All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

# .999...(repeating) =1

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0

Debate Round Forfeited
Commondebator has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 8/16/2017 Category: Science Updated: 5 months ago Status: Debating Period Viewed: 545 times Debate No: 103562
Debate Rounds (4)

32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by C_e_e 4 months ago
Commondebator, I enjoyed the thoughts and effort displayed by you in this debate. My bachelor's of science was in math. Just try to keep in mind that math is an abstraction first; something does not have to correspond to reality to be a legitimate math construct. It is most useful when math constructs correspond to reality, but it's not required in math. When we look at the repeating decimal .999... , we notice that math assumes that there will always be something from which to take a fraction of. If we were given an apple, half of that apple would be represented .5. Half of that half, could be represented .25 of the original whole. Fast forwarding, we eventually would get to quantities so small that we would not be "slicing" the flesh of an apple any longer, but cutting a cell in half, then an atom in half, electrons, quarks, and other particles smaller than atoms, in half. Math assumes that the .99999999 .... nines, that go on forever, will always have something of which to further take a fraction of. And, when we get to slicing in half the smallest known subatomic particles to humans, does it mean that there are no further subatomic things to take fractions of? Or, would it mean that we have simply reached the end of human known subatomic things to take portions of? If math were to adjudicate a ruling there, it would say that there are further things the nines keep referencing portions of -- infinitely many such things. I'm skeptical of that ruling. Because, just as we eventually stopped slicing the flesh of an apple, because the quantities were too small to reference fleshy tissue any longer, I suspect that we will eventually stop slicing matter too. But, once we rest in the awareness that math is an abstraction first, which doesn't have to correspond to reality to be a "thing," it's less of a problem to adopt a different fundamental assumption -- that the nines will eventually not reference a portion of anything.
Posted by Commondebator 4 months ago
Yea this debates a waste of time
Posted by vi_spex 5 months ago
especially pikachu
Posted by vi_spex 5 months ago
and people on here are actual trolls, on any subject
Posted by vi_spex 5 months ago
you are simply using the numbers wrong then

whatever is real is real

0,00000000.. this explains your ridicules babble as well.. like i said, you are trying to argue 0 is 1, which is a fail, simply
Posted by Commondebator 5 months ago
+PowerPikachu21

I seriously think vi_spex is trolling
Posted by PowerPikachu21 5 months ago
@vi_spex You clearly don't understand what's being argued. It's "0.999..."; infinite nines. It's ridiculous to try and write out all the nines, as there's no end. Thus "..." is used to simplify the infinite number.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 5 months ago
@vi_spex You clearly don't understand what's being argued. It's "0.999..."; infinite nines. It's ridiculous to try and write out all the nines, as there's no end. Thus "..." is used to simplify the infinite number.
Posted by vi_spex 5 months ago
how does 0.9 have the value of 1?
Posted by Commondebator 5 months ago
0.9.... has the same value as 1, I mathematically proved it countless times. I'm still waiting for an actual argument.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.