All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Winning
62 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Losing
46 Points

# 0.999999999999999(etc.) can be proven to have the same value as the value of 1.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0

Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who used the most reliable sources?
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 1/9/2008 Category: Science Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period Viewed: 3,343 times Debate No: 1604
Debate Rounds (2)

 Pro Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. (sorry, I had to fill up the 100 spaces)Report this Argument Con It is not true because if we wanted to say 1 we would have said one not .999999999999 and so on. Also why would some people say that a penny is worth .999999999999999 etc. cents instead of one cent. Therefor .999 can not be the same as 1 otherwise people would say that . (I will now use .9 instead to make it easier) Thank You,Report this Argument Pro Here is your response. Before I prove you wrong, all of the following mathematics have been proven to work EVERY SINGLE TIME, and there are no 'exceptions'. Let 0.999999999(etc.) = a 10 (0.9999999(etc.)) = 10 (a) 9.99999999(etc.) = 10a -a from both sides of the equation (or 0.999999999(etc.)) 9 = 9a --------- 1 = a There you go. Prove me wrong, I dare you!Report this Argument Con If you really want me to prove you I will... You proved that 1=a which is actually true but in a certain which is when you assign letters to numbers such as 1=a 2=b 3=c all the way until you get to 26=z. So yes you would be right in proving that 1=a but sadly this debate is that 1=.9999999 etc. Since I have rebutt your point and have made all of mine the con side has won this debate. Thank you,Report this Argument
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Padfoot36 9 years ago
What is the flaw Yraelz? I see no flaw, but thank you for voting for me. Please point it out so I won't make the msitake again (:}
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Had to vote for Padfoot on this one. I followed your math and can see the flaw in it but your opponent didn't bother pointing it our or refuting your point at all.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Padfoot, I would dispute your "proof" of 1=a. It relies on the essential premise of your ultimate argument. Thus, it is circular. You cannot say 10 (.9999etc.) =a just because 1=a, until you have established that 1=.9999etc.

Big circle though and nice try :D.
Posted by padfo0t 9 years ago
No one reads the whole debate!!!!
Posted by padfo0t 9 years ago
In the beggining of my arguement, I said:

Let 0.999999999(etc.) = a

then I PROVED:

1 = a

so if

0.999999999(etc.) = a AND
1 = a

then o.99999999(etc.)= 1
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Raisor, "stating a mathematical fact," as you suppose he is doing (every calculus class you have taken is just ad nauseum, not evidence), is far from a proof. Con is winning because con showed the "proof" Pro offered not to be a proof.
Posted by padfo0t 9 years ago
Posted by padfo0t 9 years ago
To Rishi,

I actually did prove that one and .999(etc.) COULD BE PROVEN TO HAVE THE SAME VALUE. I am not saying that they are the same.

Thank you raisor.
Posted by Raisor 9 years ago
How is Pro losing?

Pro is mathematicaly correct.

Like, Pro literally is just stating a mathematical fact.

Ive seen this proof in every calculus class Ive taken...
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Most suppposed proofs of this are begging the question, by assuming things just as questionable as the conclusion. For example they assume the rationalist ideal of math as a priori, ignoring entirely the absurdity of philosophical a priori.
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.