The Instigator
Masterful
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

0.999...Does not equal 1

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,050 times Debate No: 115545
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (115)
Votes (1)

 

Masterful

Pro

Prove that an undefined value does equal a value.
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks for instigating the debate, Pro.
I accept.
I also noticed a lack of definitions, so I'll supply them to guide the debate.
I request voters use the Opt-In voting standards and moderators remove crappy votes.

*The Resolution Is Not True*

I reject the resolution that 0.999 does not equal 1, because of the algebraic arguments in mathematics to the contrary.


*Algebraic Argument #1*

For this argument x = 0.999...

If we multiply x times 10, we then get 9.999...
So, we can say 10x = 9.999...
Nothing crazy so far, right?

If 10x = 9.999, then 10x is also equal to 9 + 0.999...
Well, 9 + 0.999... is just 9 + x, because x = 0.999...
So, 10x = 9 + x.
Right?

By using algebra and subtracting the x from the right side of the equation, 10x = 9 + x becomes 9x = 9.
From 9x = 9, one divides both sides by 9 and x = 1.

Not bad for a science guy, huh?


*Algebraic Argument #2*

For this argument x = 0.999...

If you take the number 1 and divide it by 3, you then get 0.333...
When you multiply 0.333... times 3 you get 0.999...
Therefore, x/3 = 1/3.
x = 1.


*Conclusion*

It makes sense to reject this resolution, because the claim is that 0.999... does not equal 1 and it demonstrably does.
One can even go to Google's calculator and type in:
0.999999999999 X 2 and the calculator will yield 2.
https://www.google.com...


Definitions

0.999... - denotes the repeating decimal consisting of infinitely many 9s after the decimal point (and one 0 before it) that represents the smallest number no less than all decimal numbers 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, etc. shown to equal 1.
https://en.wikipedia.org......

equal - be the same as in number or amount.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

1 (one) - the first number of the infinite sequence of natural numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Masterful

Pro

0.999.. does not equal 1.

The most compelling reason you give is when you divide 1 by 3 to get 0.333..
If you type 0.33333333333333333333 x 3 into googles calculator, you in fact get the answer 1 and not 0.999.. Try it.
This is because Googles calculator rounds up the answer it is given due to 0.999.. not being a correct value. In fact, 0.333.. is not a correct value either, the reason 0.333.. resorts to infinity, is because you can not divide 1 by 3.

Your example of multiplying 0.999.. by 10 to get 9.999.. is a trick. During this trick your sum is 9.999.. - 0.999.. = 9
The problem is, you're taking infinity away from infinity and suggesting it equals 0. This is false, infinity - infinity = undefined. Therefore the answer to 9.999.. - 0.999.. = 9.0/0 [A]

Not only do you misunderstand the current concept of infinity, but you misunderstand that infinity has no place in the current mathematical model.
All mathematics should be able to represent the real world in some aspect. However, we have no examples in the universe of infinity, we only have examples of infinite potential.


[A Infinity minus infinity] https://www.philforhumanity.com...
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks for that last round Pro.
Pro seems to think that 1/3 isn't a "correct" value.
Oh well, at least Pro had no problems with the definitions.
Therefore, the definitions from my 1st round stand.

*Responding to Pro*

Pro points out:
"If you type 0.33333333333333333333 x 3 into googles calculator, you in fact get the answer 1 and not 0.999.. Try it."

My response:
Yes, this speaks to the fact that 1/3 times 3 gives you both the fraction 1/1 and the decimal 0.999...
Hence why 0.999... in fact equals 1.


Pro asserts:
"In fact, 0.333.. is not a correct value either, the reason 0.333.. resorts to infinity, is because you can not divide 1 by 3."

My response:
Ok, why is the fraction 1/3 not a correct value and why can it be added to, multiplied by, subtracted from, and divided by other numbers even yielding natural numbers?


Pro goes on an infinity rant:
"multiplying 0.999... by 10 to get 9.999... is a trick...you're taking infinity away from infinity and suggesting it equals 0. This is false, infinity - infinity = undefined...Not only do you misunderstand the current concept of infinity, but you misunderstand that infinity has no place in the current mathematical model."

My response:
Let's make some things clear.
First, the Mathematics noun INFINITY.

infinity - a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

While I agree that infinity is neither a natural or real number, it is treated as a number in mathematics, particularly calculus, and given these definitions, 0.999... is not infinity, because 0.999... is both a real and rational number and is not greater than any countable number.

While I also agree that numbers like 0.333... and 0.999... repeat *infinitely*, they are not the same thing as INFINITY (greater than any countable number) because numbers like 2 and 3 are bigger than both 0.333... and 0.999...

Either way, one can subtract 0.999... from 9 just like one can subtract 0.333... from 3.
What Pro is saying about infinite decimals' inability to be added and subtracted is complete bunk.


*Questions for Pro*

Both of my algebraic arguments stand and if Pro cannot answer all of these following questions, Pro must concede:

1. What's the difference between the product of 3 times 1/3 and the product of 3 times 0.333...?

2. Why is it that we can use arithmetic with a number like 1/3 even though it's an infinitely repeating decimal and, as you call it not a "correct" value?

3. Can you ever divide by 3 without multiplying by 0.333..., why/why not?
(Try dividing 1/3 on a calculator and using that answer the calculator gives, 0.333..., to multiply by any number)

4. Can you see how 3 times 1/3 must necessarily involve an infinite decimal in both the factor and the product?

Pro?
Debate Round No. 2
Masterful

Pro

The basics

I would like to begin this round by going over various assumptions that my opponent has made, I would then like to refute and point out con's poor understanding of mathematics and the concept of infinity.
Let us start by understanding the difference between rational and irrational decimals. Rational decimals repeat the same digit, thus 0.999.. is an rational decimal. Irrational decimals do not repeat the same digit, pi is an example of an irrational decimal (3.14159..)

My opponent has stopped speaking in decimal terms and begun favoring fractions, he fails to realize that irrational numbers, including pi cannot be represented in fractions. This is important to note as this suggests the limitations of fractions to represent an infinite sequence of numbers, which is important to this debate. [A]




0.333.. is defined as a string of 3s that increase in value by one tenth the value of the previous 3, this suggests an increase in value that is by definition infinite.
1/3 does not increase in value and could only be an accurate representation of splitting an object into 3 equal parts if we could split an object into 3 equal parts without losing any value. 0.333.. is different to 1/3 as it suggests we lose 0.00..1 of value in total. [1] [2]
I therefore urge readers to reject my opponents assumptions.


Refutation

"While I agree that infinity is neither a natural or real number, it is treated as a number in mathematics, particularly calculus, and given these definitions, 0.999... is not infinity, because 0.999... is both a real and rational number and is not greater than any countable number."

My opponent here makes numerous contradictions, he even goes so far to suggest that 0.999.. is not an example of infinity as it is not greater than every number. I urge con to prove this by counting from 0.9 to 0.999..

Aside from the abundant contradictions. Con believes infinity is only infinity, because it's bigger than any other countable number. Laughable.
Infinity is not larger than infinity +1 Therefore it's reasonable to assert an infinity can exist in a value lesser than 1, in this instance , in the form of 0.999.. [P1]

It is not possible to subtract specifically a rational infinite decimal from anything, as the rule for rational infinite decimals involves an increase in value by one tenth of the previous digit, the answer to the subtraction would therefore have to be a decrease in value by one tenth of the previous digit, giving us a number that is an irrational number. Thus one could not assert 0.999..-0.333..=0.666..
This is the fatal flaw in my opponents argument. The value of infinite = undefined. [3]


Answers to my opponents question:

1: Has been marked as [1]
2: 1/3 is a fraction and has no properties that repeat. This has been marked under [2] for a full break down.
3: Has been marked under [3] Calculators have been programmed to round up or round down. Therefore your argument here is weak.
4: You're using fractions here, which as I've explained are different to using the base 10 decimal system. The problem is, the decimal system is known as base 10, which limits certain mathematical equations to represent values through 0 to 9. Using fractions gives us more consistent values. To get an infinite value is essentially to get an error, the error is a tiny one that doesn't ruin the base 10 system entirely, but shows it's not perfect. This doesn't mean we should assume 0.999..=1.


If con cannot answer these questions, con must concede.
I have very clearly answered all my opponents questions, shown his ignorance on the concept of infinity and I now present him with questions of my own that he must answer.

1: 0.999.. follows a pattern, whereby we begin with 0.9, does that equal 1? Does 0.9999 equal 1? Where exactly along the infinite string of 9s do we find the value equal to 1?

If you cannot identify that point, then you can't ever truly prove your claim to be true, unless you use tricks that rely on misconceptions of how the properties of infinity work.

2: When you consider the diminishing value of the 9s within 0.999.. becoming so infinity small, can you tell me what's the difference between a value being so infinity small and simply not existing?

If you can't tell me the difference, then we can assert that infinities have no place in mathematics.

3: As we both agree that infinity is not a number, how is it that in one of your algebraic equations, you minus a number with an infinite string from another number of an infinite string to get something other than undefined?

I fully expect your only counter argument to involve a semantics based argument, whereby you attempt to separate the word infinity from infinite. I've already disproven this. Please refer to my argument labeled [P1]

Con?

[A] https://www.mathsisfun.com...




Both sides have agreed that Djksp cannot vote on this debate.
MagicAintReal

Con

Though not very direct, thanks for your last round, Pro.
Pro either dodged or spun answers to my questions.
Figures.
Well, let's remedy all of that garbage.

*Questions From Round 2*

1. I had asked Pro what the difference was between the product of 3 times 1/3 and the product of 3 times 0.333...

Pro responds:
"0.333.. is defined as a string of 3s that increase in value...1/3 does not increase in value...0.333...is different to 1/3 as it suggests we lose 0.00..1 of value in total."

My response:
Opt-in voters, pay attention.
I had asked about the difference between the PRODUCTS of 3 times 1/3 and 3 times 0.333... and Pro responds with how 1/3 and 0.333... have different values (take any calculator and divide 1 by 3 and you will ALWAYS get 0.333... they are the same) without ever mentioning the products of the two sets of factors I asked about.

By not directly responding to the question posed in the 2nd round, Pro concedes that the products of those two sets of factors are in fact equal thereby equating 1/3 and 0.333...


2. I had also asked Pro WHY we can use arithmetic with infinitely repeating decimals, like 0.333... (1/3).

Pro responds:
"1/3 is a fraction and has no properties that repeat."

My response:
Wow!
1/3 means "one divided by three."
You cannot divide 1 by 3 without "properties that repeat."
You do know that a fraction is just the numerator divided by the denominator, right?
Therefore, 1/3 = 0.333...
Also, this "response" does not address why it is that we can use infinite decimals in arithmetic.
Boo Pro.


3. I had asked Pro if you can ever DIVIDE by 3 without MULTIPLYING by 0.333...

Pro responds:
"It is not possible to subtract specifically a rational infinite decimal from anything."

My response:
Readers, I had asked about DIVISION and MULTIPLICATION, not subtraction, obvious dodge by Pro, and though irrelevant to my question, Pro's wrong here too, infinite decimals can be subtracted from numbers.
https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk...

Pro adds:
"Calculators have been programmed to round up or round down."

My response:
Red herring.
Readers, take a calculator and divide 1 by 3.
Take THAT answer and multiply it by 10.

Now, take 10 and divide by 3.
The answers are identical AND not rounded!

Boom.
Multiplying by 0.333... is the same as multiplying by 1/3.


4. I directly asked Pro if he could see how 3 times 1/3 must necessarily involve an infinite decimal in both the factor and the product.

Pro responds:
"You're using fractions here, which as I've explained are different to using the base 10 decimal system."

My response:
All fractions equal a rational decimal, like 0.333... or 0.999... and "decimals are rightfully restored as fractions of a special kind..."
https://math.berkeley.edu...


Pro asks:
"Where exactly along the infinite string of 9s do we find the value equal to 1?"

My response:
When you subtract a number from itself, the result is zero.
For instance, 4 " 4 = 0.
So what is the result when you subtract 0.999... from 1? Without an infinite decimal, you get:

1.0 - 0.9 = 0.1

1.00 - 0.99 = 0.01

1.000 - 0.999 = 0.001

1.0000 - 0.9999 = 0.0001

1.00000 - 0.99999 = 0.00001

Then what about 1.000... " 0.999...?
You'll get an infinite string of zeroes.
What about that '1' at the end?
Ah, 0.999... is an infinite decimal; there is no "end", and thus there is no "1 at the end".
The zeroes go on forever. And 0.000... = 0.
http://www.purplemath.com...


*Conclusion*

Man that was a thorough refute.
How's that for only 30 minutes?

Voters, 0.999... = 1 and Pro has done nothing to show otherwise...just a lot of dodging facts.
Debate Round No. 3
Masterful

Pro

My contender and his flawed mathematics.

This section regards cons slippery strategy, where he focuses on an equation that is simply untrue.

Con responds to my question 1.
"When you subtract a number from itself, the result is zero."

This claim of his is relevant to his single equation regarding 9.999..-0.999..=9 I shall prove this equation to be untrue.

We've already agreed that infinity is not a number, so when 0.999.. has a string of 9s that go on for infinity (without end, to be infinite) how can we then, be sure of the value of this 'number' we can't.
Therefore 9.999...-0.999.. cannot equal 9. This sum relies on taking away a number with a decimal value of infinity from a number with a decimal value of infinity. The actual answer to this equation is, 9.0/0 (Nine Undefined) I will now prove this mathematically.



Let's prove that infinity - infinity is not 0 as con has assumed.

First, we assume the claim to be true,

∞-∞=0

Next I will add a 1 to both sides of the equation.

∞-∞+1=0+1

Since ∞+1=∞ and 0+1=1 we will simplify both sides of the equation.

We get ∞-∞=1

Following my opponents logic, I am able to make infinity-infinity= any number I desire, thus proving his equation to be flawed and nothing more than a trick. To further solidify my argument I will prove this using a second mathematical equation.

Let's assume ∞-∞=0

Since we know that ∞ = ∞ + ∞, then if we substitute this equation into the first infinity in the equation above, we get:

(∞+∞)-∞=0 which is the same as ∞+∞-∞=0

Since we already assumed ∞ - ∞ = 0, then we can substitute to this:

∞+0=0 This simplifies to ∞=0

This is clearly incorrect and proves that ∞=Undefined.

I urge my opponent to attempt to prove otherwise, or else he cannot win this debate.

Con does not respond to my question 2

Con does not respond to my question 3

In response to cons misunderstandings.

It seems my opponents arguments weighs heavily on calculators agreeing with him.
Being able to prove that a calculator doesn't round up, is something my opponent is unable to do, therefore perusing this argument is pointless and would only show the limitations of calculators, rather than, the limitation of his own calcualtions.

It's clear that con has misunderstood that there is a need for infinite decimals in the base 10 system, due to the base 10 system not being a perfect system. Mathematics is a reflection of the real world, the real world is not a reflection of mathematics, so just because we haven't devised a perfect mathematical system yet, without the need for infinite decimals to cover its flaws, we shouldn't assume such axioms to be true.

Despite the fact that I've answered all of cons questions in my previous rounds, con has failed to answer 2 key questions I had for him. I've also proven his equations to be false and he failed to show any understanding of the concept of infinity, he has in fact, resorted to using semantics in order to tackle the various issues infinity presents. Therefore con has lost this debate.

I urge voters to not lose track of the important arguments made, and overlook the fallacious arguments by con has presented.
I would like to thank con for participating and for remaining stubborn in the face of overwhelming odds. May his final argument be better than his last.

Djksp cannot vote on this debate due to been a vote spammer.
MagicAintReal

Con

Well, this has been fun, hasn't it?
Pro either can't or purposefully won't answer my questions.
That's fine.
Opt-in voters will take note and vote Con.

*Review*

Aside from clearly showing that 9 + 0.999... = 10 (0.999...) thereby making 0.999... = 1, I provided a very quick, easy example of this fact with 1/3.

When you divide 1 by 3 you MUST get 0.333...
When you divide 0.999... by 3 you also get 0.333...

When you multiply ANY NUMBER by 1/3 you get the same answer if you multiply that same number by 0.333..., so 3 (1/3) = 3 (0.333...) or another way we could say it is 3 (0.999.../0.333...) = 1.

The number 1/3 basically destroys Pro's case by its mere existence as a rational decimal that repeats infinitely and can be used in standard arithmetic.

I also pointed out that,
1 - 0.9 = 0.1
1 - 0.99 = 0.01
1 - 0.999 - 0.001
but that when you attempt this same subtraction with the infinite decimal 0.999..., there's no LAST 9 and therefore, in the difference, there is no last 1 so 1 - 0.999... = 0.000...
Zeroes to infinity is still equal to zero.


*Responding to Pro*

While I know that Pro cannot respond to this, Pro has said, within this debate, that 1/3 and 0.333... aren't equal or the same thing, so I need to respond to Pro's assaults on the truth.

Pro lies:
"We've already agreed that infinity is not a number."

My response:
No, readers can check the debate, I never once agreed to that and, given the uncontested-therefore-no-reason-to-reject definition of infinity from the 2nd round, INFINITY IS A NUMBER!

infinity - a NUMBER greater than any assignable quantity or countable number.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

Pro didn't question the credibility of the source, Oxford Dictionaries, and made no attempt to demonstrate why/how the definition is wrong...he just asserts it.


Pro conflates:
"when 0.999.. has a string of 9s that go on for infinity."

My response:
Simply because something goes on infinitely does not make it infinity.
If this were the case, then all rational decimals that repeat infinitely would have the same value, infinity, and multiplying by 1/3 (0.333...) would be the same as multiplying by 2/3 (0.666...).
Pro would have you believe that there is no difference between 1/3 and 2/3 because both equal infinity.
What a garbage argument, I mean, even for Pro.


Pro lies again:
"Let's prove that infinity - infinity is not 0 as con has assumed."

My response:
I have not once mentioned this in the debate, so Pro cannot say "Con has assumed," because I never mentioned this at all.
Check the debate.
Pro's following infinity - infinity argument is a straw man argument, an argument that was never constructed by me.
Also, 0.999... ISN'T INFINITY!!!
So Pro's "proof" is really irrelevant.


Pro perceives:
"It seems my opponents arguments weighs heavily on calculators agreeing with him."

My response:
Ugh.
While trusting a calculator over Pro is CERTAINLY a good idea, even if calculators did not exist, 1/3 would be a RATIONAL DECIMAL THAT DOES NOT EQUAL INFINITY and I urge EVERYONE to divide 1 by 3 without a calculator and see if you get to 0.333...
Man, that was another garbage argument from Pro!


Pro errors:
"It's clear that con has misunderstood that there is a need for infinite decimals in the base 10 system."

My response:
I've already said that 0.999... and 0.333... are INFINITE decimals; they're just not INFINITY.
I also understand their role within the decimal system, hence 1/3 = 0.333...


Pro lies:
"Despite the fact that I've answered all of cons questions in my previous rounds."

My response:
Yeah like how Pro answered the question "What's the difference between the product of 3 times 1/3 and the product of 3 times 0.333...?"
Oh wait, he never answered it AND I've already indicated his lack of response to it, so voters should take note...twice.


Pro buries himself:
"I urge voters to not lose track of the important arguments made."

My response:
And that should do it voters!
Do not lose track of all relevant, resolution-impacting arguments made and give a proper opt-in vote.


Thanks for the debate, Pro.
Thanks for the win opt-in voters.
Debate Round No. 4
115 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mosc 1 week ago
mosc
mosc
Why rely upon Wiki? A Goy denies the holocaust or declares that Jews control governments and the banks - that's classic Alt Reich. An uneducated Goy who assumes that White people have high IQs - that's Alt Reich. A Psycho who fears for white survival and hates all religions other than Xtianity -- that's Alt Reich.

White supremacists have a victimhood psychosis - that's Alt Reich. Males who despise the equality of women - that's Alt Reich. White male dominated folks who hold prejudicial feelings and see the world as a conflict of races - that's Alt Reich.

This pathetic group of arrogant buffoons favor violence and view other "inferior races" as lower on the evolutionary scale. Supremacists hate groups - that's Alt Reich.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 month ago
MagicAintReal
Can you divide any number by 3 without multiplying by 0. 333. . . ?
Why, Why not?
Posted by Masterful 1 month ago
Masterful
All you've done is point out that the base 10 decimal system is not a perfect system.
If we were to take a ruler and try to measure a third of the total length of a piece of wood, If the total length were 1cm and we attempted to find 1 third, Would it be possible to measure 0. 333. . .
If so, You would need to be able to identify where 0. 333. . Is on the number line by identifying what two number are exactly before and after 0. 333. . . ?
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 month ago
MagicAintReal
So you agree that the number 1, Which is not infinity, When divided results in three infinities, Right?
Why does the number 1 and the infinite number 0. 999. . . Result in the same three infinities?
This is where you never answered and so the vote, While the RFD sucked balls, Was correct.
You lost because of this point here, And you can't seem to show me why 3 "incorrect values" that equal 1 happen to be the exact same three "incorrect values" that make up 0. 999. . .
Yes, Infinite decimals can be divided, You're dumber than I thought if you don't know that already.
Posted by Masterful 1 month ago
Masterful
We've been over this argument and you failed miserably. Shall we do this all over again?
In order for 0. 999. . . /3 = 0. 333. . . You would have to assume that an infinity can be divided without creating undefined.
You never refuted my mathematical proof that infinity divided by infinity = undefined. You instead chose to pretend infinity was a special kind of infinite. Thanks for the laughs btw.

If you think someone voting for you, Makes your argument correct, Then you are truly more of an idiot than I have ever given you credit for.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 month ago
MagicAintReal
But in the one that clearly was, You were inferior.
1/3 = 0. 999. . . /3 and that's why you lost.
Inferior refutation.
In a serious debate.
You lose.
Posted by Masterful 1 month ago
Masterful
I'm not fazed by win/loss as ratio most of my debates are not serious.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 month ago
MagicAintReal
Nah, You just lost and you hate it.
Hahaha, Shoulda reported it.
Posted by Masterful 1 month ago
Masterful
What can I say? We're over 100 comments in and you keep starting the conversation over hoping you'll finally come out on top.
You seam really invested in this, Almost like you I struck a nerve and now your ego won't let it go. To go so far as to call your opponent a loser in a friendly debate.

It seems like you lost something here buddy, Your dignity.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 month ago
MagicAintReal
"I didn't report the vote because wins and losses mean nothing. "

Yeah, I was referring to the extremely poor RFD, Not the win or loss necessarily, And why you had no issues with it at all is even more puzzling.
I get that the site's record system almost means nothing, But in this case, The voter got it right.
While the RFD was absurd and didn't meet the opt-in voting standard I had requested, The right side of this argument won.

"You didn't school me, In fact you got schooled"

Wow, Really good comeback.
Did you ever get to why dividing 0. 999. . . And 1 by 3 are exactly the same, Or did you just run a red herring infinity argument with baseless childish assertions?
The child got schooled and the right side won.

You lost for real.
You're inferior at debating mathematics.
Your side is wrong.
I came back a week later, Because I couldn't understand how someone who thinks their opponent doesn't know anything about mathematics would allow for said opponent to be victorious over them, Even if the wins themselves seem arbitrary.

Lmao at how you officially, Legitimately, Deservedly, Unequivocally, Unmistakably, Nail-in-coffin lost to superior arguments and you write something like "LMAO"

You're a loser through and through.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RMTheSupreme 2 months ago
RMTheSupreme
MasterfulMagicAintRealTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Okay this was a very wrong way for BOTH SIDES to have done this debate. The round of a f***ing calculator is NOT AT ALL what you are meant to use here but honestly Con's logic in the 10x equations was completely false because of something he does when going back to 9x+x but Masterful doesn't point it out so I'm a little torn here. What this debate came down to for me, to declare the actual winner, is that Con trolls successfully further with the 0.3recurring mulitplied by 3 ending up seeming to be the same as 3*(1/3) but the flaw that Pro should have pointed out is that if you do 3*(1/3) THE ANSWER IS ACTUALLY ACHIEVED BY 1*3/3 and NOT 3/1/3 because you must create a common denominator first, it's the default logic in the math and this is because of the logic of how you take away the parantheses and is advanced logic and abstract math and what takes priority in logic but since Pro never answered a couple troll equations from Con, Con won.