Talk:0.999.../Arguments/Archive 6

message: How about we mark this page as an archive, i.e. no longer used, and refer anyone with actual questions on this subject to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics? -- SCZenz 02:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And then all the trolls will fill either Talk:0.999... or the reference desk with their garbage. I don't think that's a good option. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, discussion not relevant to the article is subject to removal; arguing about the veracity of properly-cited facts is, in fact, irrelevant.  The reference desk, I admit, could be a bit more problematic. -- SCZenz 07:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive proposal 

message: I cannot understand the following sentence:
"…, and there are infinitely many more representations that include adjacent 1s,"
(which is in the second paragraph of the section 'Generalizations')
As is written in Golden ratio base#Non-uniqueness, there are many reprensentations of 1 such that 1  = 0.11φ = 0.1011φ = 0.101011φ = ... = 0.10101010....φ
.  They are "adjacent 1s" ??
Could someone interpret a phrase "that include adjacent 1s" in plain English?  Thank you in advance.--Tsukapee 14:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "adjacent 1s" 

message: I would recommend that those who doubt the mathematical truth of this article to peruse the sci.math newsgroup, where this subject comes up quite regularly. There you have the benefit of discussing mathematical "beliefs" with real, honest-to-goodness professional mathematicians and teachers. — Loadmaster 23:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sci.math [[newsgroup]] 

message: It does not exactly equal 1 becasue it is obviously not 1.
1=1 not .999...Chessmaster3
:Which prooof are you having trouble with? --Maelwys 23:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he/she just thinks it's wrong for no particular reason having to do with mathematical logic.  The "disproof" given could also be applied to "One is one, not two halves (1=1 not 2/2)," which is similarly false. Calbaer 23:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: So what about 1 and 1.000... ? Are they Different? 1, One, Uno? Different? Enough Devil's advocate. 0.999... *does* have "math in it". It means 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + 9/10000 + ... ad infinitum. When you do the math, you get 1. Endomorphic 22:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: If .999...=1

message: Two mathematical objects are equal if and only if they are precisely the same in every way. .99999R and 1 are not the same in every way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_%28mathematics%29 Chessmaster3 23:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they are: 0.999... = 1 = 1/1 = cos 0 = ln e = i4.  Just because two numbers can be written differently doesn't mean they are different. Calbaer 01:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There are a number of proofs on this talk page and in the article that verify 1 = 0.999... in the real number system.  If you aren't sure about one of the steps in one of the proofs, feel free to ask about it.  Dugwiki 22:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no "closest number". If two numbers aren't exctly the same, you can always find a third between them. How? Take the average. Endomorphic 22:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Equal

message: The original statement states:
c = .999...
10c = 9.999...
-c  -.999...
This is where the problem is.  Although it is stated that c = .999... you can't just choose to not take away c from the other side, you must go through the equation according to the rules of mathematics, no matter what it is, you still have to take away the same exact thing.  Hence, 
10c = 9.999...
- c - c
9c = 9.999... - c
add to even it out
+c +c
10c = 9.999...
____  _____
10    10
c = .999...
Or simpler:
c = .999...
10c = 9.999...
____  _____
10    10
c = .999...
Or more vividly:
c = .999...
[10c] 10 (.999...) = 9.999...
this means multiply by .999... not 10.999...., so if you try taking away .999... from each side you would yield 10 = 9, which is absurd, hence it must be 9 = 9, but the unknown variable is not used.
[9c] 9 (.999...) = 8.999...
[1c] 1 (.999...) = .999...
c = .999... 
In conclusion, no you can't pick and choose to use an unknown variable on one side and use a known variable on the other side, you must adhere to the rules and take away the EXACT same thing, not assumptions of what it is.  But that doesn't even matter because the other proofs show that .999... is not 1.  Anyone who thinks otherwise has their head too far up their ass to see the clear picture by using simple elementary math. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xasthuresque (talk • contribs) 01:46, 28 February 2007  (UTC)
:Moved from talk by Melchoir 02:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're uncomfortable with algebra, the first proof is not the one you cite but rather an arithmetic one.  In the algebraic proof, c is not an unknown.  c=0.999... is a given.  What's left to prove is 0.999...=1.  If we couldn't use givens and axioms to prove things, mathematics would go nowhere.  If instead your objection, very similar to others, is that 9.999...-0.999... is not 9 due to some "missing little bit," please read the article, FAQ, and above discussion.  Considering the way in which you claim to be the one to overturn common mathematical knowledge, I suspect you might not, in which case you will be ignored as someone not truly interested in logic.  If you do read and attempt to comprehend it, contributions regarding concerns you have will be addressed. Calbaer 03:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the editor is attempting to argue that from a=b, and c=d, I can't get a-c=d-b. Hence the comment that " Although it is stated that c = .999... you can't just choose to not take away c from the other side, you must go through the equation according to the rules of mathematics, no matter what it is, you still have to take away the same exact thing" What the editor apparently does not understand is that they are the exact same thing, since c is .999... JoshuaZ 03:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You guys are going about this entirely the wrong way, let me show you why .999... does not equal to 1