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

# There is no number between 0 and 0.0*1, while both are not identical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 10/4/2014 Category: Philosophy Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 984 times Debate No: 62630
Debate Rounds (2)

4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by BoggyDag 3 years ago
@ Domr: I forgot to explain it to a layman.
We can never reach the center of the universe, as it is too far away. What you say is that it doesn't EXIST because we can't get there.
You are also saying that since you cannot see the difference, it is not there. But reality doesn't care for your perception. It doesn't matter how far you remove something, it doesn't stop existing.
Same goes for that 1 at the end of infinity. Yes, it is seemingly a paradox.

But so is the alternative. I will show you this:

If 0.9*=1, which is what my opponent claims and where this debate took its origin, then 0.1*+0.9*=1.1*.
This, however, cannot be true.
Look:
0.9+0.1=1.0
0.99+0.11=1.10
0.999+0.111=1.110
1+0.111=1.111
Repeat thisto infinity, but you do NOT get a 1 repeating. 1+9=10, so there's ALWAYS a ZERO in there, not an ever-repeating 1!
Posted by BoggyDag 3 years ago
@Domr:
You are the very reason I think this site is filled with laymen and hence totally devoid of any real function.
I'll try to explain.
You accept 0.9* as an infinite number, and you accept that hence its last decimal is 9, whether it exists or not.
Now look:
1-0.9=0.1
1-0.99=0.01
1-0.999=0.001

See this? There is always one LESS zero behind the decimal mark. This means that YOU are the one with a double standard, accepting infinite decimal places with 0.9 repeating, but denying 0.0*1 the same number of decimal places. Why is it that you people never understand that even in infinity, te laws of mathmatics still work? You cannot operate with a different number of decimal places on two sides of an equation! For every 9 you add on the one side, the 1 on the other moves back one decimal place. That does not mean it ceases to exist. Feel free to explain how you believe moving this to infinity REMOVES the 1.
And as I clearly explained, the last decimal can be of importance without ever being reached.
What I'm trying to tell you is that school maths, to which you cling in your layman perspective is INCOMPLETE. But you are - like many others - so deperate to prove that what you learned in school is important and that you must prove that you understood maths after years of mental torture that you would never admit that it was all just mumbo-jumbo. Which school maths IS.

@ Enji: Irrlevant, it's OF COURSE an infinite number of zeros.
Posted by Enji 3 years ago
I think even if you did assume 0.0*1 was supposed to indicate a finite number of 0's (so 0.0*1>0), my claim in section (2) that "between any two non-identical Real numbers, there are infinitely many other Real numbers," so "there exists a number between m and n such that n < n+k/2 < m" would satisfy my burden of proof regardless.
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
There is really only ONE way to vote on this debate.

0.0*1 I can only assume * is to represent infinite or repeating Zero's. If it represents infinite or repeating Zero's, then there can NOT be a One at the end. Because there is no end to the Zero's.

Either the * is infinite, or finite.

If it is truly infinite (or repeating) then the One does not exist meaning Con wins the debate because 0.0*1 (since the One cannot exist, the number is zero.)

If the * is FINTIE, then the debate was misleading to assume seemingly infinite/repeating 0's.

Since Pro put the ONE at the end, this number in its entirety does not exist, nullifying the debate because the premise itself is flawed.

I choose to NOT vote on a debate with a flawed premise, and urge others NOT to vote as well.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.