All Big Issues
The Contender
Con (against)
Anonymous

# .999...(repeating) =1

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: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period Viewed: 1,623 times Debate No: 103562
Debate Rounds (4)

 This is a debate on whether or not .999...(repeating)=1. First round is acceptance. I'm looking forward/curious to see any opposing arguments on how .999...cannot equal 1. No semantics, no trolling. Kewl.Report this Argument Con no, it never reaches 1Report this Argument Introduction: In order to prove that 0.999...=1, I will be showing this via 3 different mathematical methods. While the numerical portion of this argument is the main argument, I would briefly try to explain using words how exactly .999...=1. 0.999 repeating is a number that can only exist within the realm of mathematics. 0.999 repeating is a number with infinite accuracy, so it's not something that can possibly exist in real life. However, using mathematics, a number that has an infinite number of "9s" after the decimal place would evaluate to 1. This is simply because the limit of 0.999 repeating written as an infinite geometric series would evaulate to 1, something I will show later in this argument. 0.99... may not seem like it ever reaches 1, but if we evaluate the limit of a geometric series that represents 0.999 with an infinite number of 9s, it would indeed be calculated as 1. C.1 Fractions This is the simplest argument to show that 0.999...=1. 1/3=0.333....Adding 1/3=Adding 0.333...2/3=0.666...Adding 1/3=Adding 0.333...3/3=0.999....And as it turns out, 3/3 which simplifies to 1, does indeed equal 0.999.... C.2 Algebra x=0.999...10x=9.999....(Multiply by 10 to both sides) 10x=9+0.999....(We broke up 9.999...to 9+0.9999) 10x=9+x (0.999...is equal to x, as seen in step 1) 9x=9 (Subtract both sides by x)x=1 (Divide both sides by 9) C.3 Limits and geometric series Let's try writing 0.99...as a fraction, and see what we get. Since this number isn't irrational, it can be written as a fraction. In order to do that, we would have to rewrite this number as an infinite geometric series, and then find the sum of that series. The limit of that series as the number of terms tend to infinity, would be 1. While the limit isn't telling you the value of the function at that number, it is telling you what that function is approaching as you get closer and closer to some number (in this case, it's infinity). Since 0.999...as a geometric series has an infinite number of terms, the limit would tell us what the value if 0.999...had an infinite number of "9s". Which it does.Sum of finite geometric series: Sn=a1((1-r^n)/(1-r) Where Sn=Sum of n terms a1=First number in seriesn=Number of terms r=common ratio If con requests, I can derive this formula. However, if we assume that r is greater than 0 and less than 1, we can take the limit of the function as n tends to infinity. Therefore, the sum of an infinite number of terms would be...Sinf.= a1/(1-r). (r^n=0, as n tends to infinity. Therefore, we're left with a1/(1-r))If con requests, I can do a more rigourous proof, though this is the formula for the sum of an infinite geometric series. So, we can now rewrite 0.9999... as...0.9+0.09+0.009+....Which is equal to 9/10+9/100+9/100+....In this series, a1=9/10r=1/10Since |r|<1, we can use the formula of Sinf.Sinf.=9/10/(1-1/10)=9/10/(9/10)=1And that's it. Using the definition of the sum of an infinite geometric series, we figured out that 0.999...as a fraction does indeed evaluate to be 1. Since we can rewrite 0.999 as an infinite geometric series, we can evalaute it's sum in order to figure out it's fractional form. And that form turns out to be 1/1. This debate doesn't really need sources, since it's just math. However, if Con likes, I can show sources of the formula for the sum of a finite and infinite geometric series. Report this Argument Con but it dosnt equal true, if thats what you are saying, it never gets to equal as something true like 1 soda, what is a 0,9999 soda? dividing it into 3 parts and saying those 3 which neither equates to 1 is 1 all togeather, as if you have changed or added something... then you are simply wrong its like all you are arguing is that 3/3 is a FULL fraction.. that dosnt make it valid, you cant just change around the value of numbers, they have actual usage.. what does, 0,3 point to in real life? a stone? which is one? 3=1+1+1 your faker 3(0,33..+0,33..+0,33..)=not 3 i assume the rest of it is non sense as wellReport this Argument Rebuttal: "it never gets to equal as something true like 1 soda, what is a 0,9999 soda?" Con's example fails here since Con is trying to use a real world example/object to describe a concept such as infinity. It literally cannot be done since we can never have infinite accuracy and everything in our universe is bounded by an finite number of "stuff". If you could theoretically measure 0.999... of a soda, then you would have 1 full soda. The reasoning behind this is something I have already posted, something that Con fails to adress. "its like all you are arguing is that 3/3 is a FULL fraction.. that dosnt make it valid, you cant just change around the value of numbers, they have actual usage" Again, this seems to be an argument from incredulity. Just because 0.999... doesn't look like 1, doesn't mean it's not 1. 0.999... and 1 have the same exact same value, just like how 0.5 and 1/2 have the exact same value. 3/3 and 0.999... are equivalent statements. It's also worth mentioning to point out that 0.999...is a decimal number, it's a real number. A number that gets infinitesimally close to 1, but not 1, is also a number, but it's not 0.999... A number that would somehow get infinitesimally close to 1, would not be real number, whereas 0.999...is. Con seems to be getting confused between this statement lim(x->1+) f(x)=x(where a number get's infinitesimally close to 1) and this statement lim(n->inf.) 9/10((1-(1/10)^n))/(1-9/10)(where a repeating decimal number IS 1) "your faker 3(0,33..+0,33..+0,33..)=not 3" Again, Con states that this cannot be 3, yet provides no mathematical reasoning or evidence. "i assume the rest of it is non sense as well" Extend Report this Argument Con 0,0000000000.. infnitiy you are adding things unnecessarily a soda is 1, not 0,999 0,999 is not 0,999? ...Report this Argument This round has not been posted yet. This round has not been posted yet. 32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Anonymous 2 years 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 Anonymous 2 years ago
Yea this debates a waste of time
Posted by Anonymous 2 years ago
and people on here are actual trolls, on any subject
Posted by Anonymous 2 years 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 Anonymous 2 years ago
+PowerPikachu21

I seriously think vi_spex is trolling
Posted by Anonymous 2 years 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 Anonymous 2 years 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 Anonymous 2 years ago
how does 0.9 have the value of 1?
Posted by Anonymous 2 years 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. 