View Poll Results: Is 0.999... exactly equal to one?

Voters
85. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, they are equal.

    51 60.00%
  • No, they are not equal.

    34 40.00%
Page 505 of 1834 FirstFirst ... 540545549550350450550650751555560510051505 ... LastLast
Results 5,041 to 5,050 of 18334
Like Tree2556Likes

Thread: Is 0.999... equal to one?

  1. #5041
    Senior Member john_gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    I am a nomad.
    Posts
    7,362

    Default Re: The end of Cantor's flawed Diagonal Argument.

    More thoughts on the infinite sum concept.

    Given that and , it is very tempting to reason as follows:

    Well, the limit of all the partial sums is , so why not just define it to be as Euler did?

    1. Because the sum that matters is not a partial sum. It is an ill-defined sum without a last term.

    2. Such definitions lead to nonsense such as 1/3 = 0.333... and 1 = 0.999...
    astromark likes this.
    The more I publish the truth, the more society hates me.
    There is no sympathy for those who expose deeply flawed mainstream ideas.

    The official New Calculus site
    The 9 applet New Calculus course
    Die Neue Analysis
    新微积分

  2. #5042
    Senior Member caper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,144

    Default Euler's Mistake in the Digit Proof

    Euler's "blunder" revealed in rigorous detail:

    Here is the "proof" for 0.(9) = 1, as provided by Euler, in which he claims that number manipulation can magically morph a "number" assigned as a constant, into another "number"











    First off, since when did become a variable that we needed to solve for ?? It is a constant. Constants don't change their value. Try assigning a value to a constant in a computer program and see if the value ever "ends up as something else".

    The huge blunder here is the combination of multiplying by 10 and subtracting a series from the resulting series, namely, 10 x 0.999... - 0.999...
    There are other underlying assumptions too, but I addressed those earlier in the thread (specifically, multiplying an infinite series by anything which causes a carry or decimal shift)

    Let's do 10n - n using the definition of n







    Now, what Euler does, is subtract the 2 series,

    ...Except, what he failed to show everyone, or assumed was ok, was that he shifted the second series to the right by one decimal place:





    How he does this is by doing to following:

    I believe Colin pointed this out at one point and said this was "ok" to do. At first glance, the fractions are all equivalent... except...
    ...the SERIES has changes slightly:

    [ Notice the starting index value. ]

    This allows the subtraction to occur as :

    instead of (The correct way)

    is really equal to

    So, by the Property of Addition and Subtraction of Summations:



    we can see that we shouldn't shift the series, because that uses the starting index: instead of

    Let's use the proposed theorem 17, to subtract the 2 series, with equal starting indices:

    Unaltered series:

    or, using the

    Altered Series with using Theorem 17 properly:

    Let's do a few terms, shall we?:





    I believe you get the point now, that by changing the series, you change the results.

    Therefore Euler mistakenly assumed that he could slide the series over to the right, and "cancel off" all the decimal digits, incorrectly so, in order to achieve his desired result of 9n = 9.

    We are not allowed, during this proof, to use the definition of 0.(9) = 1 because the point of the proof was to prove that the 2 numbers are equal "only by doing some basic algebra".

    It was a nifty trick that he used, to manipulate the series in order to "cancel off" all the decimals.

    We know what results we should get at EVERY point in every equation, if we define x = a, then x always equals a, and I showed that by NOT assuming things as Euler did, we do end up with the proper result and not some illusion where (a) becomes (b) with some hocus pocus. If we started with x = 1, and ended up with x = 2, would THAT be ok too? I think not...

    The conclusion is that 0.999... does not = 1 in the end. It equals 0.999... so he proved NOTHING, or, maybe the fact that extra care is due when performing "basic number manipulation" on an infinite series.

    Another source of the Converging Series Identities. The difference of converging series is the same logic as summation of series:

    Last edited by caper; 02-24-2014 at 07:18 PM.
    john_gabriel likes this.
    "Indeed [the limit is unlimited]"
    "1 = 0.999... is the limit of the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ..."

    All the pieces are the same size. No piece has 0 area, and you can't cut the paper into infinitely many pieces even mathematically. The limit of the number of cuts you can make is oo. The limit of the smallest area is 0. No matter how small the pieces are, you can cut them in half again. -Chris Crank mental midget

  3. #5043
    Moderator grapes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    3,763

    Default Re: Euler's Mistake in the Digit Proof

    Quote Originally Posted by caper View Post
    Euler's "blunder" revealed in rigorous detail:

    Here is the "proof" for 0.(9) = 1, as provided by Euler, in which he claims that number manipulation can magically morph a "number" assigned as a constant, into another "number"











    First off, since when did become a variable that we needed to solve for ?? It is a constant. Constants don't change their value. Try assigning a value to a constant in a computer program and see if the value ever "ends up as something else".

    The huge blunder here is the combination of multiplying by 10 and subtracting a series from the resulting series, namely, 10 x 0.999... - 0.999...
    There are other underlying assumptions too, but I addressed those earlier in the thread (specifically, multiplying an infinite series by anything which causes a carry or decimal shift)

    Let's do 10n - n using the definition of n







    Now, what Euler does, is subtract the 2 series,

    ...Except, what he failed to show everyone, or assumed was ok, was that he shifted the second series to the right by one decimal place:





    How he does this is by doing to following:

    I believe Colin pointed this out at one point and said this was "ok" to do. At first glance, the fractions are all equivalent... except...
    ...the SERIES has changes slightly:

    [ Notice the starting index value. ]

    This allows the subtraction to occur as :

    instead of (The correct way)
    So, that's the "correct" way? 9.999... - .0.999 equals 8.999... ?

    Weirdly enough I agree with that equation.

    Probably, next post, you'll try to argue against it.

    Or are you going to argue against 8.999... = 8 + 0.999...

    Because if you use those two "correct" equations in your other proof, you still get

    0.999... = 1
    Colin likes this.

  4. #5044
    Senior Member astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wanganui New Zealand
    Posts
    1,194
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument a fraud.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yuspoov View Post
    No one can. Good thing it's defined.



    Ah well, if someone says it's common sense, how could anyone argue with that?
    ~ and if I maintain a honesty I must fess up to wanting some argument for the joy of a conversation is not wasted on me.. The contributor 'Yuspoov' has not understood the question as I do. That this is a assumption that my understanding is better, or different than his. and my reasoning is as this... Those three digits or points ... are a clear indication of intent to convey a term undefined to infinite. If I add them at the end of a numeric expression like pi as 3.142... It is a display of understanding that the term is ill defined. Yes that term can and is worked with to a very accurate end result. That the addition of the three dots just shows I understand the reality of that term. In the case of 0.999... it shows that at no point can the term be equal to another number expressed as 1. That 'Yuspoov' sees this as something else just indicates to me he does not UNDERSTAND as I do. As for the quip regarding my common sense. You can not find argument with what remains mine.
    Last edited by astromark; 01-30-2014 at 09:02 PM.
    john_gabriel and caper like this.
    Always listening, watching, learning. Wanting to comment not judge.

  5. #5045
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    463

    Default Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument a fraud.

    Quote Originally Posted by caper View Post
    Euler's "blunder" revealed in rigorous detail:

    Here is the "proof" for 0.(9) = 1, as provided by Euler, in which he claims that number manipulation can magically morph a "number" assigned as a constant, into another "number"











    First off, since when did become a variable that we needed to solve for ??
    "n" here represents a value we need to solve for, if we want to answer to the question which is the topic of this thread. It does not represent a variable.

    It is a constant. Constants don't change their value. Try assigning a value to a constant in a computer program and see if the value ever "ends up as something else".
    Just so. And Euler's argument is not intended to change the value of "n", it is to express the unchanged value of a recurring decimal in a different form as a ratio of integers (or a single integer).

    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    So, that's the "correct" way? 9.999... - .0.999 equals 8.999... ?

    Weirdly enough I agree with that equation.

    Probably, next post, you'll try to argue against it.

    Or are you going to argue against 8.999... = 8 + 0.999...

    Because if you use those two "correct" equations in your other proof, you still get

    0.999... = 1
    Yes.

    If it is correct that

    9n = 8.999...

    then

    8n = 8.999... - 0.999... = 8

    therefore

    n = 8/8 = 1

  6. #5046
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,950

    Default Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument a fraud.




    So far so good. Just added equal numbers to both sides

    wrong. You can't subtract n from one side and .999... from the other. n has to be subtracted from both sides. So

    Then you have to convert n into numbers that can be treated properly.


    not



    That's math trickery.
    caper likes this.
    Lies have the stench of death and defeat.

  7. #5047
    Senior Member caper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,144

    Default Re: Euler's Mistake in the Digit Proof

    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    So, that's the "correct" way? 9.999... - .0.999 equals 8.999... ?

    Weirdly enough I agree with that equation.

    Probably, next post, you'll try to argue against it.

    Or are you going to argue against 8.999... = 8 + 0.999...

    Because if you use those two "correct" equations in your other proof, you still get

    0.999... = 1
    I'm sorry? Did you have a counter argument? Are there any mistakes ?
    Didn't think so.
    john_gabriel likes this.
    "Indeed [the limit is unlimited]"
    "1 = 0.999... is the limit of the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ..."

    All the pieces are the same size. No piece has 0 area, and you can't cut the paper into infinitely many pieces even mathematically. The limit of the number of cuts you can make is oo. The limit of the smallest area is 0. No matter how small the pieces are, you can cut them in half again. -Chris Crank mental midget

  8. #5048
    Senior Member caper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,144

    Default Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument a fraud.

    Quote Originally Posted by Colin View Post
    "n" here represents a value we need to solve for,
    NO we don't ! It is not a variable!
    n = 0.999... !! Right from the start. That is really bad understanding of variables and constants.

    Yes.
    If it is correct that
    9n = 8.999...
    then
    8n = 8.999... - 0.999... = 8
    therefore
    n = 8/8 = 1
    More fail for you and grapes both. Sorry. Didn't you learn anything from the comment I posted?? Would you wager your house on that ?









    Cross check our work:





    As it should. The more mistakes you make, the more I will point them out. Haven't you realized yet, that this proof is WRONG? If it is mathematically invalid, there is nothing you can do get the result you want when it is done properly.

    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    Because if you use those two "correct" equations in your other proof, you still get 0.999... = 1
    No. No you don't. Well, maybe you do, but it is wrong.

    Any object assigned to a letter is always that object. I can repeat that if you like. It doesn't get any more basic than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by astrotech View Post



    That's math trickery.
    Except that 9.999... - 0.999... = 8.999...
    Therefore:
    8.999... = 8.999...
    Last edited by caper; 01-30-2014 at 09:11 PM.
    john_gabriel likes this.
    "Indeed [the limit is unlimited]"
    "1 = 0.999... is the limit of the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ..."

    All the pieces are the same size. No piece has 0 area, and you can't cut the paper into infinitely many pieces even mathematically. The limit of the number of cuts you can make is oo. The limit of the smallest area is 0. No matter how small the pieces are, you can cut them in half again. -Chris Crank mental midget

  9. #5049
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,950

    Default Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument a fraud.

    Quote Originally Posted by caper View Post
    9.999... - 0.999... = 8.999...
    Nope. Wrong.
    Lies have the stench of death and defeat.

  10. #5050
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    19

    Default Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument a fraud.

    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    The contributor 'Yuspoov' has not understood the question as I do.
    We agree on that point!

    Quote Originally Posted by astrotech View Post



    So far so good. Just added equal numbers to both sides

    wrong. You can't subtract n from one side and .999... from the other. n has to be subtracted from both sides.
    [text]\vdots[/tex]
    That's math trickery.
    Oh, this sounds important. Let me make a note of this.

    and . But to assert that is math trickery.

LinkBacks (?)

  1. 12-05-2013, 04:43 PM
  2. 03-17-2013, 09:22 AM
  3. 09-28-2012, 09:36 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •