That’s not how fractions and math work though.

The context doesn’t make a difference

In base 10 --> 1/3 is 0.333…

In base 12 --> 1/3 is 0.4

But they’re both the same number.

Base 10 simply is not capable of displaying it in a concise format. We could say that this is a notation issue. No notation is perfect. Base 10 has some confusing implications

This seems to be conflating 0.333...3 with 0.333... One is infinitesimally close to 1/3, the other is a decimal representation of 1/3. Indeed, if 1-0.999... resulted in anything other than 0, that would necessarily be a number with more significant digits than 0.999... which would mean that the ... failed to be an infinite repetition.

Yes, but similar flaws exist for your proof.

The algebraic proof that 0.999… = 1 must first prove why you can assign 0.999… to x.

My “proof” abuses algebraic notation like this - you cannot assign infinity to a variable. After that, regular algebraic rules become meaningless.

The proper proof would use the definition that the value of a limit approaching another value is exactly that value. For any epsilon > 0, 0.999… will be within the epsilon environment of 1 (= the interval 1 ± epsilon), therefore 0.999… is 1.

Similarly, 1/3 = 0.3333…
So 3 times 1/3 = 0.9999… but also 3/3 = 1

Another nice one:

Let x = 0.9999… (multiply both sides by 10)
10x = 9.99999… (substitute 0.9999… = x)
10x = 9 + x (subtract x from both sides)
9x = 9 (divide both sides by 9)
x = 1

That’s the best explanation of this I’ve ever seen, thank you!

Sure, when you start decoupling the numbers from their actual values. The only thing this proves is that the fraction-to-decimal conversion is inaccurate. Your floating points (and for that matter, our mathematical model) don’t have enough precision to appropriately model what the value of 7/9 actually is. The variation is negligible though, and that’s the core of this, is the variation off what it actually is is so small as to be insignificant and, really undefinable to us - but that doesn’t actually matter in practice, so we just ignore it or convert it. But at the end of the day 0.999… does not equal 1. A number which is not 1 is not equal to 1. That would be absurd. We’re just bad at converting fractions in our current mathematical understanding.

Edit: wow, this has proven HIGHLY unpopular, probably because it’s apparently incorrect. See below for about a dozen people educating me on math I’ve never heard of. The “intuitive” explanation on the Wikipedia page for this makes zero sense to me largely because I don’t understand how and why a repeating decimal can be considered a real number. But I’ll leave that to the math nerds and shut my mouth on the subject.

I recall an anecdote about a mathematician being asked to clarify precisely what he meant by “a close approximation to three”. After thinking for a moment, he replied “any real number other than three”.

“Approximately equal” is just a superset of “equal” that also includes values “acceptably close” (using whatever definition you set for acceptable).

Unless you say something like:

a ≈ b ∧ a ≠ b

which implies a is close to b but not exactly equal to b, it’s safe to presume that a ≈ b includes the possibility that a = b.

Yes, informally in the sense that the error between the two numbers is “arbitrarily small”. Sometimes in introductory real analysis courses you see an exercise like: “prove if x, y are real numbers such that x=y, then for any real epsilon > 0 we have |x - y| < epsilon.” Which is a more rigorous way to say roughly the same thing. Going back to informality, if you give any required degree of accuracy (epsilon), then the error between x and y (which are the same number), is less than your required degree of accuracy

It depends on the convention that you use, but in my experience yes; for any equivalence relation, and any metric of “approximate” within the context of that relation, A=B implies A≈B.

Do you think Goodwin could treat the burns himself?

Decimal notation is a number system where fractions are accomodated with more numbers represeting smaller more precise parts. It is an extension of the place value system where very large tallies can be expressed in a much simpler form.

One of the core rules of this system is how to handle values larger than the highest digit, and lower than the smallest. If any place goes above 9, set that place to 0 and increment the next place by 1. If any places goes below 0, increment the place by (10) and decrement the next place by one (this operation uses a non-existent digit, which is also a common sticking point).

This is the decimal system as it is taught originally. One of the consequences of it’s rules is that each digit-wise operation must be performed in order, with a beginning and an end. Thus even getting a repeating decimal is going beyond the system. This is usually taught as special handling, and sometimes as baby’s first limit (each step down results in the same digit, thus it’s that digit all the way down).

The issue happens when digit-wise calculation is applied to infinite decimals. For most operations, it’s fine, but incrementing up can only begin if a digit goes beyong 9, which never happens in the case of 0.999… . Understanding how to resolve this requires ditching the digit-wise method and relearing decimals and a series of terms, and then learning about infinite series. It’s a much more robust and applicable method, but a very different method to what decimals are taught as.

Thus I say that the original bitwise method of decimals has a bug in the case of incrementing infinite sequences. There’s really only one number where this is an issue, but telling people they’re wrong for using the tools as they’ve been taught isn’t helpful. Much better to say that the tool they’re using is limited in this way, then showing the more advanced method.

That’s how we teach Newtonian Gravity and then expand to Relativity. You aren’t wrong for applying newtonian gravity to mercury, but the tool you’re using is limited. All models are wrong, but some are useful.

Furthermore, I’m not aware of any arguments worth taking seriously that don’t use logic, so I’m wondering why that’s a criticism of the notation.

If you hear someone shout at a mob “mathematics is witchcraft, therefore, get the pitchforks” I very much recommend taking that argument seriously no matter the logical veracity.

the problem is it makes my brain hurt

Any my argument is that 3 ≠ 0.333…

EDIT: 1/3 ≠ 0.333…

We’re taught about the decimal system by manipulating whole number representations of fractions, but when that method fails, we get told that we are wrong.

In chemistry, we’re taught about atoms by manipulating little rings of electrons, and when that system fails to explain bond angles and excitation, we’re told the model is wrong, but still useful.

This is my issue with the debate. Someone uses decimals as they were taught and everyone piles on saying they’re wrong instead of explaining the limitations of systems and why we still use them.

For the record, my favorite demonstration is useing different bases.

In base 10: 1/3 ≈ 0.333… 0.333… × 3 = 0.999…

In base 12: 1/3 = 0.4 0.4 × 3 = 1

The issue only appears if you resort to infinite decimals. If you instead change your base, everything works fine. Of course the only base where every whole fraction fits nicely is unary, and there’s some very good reasons we don’t use tally marks much anymore, and it has nothing to do with math.

Those versions have different axioms from which different things can be proven, but we don’t define 9.9 repeating as 1

That’s not what “axiom” means

It is physically equal to 1. Infinity goes on forever, and so there is no physical difference.

It’s not that it makes almost no difference. There is no difference because the values are identical. There is no infinity between the two values.

Afaik, the Planck Length is not a “real-world pixel” in the way that many people think it is. Two lengths can differ by an amount smaller than the Planck Length. The remarkable thing is that it’s impossible to measure anything smaller than that size, so you simply couldn’t tell those two lengths apart. This is also ignoring how you’d create an object with such a precisely defined length in the first place.

Anyways of course the theoretical world of mathematics doesn’t work when you attempt to recreate it in our physical reality, because our reality has fundamental limitations that you’re ignoring when you make that conversion that make the conversion invalid. See for example the Banach-Tarski paradox, which is utter nonsense in physical reality. It’s not a coincidence that that phenomenon also relies heavily on infinities.

In the 0.999… case, the infinite 9s make all the difference. That’s literally the whole point of having an infinite number of them. “Infinity” isn’t (usually) defined as a number; it’s more like a limit or a process. Any very high but finite number of 9s is not 1. There will always be a very small difference. But as soon as there are infinite 9s, that number is 1 (assuming you’re working in the standard mathematical model, of course).

You are right that there’s “something” left behind between 0.999… and 1. Imagine a number line between 0 and 1. Each 9 adds 90% of the remaining number line to the growing number 0.999… as it approaches one. If you pick any point on this number line, after some number of 9s it will be part of the 0.999… region, no matter how close to 1 it is… except for 1 itself. The exact point where 1 is will never be added to the 0.999… fraction. But let’s see how long that 0.999… region now is. It’s exactly 1 unit long, minus a single 0-dimensional point… so still 1-0=1 units long. If you took the 0.999… region and manually added the “1” point back to it, it would stay the exact same length. This is the difference that the infinite 9s make-- only with a truly infinite number of 9s can we find this property.

You’re being downvoted because you’re wrong.

My point was only that .9 repeating is still less than 1 in tangible measurement

If it’s less than 1, then it isn’t repeating indefinitely, which is what the ellipsis indicates.