 1 is 1 in a rational universe.. at some point you have to say that if an infinite string of numbers representing both a fraction of a number and a whole number,…”
All whole numbers are fractions. 10 is a whole number, yet 20/2 is a fraction. They are the same number. Also, you can rewrite it as 10/1. All whole numbers are fractions. 1 is equal to the fraction 3/3, which is also equal to the number 0.999…, so 0.9999… and 1 are equal. It is possible for an infinite string to represent any number. Just add each part up.
“…then there must exist an infinity small number also exists that both equals 0 and almost 0 too.”
Not necessarily, no. Your argument is non-sequitur.
“so x is more rational of a number that can add to .999999… and get 1.”
Indeed, and x = 0. 0 is a rational number.
“…base ten can’t solve it but logic can.”
Yes, and logic tells us that 0.999…= 1 because we have a definition of infinite summation which allows us to necessarily conclude this.
“0.9999.. is a number or it isn’t x is a number or it isn’t 1-x=0.9999…. or it doesn’t 1=0.99999… or it doesn’t”
0.999…=1
The issue with math and any other technical subject is that people do as they are told without understanding the procedure or subject.
Numbers are symbols to represent values using a pattern of digits for the codes used to calculate. Different pattern, different values.
The purpose of the decimal point is to separate the whole part of a number from the fractional part of a number. A fraction of a number is less than a whole, therefore the numbers are not equal.
The infinitely repeating nine in the numerator, an odd number and the denominator is 10 to an exponent, an even number because the tenths place has a value of 1 for the exponent, therefore the number can’t be equal to one because odd and even numbers have different values, yet for a fraction to be equal one, both numbers need to be the same including both odd or even.
One number is equal to another when their difference is zero, yet there is a difference between 9 and 0, therefore the numbers are not equal. Basic subtraction dictates that you need to line up the periods of the two numbers then subtract each digit – the nine from zero, the result is never zero.
Take a value of one for a whole pizza, cut it into 10 equal parts, remove one part and the value is point 9. Divide the removed part into 10 equal parts and return 9 of those parts back to the pizza to get a value of point 99. Continue this process forever and you’ll get the repeating 9 indefinitely, but never again a value of one.
Math is simple but requires logic and understanding. I presented logic, mathematical proofs, established rules and an explanation why these two numbers are in fact not equal in value.
When it comes to logic, believe facts, not people.
Infinite/Recurring 0.9 (0.999…) = Infinite/Recurring 0.9 (0.999…) Which is < 1
Infinite/Recurring 0.9 (0.999…) + Infinite/Recurring 0.1 (0.001…) = 1
@Anthony R. Brown:
Once again, this has been repeated many times. 0.000…1 does not exist. It is not a number. You could prove so many contradictions with it. It does not exist. Period. You are spouting nonsense. I do not care if you want it to exist or not, it cannot exist, and this has been proven.
Ángel Méndez Rivera says: 0.000…1 does not exist.
Oh! Boy it sure does! 🙂
1 – (0.001…) = (0.999…)
1 – (.1) = 0.9 1 – (.01) = 0.99 1 – (.001) = 0.999
Then as shown above the Infinite/Recurring Example = 1 – (0.001…) = (0.999…)