Talk:0.999.../Arguments/Archive 7

message: 10*0.999 does not equal 9.999 as shown in the article, rather 9.99
:Yes, that's right. But the article doesn't say that 10*0.999=9.999, it says that 10*0.999...=9.999... (note infinitely repeating digits).—M_C_Y_1008 (talk/contribs) 04:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ie, Once one decides to escape to infinity there is no coming back... Almost like its in its own numerical space :-D Ansell 05:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  10c 

message: I've asked Uni professors, students and maths teachers. 0.9 recurring does not equal 1. 0.3 recurring is an estimate of 1/3, the closest you can come with decimals, but is not exactly 1/3, that is why you use 1/3 in equations. therefore, every single proof is wrong as they all rely on 1/3 being 0.3 recurring.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.224.230.251 (talk • contribs).
:If you don't believe 1/3 = 0.333..., then please read 0.999...#Algebraic proof, which doesn't deal with 1/3 at all. --Maelwys 13:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so, 1/3 does = 0.333... it's not an approximation. Leebo T/C 13:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I sincerely doubt you've asked any university professors, at least, not any math ones. Otherwise you would have gotten the exact opposite answer. (This assumes competence, which may be a bad assumption).Dlong 13:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, perhaps, he did ask competent mathematics university proffesors, but either did not ask the right questions, or did not interpret the answers correctly. That happens when trying to delve into a subject one does not understand. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be cynical, but the unsigned says that he asked professors and teachers, then concluded that 0.999... isn't 1, not that the professors and teachers actually told him as much.... Calbaer 16:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Then again, this is the same fellow who blanked the article, replacing it with a diatribe beginning, "You guys are complete idiots," so we should probably neither assume good faith nor waste our time with the user's vague and potentially deceitful concerns. Calbaer 18:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1/3 <> 0.333...

message: Is this page finally dead?
It was fun to watch all the trolls and cranks, but I guess this is still a cause for celebration! 
Quendus 09:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it a while and it'll flare up again, regular as clockwork. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 10:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactivity 

message: Want to argue? http://www.google.fi/search?q=1-0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 
By the way, don't blame _me_ if I broke the template, blame Wikipedia for blacklisting TinyURL, those little ignorant bastards. Just use the preview subdomain with the TinyURL URL if you don't want your nuts busted. --88.193.241.224 16:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that supposed to be some sort of "proof by calculator"? While I find Google's defects in that regard a little surprising, I see no relevance to this article. --Huon 16:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really surprising? Google seems to use ordinary double-precision floating point arithmetic. Asking it for 1-0.999999999999999 is enough. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modest proposal 

message: How valid is proof by the sum to infinity equation?
If we define 0.(9) as the sum to infinity of a series a=0.9 and r=0.1 we get the following
 0.(9) = a/(1-r)
       = 0.9/(1-0.1)
       = 0.9/0.9
       = 1
I assume you mean 0.(9)=\sum_{i=0}^\infty\frac{r}{a^i}=\frac{r}{1-a}. Your proof is perfectly valid except for the convergence of the geometric series itself, which should be first-year calculus. Those who doubt the equality will probably either disagree with your definition of 0.999... or will doubt the convergence. We've seen both. Yours, Huon 12:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you rephrase that to make some sense?  What is it you object to; the sum for an infinite geometric series?  Oli Filth 12:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, Anthony R. Brown is a crank who defines 0.999... as (1/0.9) x 0.9 (as he does above) but disagrees with the law of associativity and doubts (1/0.9) x 0.9 = 0.9/0.9. Arguing with him is rather useless; see Talk:0.999.../Arguments#Trolls and the following sections. --Huon 12:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof by sequences 

message: (where ~ means repeating)
Does -.9~ = -1 and does 3.9~ = 4 64.236.245.243 18:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep! 0.999... = 1, 10.999... = 11, -0.999... = -1, 3.999... = 4, 5.234999... = 5.235, etc. --Maelwys 19:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two questions 

message: I don't know about the others, but you can use the first formula to prove that ANY NUMBER is equal to one. Although I'm not mathematically proficient enough to know why this formula is invalid, the counterexample is proof that it is.
Pieisangry 00:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which formula? Oli Filth 00:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Assuming that you mean the first proof in the article, would you care to show how? 137.222.42.77 07:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formula usable to show that any number equals 1