does 0.9999999.......... equal 1

Thanks Con.I'm glad to see Con has no problems with the definitions.Voters should use these definitions along with the Opt-In standards.Let's rebuttal!*Review*The case I made was threefold:#1. The fraction 1/3 is indistinguishable from the fraction 0.999.../3#2. Subtracting 1 from 1 (1 - 1 = 0) is exactly the same as subtracting 0.999... from 1 (1 - 0.999... = 0.000...)#3. Using 1 algebraically is indistinguishable from using 0.999... algebraically (10x = 9 + x)*Con's Attempt*Con asserts:"1 divided by 3 is not a correct value...the answer resorts to infinity."My response:Dividing by 3 is not a correct value?Don't tell equilateral triangles.I mean those guys think they can just divide all 180 degrees by their 3 total angles and expect us to recognize it as a correct value?I'll be long dead in my grave before I recognize 180 times 1/3.I spit at the equilateral triangle...spit!All joking aside,1/3 = 0.333... is a real, rational number just like 2/3 = 0.666... and 3/3 = 0.999... even though the numbers to the right of the decimal infinitely repeat; they are real, rational values used in standard arithmetic.Either way, Con ignores that *dividing 1 by 3 is indistinguishable from dividing 0.999... by 3* thereby making 1 and 0.999... equal.Con further asserts:"1-0.9999...... does not equal 0. it equals 0.0000000....1. We call this number infinitesimally small. But it still is above zero."My response:Con ignored that I had indicated the only time a 1 appears in the answer to a 1 - 0.9 subtraction problem is when there's an *end* to the amount of 9s in the decimal being subtracted from 1.Con didn't bother to attack that point and instead resorts to asserting that a 1 appears in the answer without showing an end to the amount of 9s in the decimal being subtracted from 1.I maintain that there is no *end* to the amount of 9s to the right of the decimal point in the number 0.999..., therefore if subtracted from 1 would result in the answer 0.000... which is equal to 0.Con supposes:"Suppose we used your exact same algebra on an equation with infinitely many 9's going off to the left."My response:Ok, I'm not a math guy, I'm a science guy, but I don't think there's this reciprocal property between infinite decimals and infinite natural numbers whereby infinitely adding more numbers to the right of the decimal point behaves the same as infinitely adding numbers to the left of the decimal point.But if we're just supposing, go ahead.Con continues:"x=...999.0Multiply both sides by 1010x=...9990.0"My response:Ok.It looks like you took a positive number ...999.0 and multiplied it by 10, making it 10 times larger, equaling the number ...9990.0Go on.Con continues:"...9990.0 is the original x value minus the last 9"My response:Ok. So here's the flaw.It's not the original value minus a 9, it's actually 10 times greater than the original value, so subtracting 9 from ...9990.0 doesn't give you the original value of ...999.0 instead it gives you the value of ...99981.0.From this point on, Con's attack ignores that...9990.0 - 9 = ...99981.0So from10x = x - 9the algebraic equation becomes:10x = ...99981.0And this does not get us to -1 or anything like it.So Con has been refuted.*Conclusion*0.999... has been shown to equal 1 and Con's refutation falls short for the reasons provided this round.