.999 repeating equals 1

Since you're talking about a bunch of people with degrees who are all better at math then you are, I think you've lost this point. If you can refute anything, and not just say "it never reaches 1" ad infinitum, or come up with some new argument, great...if not, we can just cycle to some new posters that might know how to prove a point better.

I'm not sure why you pointed me to these videos. But the girl in the 2nd one totally agrees with me and not you.

Did you even watch the video??

THANKS Though ;-)

This video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsOXvQn3JuE

Did you even watch that video??

No, you just didn't post the correct link. Stop blaming chess.com for all your inadequacies.

This is what you intended, right?

https://books.google.com.cu/books?id=lZm8AQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

what the hey, man - looked at the topic and thought it was one of the kids again ....

no need. posted on 1st april.

Wow! You didn't prove your point at all. I have.

Just melting emotionalism from you.

If we make infinity consistent, you will see that the algebraic proof has flaws.

x = 0.9̅9̅9̅

1. x = 0.999... (infinity nines later)...9

2. 10x = 9.999... (infinity nines later)...0

3. 10x = 9 + 0.999... (infinity nines later)...0

Step 4 is simply no longer true

New 4. 9x = 9 + (0.999 (infinity nines later)...0 - 0.999... (infinity nines later)...9)

5. 9x = 9 - 0.000 (infinity zeroes later)...9

6. 9x = 8.999 (infinity nines later)... 1

7. x = 0.999 (infinity nines later)... 9

x = 0.999 (infinity nines later)... 9

x = 0.9̅9̅9̅

The proof has confirmed that 0.9̅9̅9̅ is indeed 0.9̅9̅9̅

The main flaw is that numbers multiplied by ten should always end in 0 and x's value was not consistent throughout the equation. Infinity became ten times larger when x was being multiplied by 9. Using the number infinity inconsistently will break some rules. You could prove that 1 = 2 with this short equation:

x = 1

y = 2

z = infinity

x * z = infinity

y * z = infinity

x * z = y * z

x = y

edit: I am trying to prove the 0.9̅9̅9̅ is not equal to 1 by the way

But that does not show that 0.999+...is one.

If it is not a product of 5 or 10 ONLY as the dominator then it cannot be truly represented as a decimal derived number.

Hard to believe anyone is this oblivious. I posted quite clearly to make sure you watch the whole 2nd video if you are going to use it in an argument...and you still walked right into it . If you watched the BS she was spouting and took it is as anything but sarcasm, you are much worse at math than I thought. So, when she said that you had to not just use infinity, but *super* infinity...you took that at face value?! When she said that .999 repeating is a special number with special properties, and that is why the proofs are wrong...you took *that* at face value?!

Did you watch the very end? Did you see that her whole video was a joke, where she was making fun of the same arguments you have been making here on this thread?

Thank *you*. That was truly epic.

"Hard to believe anyone is this oblivious."

You mean that oblivious, or this obtuse.

Your sentencing makes as little sense as your math theories.

"I posted quite clearly to make sure you watch the whole 2nd video if you are going to use it in an argument...and you still walked right into it ."

Nope, Pal you just didn't pay attention to the video.

"If you watched the BS she was spouting and took it is as anything but sarcasm, you are much worse at math than I thought."

You mean you lack more common sense than I thought.

"So, when she said that you had to not just use infinity, but *super* infinity...you took that at face value?!"

Yep. She was making fun of your unprovable theory.

"When she said that .999 repeating is a special number with special properties, and that is why the proofs are wrong...you took *that* at face value?!"

Yep she was mocking that belief of yours.

"Did you watch the very end? Did you see that her whole video was a joke, where she was making fun of the same arguments you have been making here on this thread?"

Whether you feel she was being sarcastic or No, she proved my theory right and not yours.

"Thank *you*. That was truly epic."

You mean to say 'Wow! That was truly epic!'

It doesn't matter what you think her intent was, just what she accomplished.

"Transferred intent is a legal doctrine that holds that, when the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead, the perpetrator is still held responsible."

This is not mathematically true. There is no such thing as infinity digits later, then another digit. Infinity does not stop. It’s like saying you have a larger cardinality of infinity that can be expressed with digits.

Lol. Maybe you missed the part at the very beginning where she alludes to the fact that she posted a video debunking your position, and got so many replies from people just like you that she made the video I posted to yank their chain? Read the comments on the video, Sherlock.

Here's some good ones:

This is brilliant! Best joke someone ever pulled on me. I have no words, you sounded so convinced that what you were saying were right, meanwhile you did unspeakable things to math. Special shoutout for the .222...=x, 2.222=2x trick, I literally had to take a break at that point. Good job

Then you put 2s on both sides" "Then AFTER INFINITY more 3s repeating" "It depends how many zeroes are in your infinite number of zeroes" how can people not realise this is a joke

I was almost Really pissed off. There were sooooo many mathmatical errors in there. Then I realized it was an April fool's joke.

You're already fallen off the edge of the cliff, there's nobody catching you at this point. Here is her actual, non-sarcastic video:

So, the next time you want to just accept that:

.222...=x

2.222=2x

...maybe don't.

Her intent doesn't matter. Her results are what count.

And why do you care so much if I disagree??

And as I've stated "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit."

So the wind blew my way, with her sarcasm AGAINST your stance.

Her reasoning that points to my stance on the issue remaibs true. Despite the way anyone FEEELLS or VOTES about it, D*mocrat.

Up to :57 she still doesn't prove her point.

If she meant it as a joke for the other video, she does not get the las laugh.

For her example 7 on 5:01 she misses it. The Real Number line is infinitely dense but not ,0-lee dense.