0.999...Does not equal 1

My contender and his flawed mathematics.This section regards cons slippery strategy, where he focuses on an equation that is simply untrue.Con responds to my question 1."When you subtract a number from itself, the result is zero."This claim of his is relevant to his single equation regarding 9.999..-0.999..=9 I shall prove this equation to be untrue.We've already agreed that infinity is not a number, so when 0.999.. has a string of 9s that go on for infinity (without end, to be infinite) how can we then, be sure of the value of this 'number' we can't.Therefore 9.999...-0.999.. cannot equal 9. This sum relies on taking away a number with a decimal value of infinity from a number with a decimal value of infinity. The actual answer to this equation is, 9.0/0 (Nine Undefined) I will now prove this mathematically.Let's prove that infinity - infinity is not 0 as con has assumed.First, we assume the claim to be true,∞-∞=0Next I will add a 1 to both sides of the equation.∞-∞+1=0+1Since ∞+1=∞ and 0+1=1 we will simplify both sides of the equation.We get ∞-∞=1 Following my opponents logic, I am able to make infinity-infinity= any number I desire, thus proving his equation to be flawed and nothing more than a trick. To further solidify my argument I will prove this using a second mathematical equation.Let's assume ∞-∞=0Since we know that ∞ = ∞ + ∞, then if we substitute this equation into the first infinity in the equation above, we get:(∞+∞)-∞=0 which is the same as ∞+∞-∞=0Since we already assumed ∞ - ∞ = 0, then we can substitute to this:∞+0=0 This simplifies to ∞=0This is clearly incorrect and proves that ∞=Undefined.I urge my opponent to attempt to prove otherwise, or else he cannot win this debate.Con does not respond to my question 2Con does not respond to my question 3In response to cons misunderstandings.It seems my opponents arguments weighs heavily on calculators agreeing with him.Being able to prove that a calculator doesn't round up, is something my opponent is unable to do, therefore perusing this argument is pointless and would only show the limitations of calculators, rather than, the limitation of his own calcualtions.It's clear that con has misunderstood that there is a need for infinite decimals in the base 10 system, due to the base 10 system not being a perfect system. Mathematics is a reflection of the real world, the real world is not a reflection of mathematics, so just because we haven't devised a perfect mathematical system yet, without the need for infinite decimals to cover its flaws, we shouldn't assume such axioms to be true. Despite the fact that I've answered all of cons questions in my previous rounds, con has failed to answer 2 key questions I had for him. I've also proven his equations to be false and he failed to show any understanding of the concept of infinity, he has in fact, resorted to using semantics in order to tackle the various issues infinity presents. Therefore con has lost this debate.I urge voters to not lose track of the important arguments made, and overlook the fallacious arguments by con has presented.I would like to thank con for participating and for remaining stubborn in the face of overwhelming odds. May his final argument be better than his last.Djksp cannot vote on this debate due to been a vote spammer.