1=2

Eq.jpg (23 KB)


| Send to Facebook | Send To Twitter
  • Leave A Comment

    Subscribe
    Notify of
    16 Comments
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    Rotatebilly

    0.9999999999999…
    let x = 0.99999999…
    10x = 9.999999999…
    9x = 9
    9x ÷ 9 = 9 ÷ 9
    x = 1
    0.9 = 1

    blobalob

    Yes, although unlike the image, this is actually true. Assuming that you still meant 0.9 recurring in the final line, not just 0.9.

    guest

    The “9x = 9” is false. It should be “9x = 8.99999999(cont)”, which kinda kills your proof.

    blobalob

    OK, this has actually been a can of mass-internet-anger worms for years so I probably shouldn’t start up this debate. But general consensus is that the proof is true. It is really a matter of notation rather than a matter of number theory, because of the fact that the notational concept of “recurring” means “repeat to infinity”, and infinity is a strange and often misunderstood concept. Personally though it seems clear to me that 0.999… is simply another way of writing 1, and similarly 8.999… is another way of writing 9. Numerically they are the same, they only differ in… Read more »

    przxqgl

    than queue

    blobalob

    The fallacy is in the final line, since (a^2 – ab) is always equal to zero, for all a and b. Therefore the final step involves division by zero, which is undefined.

    HoChunk

    Now do this with a=a so I can fuck with some objectivists.

    Narfjones

    The equation becomes invalid when you divide by zero. Using this, any number can equal any number.

    In general, there is leniency in mathematics.

    .9999… does not equal 1, ever. They aren’t the same thing.

    However, we relate them in taking a limit. That is to say, we define parameters so that we can use a number that runs on to infinity.

    AustinDav

    Ok, here we go.

    You can express the same number as a fraction or a decimal.

    if:
    1/3=.333…

    then:
    3(1/3)=1
    which can also be written
    3(.333…)=.9999

    Same number. Not “close enough.” Same. Nothing to do with limits, it’s the identity of a real number.

    Q.E.D.

    blobalob

    “However, we relate them in taking a limit. That is to say, we define parameters so that we can use a number that runs on to infinity.”. Yes, and this is how 0.999… is defined. (where the … indicates a recurring decimal). This is why 0.999… = 1. As I state above, this is a property of the notation, not so much of the numbers themselves.

    AustinDav

    You are anonymous. If you would like the luxury of referring back to previous statements, please get a UID and use it. Are you quoting yourself? In that case you are contradicting yourself. Are you disagreeing with someone else? You both have the same name. You are anonymous.

    Please clarify your identity. If you can’t do that, why should I trust your ability to identify a mathematical value?

    blobalob

    Because this is a image board I casually browse go one when I’m bored and am done masturbating, not a conference on number theory. I have a UID but I don’t usually care enough about my online identity to bother logging in. It’s pretty clear from context which anon comment I’m referring to anyway, because it’s the one where I said the thing that I wrote after “as I state above”.

    AustinDav

    “.9999… does not equal 1, ever. They aren’t the same thing.”
    “This is why 0.999… = 1.”

    Forgive me if it wasn’t obvious. Now can you please reconcile your two opposing statements? If you’re going to respond casually, maybe you shouldn’t bring up complex mathematics.

    Aquaman43

    there. i just died of boredom. thanks a lot.

    alaskanriley

    Godel. Look it up.

    DaftFiddle

    I use 0.9…=0 to fuck with my students heads when I tutor Chemistry. After they see it they actually want to learn.