Well,

if the difference between two numbers is 0 , then they are the same.

What's 1 - 0.9999.. ?

0.000... followed by an infinity of 0's and a 1?

Since infinity = infinity + 1 it does not make sense to have an infinity of zeroes followed by a 1.
It would be like running at the end of a tunnel of inifnite length and lay 1 foot beyond it. (That's impossible). And hence 1 - 0.999... = 0 (showing that they hold the same value)

There is (as far as I know) no way to connect a finite and an infinite number. No matter how many finite numbers you add, multiply or exponentiate togheter you will never get to infinity, unless you spend an infinite amount of time doing it ;)

And the only way I could think of disproving that 0.999... <> 1 is if you find a number in between them, or prove that they are "one after the other" on the real numbers line. (Which of course is impossible)

---

Q u o t e:


99.99 =/= 99.99~

The squiggly thing is there for a reason.

---

Wrong, sorry to say.

99.99~ means 99.99(Any number here) Max is 9 however which is the same.

99.999 repeating is not 100.

Blizzard only designs their engine around that specific theory.

It is like you saying that $19.99 is equal to $20.00 However you are missing one penny.

Edit: There are two theories that math doctors use it is x=1 and true factor numbers.

x=1: 99.999 = 100

true factor: 99.999 = 99.99999999999999999999999999999999 ongoing (the more nines you put the more accurate it is.)

---

Q u o t e:


obviously the number is 0.000 add infinitum with a 1 at the end of infinity

basically me and anyone who tries to justify that 0.999~ = 1 is trying to reason out infinity, which can't be done.

---

So what you have there then is infinitely many zeros, but then a 1 at the end of them.

I'll ask again, because i don't think you're asking what you think you're asking...

At the END OF AN INFINITE NUMBER OF ZEROS, you plan to stick a 1?

---

Q u o t e:


99.99% is not 100%, obviously, but you posting this only verifies that you honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

0.999~ is not 0.999, or even 0.999999999999999. It signifies an infinitely repeating number. Essentially, there is no distance between 0.999~ and 1. It is 1. (Dumbed down for simplification purpose. It's late and I'm tired)

---

He is right about what he is talking about the germ action.

There is error in any measurement, not to mention we haven't isolated or identified 90% (think it is closer to 99%) of the bacterial species in the world, so when things kill 99.99% of germs it is known germs, and it is because there is always error in any measurement that it can never be 100 %. We could probably measure it down to a single bacteria but that would just be expensive and stupid.

Unfortunately for him measurements in the real world are not related to mathematical theory.

LOL @ the above poster for nailing the math logic flaw head on.

To everyone saying ".0 repeating 1" in any of their arguments...

...do you know what the word repeating means? You can't have some number go off into infinity and tack a different number onto the "end". Infinity implies that yo' string o' numbaz ain't gonna end, boi. Comprende?

You can turn the logic around and say, "well if something never ends, which isn't possible to show, then how could it be impossible to have a 1 at the end just becuz we can't show it?" But then again, saying that would make you retarded.

A. The word "end" implies an "end" to an infinite string of numbers.. and the word 'infinite,' to anyone unclear on the meaning, defines something without an "end."

B. It is possible to show that something never ends. In fact it's been shown about a dozen times on this thread alone. To any nay-sayers on the .9 repeating equaling 1 argument, let me ask you if you buy into the ".3 repeating equal to 1/3" malarky. I mean, we all know that's garbage, right? Oh... you believe in that one? I see. And you also believe that 2/3 is .6 repeating? But they couldn't add up to 1 though, right? Since it would need to be .3 repeating + a 4 at the end, right?

HUKHUKHUK

---

Q u o t e:
WROGN

---

Your lack of logic trying to troll my post is highly unwanted and ignored.

---

Q u o t e:
If you deny limits then you're back to Zeno's paradox, which is stupid. If you think 0.9999 repeating doesn't equal 1, then you're stupid. That's all there is to it.

---

I still think the Tortoise is going to win.


Oh, and to the people who mention any version of 0.000~1, here's what I did to get it through my head that it's an impossible and illogical thing to say. You know, back in highschool when the rest of us learned this.

10 print 0.0
20 print 0
30 goto 20
40 print 1

And run it.

when i say .33 or .99 i mean .33 repeated and .99 repeated....

.33 x 3 = .99

.99 ≠ 1


unfortunately, due to the way our number system works, the whole argument is shot to hell. there IS no adequate way to express 1/3 in a decimal. The notation of .33 (repeated) is a bastardization the number 1/3. There is no symbol in our decimal number system to adequately represent 1/3.

Which is why we have FRACTIONS.

Either code for fractions or DON'T TELL PEOPLE YOU ARE ROUNDING.

</DISCUSSION>

---

Q u o t e:


Wrong, sorry to say.

99.99~ means 99.99(Any number here) Max is 9 however which is the same.

99.999 repeating is not 100.

Blizzard only designs their engine around that specific theory.

It is like you saying that $19.99 is equal to $20.00 However you are missing one penny.

Edit: There are two theories that math doctors use it is x=1 and true factor numbers.

x=1: 99.999 = 100

true factor: 99.999 = 99.99999999999999999999999999999999 ongoing (the more nines you put the more accurate it is.)

---

Infinity. Yes? Please stop being finite.

GRAWG!

There is WAY too much Doublethink in this thread for my taste.

---

Q u o t e:

At the END OF AN INFINITE NUMBER OF ZEROS, you plan to stick a 1?

---

---

Q u o t e:
when i say .33 or .99 i mean .33 repeated and .99 repeated....

.33 x 3 = .99

.99 ≠ 1


unfortunately, due to the way our number system works, the whole argument is shot to hell. there IS no adequate way to express 1/3 in a decimal. The notation of .33 (repeated) is a bastardization the number 1/3. There is no symbol in our decimal number system to adequately represent 1/3.

Which is why we have FRACTIONS.

Either code for fractions or DON'T TELL PEOPLE YOU ARE ROUNDING.

</DISCUSSION>

---

We have symbols that means "repeats infinitely" which is perfectly adequate to express 1/3.

---

Q u o t e:


Infinity. Yes? Please stop being finite.

---

Same thing. I am just saying that 99.99% chance does not equal 100% chance, that is all :)

---

Q u o t e:


99.99% is not 100%, obviously, but you posting this only verifies that you honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

0.999~ is not 0.999, or even 0.999999999999999. It signifies an infinitely repeating number. Essentially, there is no distance between 0.999~ and 1. It is 1. (Dumbed down for simplification purpose. It's late and I'm tired)

---

If there is an infinite amount of space between me and an object we're at the same place?

---

Q u o t e:
when i say .33 or .99 i mean .33 repeated and .99 repeated....

.33 x 3 = .99

.99 ≠ 1


unfortunately, due to the way our number system works, the whole argument is shot to hell. there IS no adequate way to express 1/3 in a decimal. The notation of .33 (repeated) is a bastardization the number 1/3. There is no symbol in our decimal number system to adequately represent 1/3.

Which is why we have FRACTIONS.

Either code for fractions or DON'T TELL PEOPLE YOU ARE ROUNDING.

</DISCUSSION>

---

If by adding </DISCUSSION> at the end means that you suddenly realized how bad the steaming pile of crap you just wrote smells and would like to end the discussion in shame, then well done.

Dunno if this has been said, but

Between every 2 numbers there is always at least 1.

There's no number between .99~ and 1.

---

Q u o t e:
when i say .33 or .99 i mean .33 repeated and .99 repeated....

.33 x 3 = .99

.99 ≠ 1


unfortunately, due to the way our number system works, the whole argument is shot to hell. there IS no adequate way to express 1/3 in a decimal. The notation of .33 (repeated) is a bastardization the number 1/3. There is no symbol in our decimal number system to adequately represent 1/3.

Which is why we have FRACTIONS.

Either code for fractions or DON'T TELL PEOPLE YOU ARE ROUNDING.

</DISCUSSION>

---

Rounding and Limits are two seperate things. I reccomend you look into that.