Thread: does .9 repeating equal one?

September 20, 2002, 23:26 #1
 Join Date
 11 Jan 2002
 Posts
 551
 Thanks
 0
 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 18:12
does .9 repeating equal one?
This will be hard to show, doing math on a post is kind of hard.
I never really thought about what .9 repeating was, I just said it all the time like "99.9999999999% sure I'm right." But I said that once and remembered that when a number is a repeating you write the digits that repeat over x amounts of nines (x being the amount of digits the numerator has). For example 1/9=.1 repeating, because 1 divided by nine equals .1 repeating. Same thing goes for .16 repeating. It is 16/99 because 16 divided by 99 equals .16 repeating. So that means that .9 repeating would by nine over nine, which is one.
Then I was playing around with some numbers the other day, and here's what I got:
let n=0.9 repeating
10n=9.9999...
n=.09999...

9n=9
n=1
[Twilight zone music]
Is what I've proved true?"The first man who, having fenced off a plot of land, thought of saying, 'This is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race had been spared by the one who, upon pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his fellow men: 'Beware of listening to this imposter; you are lost if you forget the fruits of the earth belong to all and that the earth belongs to no one."  JeanJacques Rousseau

September 20, 2002, 23:27 #2
 Join Date
 19 Nov 1999
 Location
 Calgary, Alberta
 Posts
 53,877
 Thanks
 105
 Thanked 99 Times in 71 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 19:12
Absolutely not.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

September 20, 2002, 23:28 #3
 Join Date
 29 May 2001
 Location
 138% of your RDA of Irony
 Posts
 24,993
 Thanks
 10
 Thanked 93 Times in 58 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 22:12
Yes.
Decimal representations and the real numbers are not bijective...121710 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum

September 20, 2002, 23:34 #4
 Join Date
 19 Nov 1999
 Location
 Calgary, Alberta
 Posts
 53,877
 Thanks
 105
 Thanked 99 Times in 71 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 19:12
0.99999... ~ 1, but not = 1
It's assumed to be 1 by many people, but it's not really 1.
Am I missing something?"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

September 20, 2002, 23:36 #5
 Join Date
 29 May 2001
 Location
 138% of your RDA of Irony
 Posts
 24,993
 Thanks
 10
 Thanked 93 Times in 58 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 22:12
No, 0.9999... = 1 exactly. They're two different representations of the same real number.
121710 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum

September 20, 2002, 23:37 #6
 Join Date
 29 May 2001
 Location
 138% of your RDA of Irony
 Posts
 24,993
 Thanks
 10
 Thanked 93 Times in 58 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 22:12
Come on, you compsci geek. This is elementary Analysis.
121710 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum

September 20, 2002, 23:37 #7
 Join Date
 14 Oct 2001
 Posts
 24
 Thanks
 0
 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 Local Date
 October 26, 2016
 Local Time
 02:12
It is true, 0.9999.... is, in the real system of numbers, equal to 1. There are a lots of proofs of this, some of them using analytic concepts of series, other working directly with some basic properties of the real number.
Frogger: decimal representeations and the real numbers are actually bijective (i.e., they have the same cardinal) even though one of them is complete(the real numbers) and the other not.

September 20, 2002, 23:38 #8
 Join Date
 19 Nov 1999
 Location
 Calgary, Alberta
 Posts
 53,877
 Thanks
 105
 Thanked 99 Times in 71 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 19:12
Originally posted by Frogger
No, 0.9999... = 1 exactly. They're two different representations of the same real number.
Come on, you compsci geek. This is elementary Analysis.
We're taught 0.9 repeating is 0.9 repeating."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

September 20, 2002, 23:40 #9IoTGuest
Definitely not. Both 1.0 and .99999..... have seperate locations on the number line.
Interestingly, Cantor chowed that there are infinitely more irrational numbers (Aleph 1) than there are rational numbers (Aleph 0). (Technically this is the Continuum hypothysis IIRC)
Or to put it another way, the entire space taken up on the number line by rational numbers (Integers, and fractions) is zero.
Some interesting Cantorian mathematics
Xo + Xo = Xo
X1 + Xo = X1
Xo  Xo = Xo
Xo * Xo = Xo
(Xo*Xo = Xo+Xo+ ....)
X0 = Aleph null
X1 = Aleph 1 etc

September 20, 2002, 23:41 #10
 Join Date
 19 Nov 1999
 Location
 Calgary, Alberta
 Posts
 53,877
 Thanks
 105
 Thanked 99 Times in 71 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 19:12
IoT is thinking along the same lines as me then.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

September 20, 2002, 23:41 #11
 Join Date
 29 May 2001
 Location
 138% of your RDA of Irony
 Posts
 24,993
 Thanks
 10
 Thanked 93 Times in 58 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 22:12
I meant to say, actually, that the representation is not bijective, since it is onto, but not 11.
Please explain your use of word "complete" in this situation.121710 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum

September 20, 2002, 23:42 #12
 Join Date
 29 May 2001
 Location
 138% of your RDA of Irony
 Posts
 24,993
 Thanks
 10
 Thanked 93 Times in 58 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 22:12
Originally posted by IoT
Definitely not. Both 1.0 and .99999..... have seperate locations on the number line121710 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum

September 20, 2002, 23:45 #13
 Join Date
 19 Nov 1999
 Location
 Calgary, Alberta
 Posts
 53,877
 Thanks
 105
 Thanked 99 Times in 71 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 19:12
The reason why there's disagreement is because math is such a stupid field.
Like it seems the most common approach these days is to use the logic that something like 1/3 is 0.3 repeating, so 3/3 must be 0.9 repeating, but it's also 1, therefore they're equal..."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

September 20, 2002, 23:49 #14
 Join Date
 19 Nov 1999
 Location
 Calgary, Alberta
 Posts
 53,877
 Thanks
 105
 Thanked 99 Times in 71 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 19:12
I have philosophical qualms about assuming that infinitely many .9's equals 1.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

September 20, 2002, 23:50 #15
 Join Date
 31 Dec 1969
 Posts
 3,046
 Thanks
 0
 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 21:12
I learned it the following way:
In .333333..., no matter how many threes you list, the threes you haven't listed have a value one third of the way equal to the decimal place before...that is, one third of the way to making the next decimal place a four.
In .666666....no matter how many sixes you list, the sixes you haven't listed have a value two thirds of the way equal to the decimal place before...that is, two thirds of the way to making the next decimal place a seven.
Thus, in .999999....no matter how many nines you list, the nines you haven't listed have a value three thirds of the way equal to the decimal place before, the chain of nines is broken, and the number is exactly equal to one."Although I may disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to hear me tell you how wrong you are."

September 20, 2002, 23:51 #16
 Join Date
 28 Sep 1999
 Location
 Republic of Texas
 Posts
 38,906
 Thanks
 197
 Thanked 223 Times in 188 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 21:12
Originally posted by Asher
Absolutely not.Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

September 20, 2002, 23:54 #17
 Join Date
 19 Nov 1999
 Location
 Calgary, Alberta
 Posts
 53,877
 Thanks
 105
 Thanked 99 Times in 71 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 19:12
Originally posted by SlowwHand
Absolutely yes, and I think we may starting a breakthrough on Asher's problem.
ESL?"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

September 20, 2002, 23:55 #18
 Join Date
 14 Oct 2001
 Posts
 24
 Thanks
 0
 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 Local Date
 October 26, 2016
 Local Time
 02:12
Frogger:
when I talk about the decimal representation I am talking about an element which has this form:
xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx...........
where x is a digit between 0 and 9 and which could extend to the infinite, I am not talking about rational numbers (which are not biyective to the real numbers).
This decimal representation number system has the same cardinal than the real numbers, there is a mapping between them that is both injective and suryective.
The inyection is easy, it is clearly seen that the real numbers are included in this set.
The surjection is somewhat trickier. It is possible to show that this set includes both this sets:
 the set of numbers which do not end with a repeating 9 (which are easily shown to be bijective to the real numbers)
 the set of numbers which do end with a repeating 9 (which are numerable).
Since c (the cardinal of R) + Aleph_O (the cardinal of a numberable set) equals c, then they are both coordinable between themselves.
A complete set is a set which, in an informal way, does not have successions which converge to "ghost" (i.e., inexistent) points. More formally, every Cauchy sequence does have a limit.
I have said in a post before this that the set of decimal representable numbers are not complete, which is not right. First is necesary to define a distance between points to talk about completeness.

September 20, 2002, 23:56 #19
 Join Date
 29 May 2001
 Location
 138% of your RDA of Irony
 Posts
 24,993
 Thanks
 10
 Thanked 93 Times in 58 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 22:12
Originally posted by Asher
The reason why there's disagreement is because math is such a stupid field.
Like it seems the most common approach these days is to use the logic that something like 1/3 is 0.3 repeating, so 3/3 must be 0.9 repeating, but it's also 1, therefore they're equal...
Take the limit of the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...
By inspection 0.9999999.... is a limit
By going over the definition of the requirements of being a limit, 1 is also a limit.
By a fairly standard proof, if a sequence has a and b as limits, then a=b121710 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum

September 20, 2002, 23:59 #20
 Join Date
 19 Nov 1999
 Location
 Calgary, Alberta
 Posts
 53,877
 Thanks
 105
 Thanked 99 Times in 71 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 19:12
Originally posted by Frogger
Asher, have you ever learnt what a limit is?
Take the limit of the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...
By inspection 0.9999999.... is a limit
By going over the definition of the requirements of being a limit, 1 is also a limit.
By a fairly standard proof, if a sequence has a and b as limits, then a=b
And yes, I've taken Calculus I and II and courses with combinatorial proofs.
I just don't like assuming repeating numbers are anything else other than repeating numbers. It would have helped if I read his post other than just the title, but it's still a silly math rule to get around how math geeks still haven't come up with a better representation of numbers."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

September 21, 2002, 00:00 #21
 Join Date
 29 May 2001
 Location
 138% of your RDA of Irony
 Posts
 24,993
 Thanks
 10
 Thanked 93 Times in 58 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 22:12
Originally posted by alofatti
Frogger:
when I talk about the decimal representation I am talking about an element which has this form:
xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx...........
where x is a digit between 0 and 9 and which could extend to the infinite, I am not talking about rational numbers (which are not biyective to the real numbers).
This decimal representation number system has the same cardinal than the real numbers, there is a mapping between them that is both injective and suryective.
The inyection is easy, it is clearly seen that the real numbers are included in this set.
The surjection is somewhat trickier. It is possible to show that this set includes both this sets:
 the set of numbers which do not end with a repeating 9 (which are easily shown to be bijective to the real numbers)
 the set of numbers which do end with a repeating 9 (which are numerable).
Since c (the cardinal of R) + Aleph_O (the cardinal of a numberable set) equals c, then they are both coordinable between themselves.
A complete set is a set which, in an informal way, does not have successions which converge to "ghost" (i.e., inexistent) points. More formally, every Cauchy sequence does have a limit.
I have said in a post before this that the set of decimal representable numbers are not complete, which is not right. First is necesary to define a distance between points to talk about completeness.
Under the standard decimal representation of the real numbers, every real number has a decimal representation (i.e. Decimal>Real is onto). Unfortunately, the representation is not a bijection, as 0.999999999.... and 1 are both mapped to the same real number.
BTW, when you use the word "complete", most people use the word "closed" to represent a set which contains all of its limit points. And the set of reals and the set of decimal reps are both closed.121710 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum

September 21, 2002, 00:02 #22
 Join Date
 14 Oct 2001
 Posts
 24
 Thanks
 0
 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 Local Date
 October 26, 2016
 Local Time
 02:12
You are not obliged to have o.9999..... equal to 1.
You could very well define your own number system where 0.9999... is not 1 (as well it is correctly defined), though perhaps it would share very little resemblance to the real system.

September 21, 2002, 00:02 #23
 Join Date
 29 May 2001
 Location
 138% of your RDA of Irony
 Posts
 24,993
 Thanks
 10
 Thanked 93 Times in 58 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 22:12
Originally posted by Asher
Yes yes, I know that you can formally prove it now.
And yes, I've taken Calculus I and II and courses with combinatorial proofs.
I just don't like assuming repeating numbers are anything else other than repeating numbers. It would have helped if I read his post other than just the title, but it's still a silly math rule to get around how math geeks still haven't come up with a better representation of numbers.121710 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum

September 21, 2002, 00:04 #24
 Join Date
 28 Sep 1999
 Location
 Republic of Texas
 Posts
 38,906
 Thanks
 197
 Thanked 223 Times in 188 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 21:12
If I was as dull as some of you guys, going into deep analysis of the number 1, I believe I would tie myself in a bag and throw me in the river.
I wouldn't wait for my dad.
Ask Boddington's.
Boddington's needs to come home.Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

September 21, 2002, 00:05 #25
 Join Date
 29 May 2001
 Location
 138% of your RDA of Irony
 Posts
 24,993
 Thanks
 10
 Thanked 93 Times in 58 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 22:12
Originally posted by alofatti
You are not obliged to have o.9999..... equal to 1.
You could very well define your own number system where 0.9999... is not 1 (as well it is correctly defined), though perhaps it would share very little resemblance to the real system.121710 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum

September 21, 2002, 00:05 #26
 Join Date
 29 May 2001
 Location
 138% of your RDA of Irony
 Posts
 24,993
 Thanks
 10
 Thanked 93 Times in 58 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 22:12
Originally posted by SlowwHand
If I was as dull as some of you guys, going into deep analysis of the number 1, I believe I would tie myself in a bag and throw me in the river.
I wouldn't wait for my dad.
Ask Boddington's.
Boddington's needs to come home.121710 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum

September 21, 2002, 00:06 #27
 Join Date
 19 Nov 1999
 Location
 Calgary, Alberta
 Posts
 53,877
 Thanks
 105
 Thanked 99 Times in 71 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 19:12
I had to look up the 1to1 and onto terms, since I've always been told they were injective and surjective instead.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

September 21, 2002, 00:07 #28
 Join Date
 14 Oct 2001
 Posts
 24
 Thanks
 0
 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 Local Date
 October 26, 2016
 Local Time
 02:12
Actually, it is interesting to notice that lots of things are studied around the number 1.
For example, the fact that 0 < 1 requieres a formal proof, which is not obvious (but also not that hard, though).

September 21, 2002, 00:12 #29
 Join Date
 14 Oct 2001
 Posts
 24
 Thanks
 0
 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 Local Date
 October 26, 2016
 Local Time
 02:12
Quoted from Frogger:
"Under the standard decimal representation of the real numbers, every real number has a decimal representation (i.e. Decimal>Real is onto). Unfortunately, the representation is not a bijection, as 0.999999999.... and 1 are both mapped to the same real number. "
Not necessarily. One could easily define a map between two sets as he wants to. I am not obliged to send 0.9999... to 1. In terms of cardinality, both sets have the same cardinal. There is a bijection between these sets (which does not send 0.999... and 1 to 1 because that would not be inyective).
Quoted from Frogger:
"BTW, when you use the word "complete", most people use the word "closed" to represent a set which contains all of its limit points. And the set of reals and the set of decimal reps are both closed"
Well, in metrics spaces "closed" is weaker than "complete" (i.e., a space which is complete is closed), but you are right: both sets are closed (in fact, they are complete).

September 21, 2002, 00:17 #30
 Join Date
 19 Nov 1999
 Location
 Calgary, Alberta
 Posts
 53,877
 Thanks
 105
 Thanked 99 Times in 71 Posts
 Local Date
 October 25, 2016
 Local Time
 19:12
alofatti: What do you do for a living?
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Similar Threads

Does .9repeating equal 1?
By loinburger in forum Closed ThreadsReplies: 268Last Post: May 17, 2009, 12:41 
Equal rights or separate but equal?
By Dinner in forum Off TopicReplies: 47Last Post: March 6, 2008, 16:36 
Barbarian invasions and history repeating itself
By Dis in forum Off TopicReplies: 73Last Post: February 24, 2007, 05:38 
Posts repeating themselves
By Whaleboy in forum Site Feedback & NewsReplies: 25Last Post: November 5, 2004, 21:43 
Repeating turns bug
By Fitz in forum ACGeneral/Help/StrategyArchiveReplies: 2Last Post: June 5, 2001, 14:25
Bookmarks