2004-12-16 [Aradon Templar]: The problem lies in the second step. Assuming that .999... went on forever, when you multiply it by ten, there's a zero after 'forever'. 9.999...0 . so 10x doesn't quite equal 9.999..., and thus 10x-x doesn't quite equal 9...

2004-12-16 [Kayne]: That is the "correction" I get a lot. Z zero at the end of a 0.9999... number - doesn't count. But that doesn't matter anyway cause there can't be a number after forever.

2004-12-16 [Aradon Templar]: thus you can't really multiply it by ten... :\

2004-12-16 [Aradon Templar]: And yes, I know all abouts how it probably doesn't apply, its just the explanation for why there is a valid arguement against .9... equalling 1.

2004-12-16 [Kayne]: Why can't you mulitiply by ten? Cause it is an infinte number?

2004-12-16 [Aradon Templar]: cause you can't add a zero at the end :P If you could multiply things like that, I could prove that 1=.9... in other fashions... like, 1/3 = .333..., then mulitply by three, 1=.999.... Doesn't work...

2004-12-16 [Kayne]: Actually - you gave another proof for the fact that 1 = 0.9999... :p. I don't like that one really but it is correct too. You don't need to add a zero so there is no need to add one. :/

2004-12-16 [Aradon Templar]: no, actually, what it does, kayne, is that it states that 1/3 = .333... is incorrect. It is an approximation. Just as 10x (where x is .999...) = 9.999... is incorrect, and also an approximation.

2004-12-16 [Kayne]: No, actually 1/3 = 0.3333... is correct. You just need an infinite number of 3's and that is a bit hard to wright.

2004-12-16 [Aradon Templar]: No, becuase of the above proof. An infinite number of three's still doesn't quite reach a third.

2004-12-16 [Kayne]: Actually it does. But if you think it doesn't then you have a different opinion and therefore wrong.

2004-12-16 [Aradon Templar]: No, it obviously doesn't, because 1 (or 3 x 1/3) doesn't equal .999... (or 3 x .333...) Simply because there is obviously a number difference. 1 = 1 and ONLY 1, or a fraction in the occasion that the numerator = denomenator.

2004-12-16 [Kayne]: 0.999... = 1 Believe it then or not. I'm not having this discussion anymore today. I'm at the moment having a 400 and counting comments discussion about it. Not today anymore:p

2004-12-16 [Aradon Templar]: Alright. You know I'm right :P

2004-12-16 [Kayne]: No - Templar you are wrong. This is the second time in the history of elftown that I know that I'm right and you are wrong.

2004-12-16 [windowframe]: This is as bullshit as the 'all numbers are equal to 0' theory - it looks nice but it's fundamentally flawed, and bad maths. Deal. Or sulk - you seem to be doing that quite well, and I don't really see a reason to stop you.

2004-12-16 [windowframe]: Your maths is flawed kayne, Templar is absolutly right, 1/3 does not equal exactly o.33333 recurring. That's why good mathematicians prefer using 1/3 - because it's entirely more accurate than 0.333333 can ever be.

2004-12-17 [Aradon Templar]: w00t! *knew it* I lobe you Silvie ^___^

2004-12-17 [Aradon Templar]: Ooh, once, using more 'fundamentally flawed' ideas, I proved that x/0 = infinity :) Although, my teacher later pointed out that what I did actually proved that x cannot be divided by 0. Go figure :P

2004-12-17 [deus-ex-machina]: w00tness! now i know silvie and templar agree i have no problem in making the following statement: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!".

2004-12-17 [windowframe]: :P Yeah, If I remember, the reson the 'all numbers are equal to zero' theorem is rubbish for the same reason (not being able to divide by 0) to somoen who doesn't really know maths - it looks plausible, but to those who know maths, you can see the flaws O.o Hpwever, it's still funny stuff. :P as long as you don't take it seriously

2004-12-17 [Kayne]: Silvie you are wrong, deal. 0.33... = 1/3 - It is just hard to write 0.333... cause that is kind off hard to write.

2004-12-17 [Kayne]: And if don't believe me: Here some non maths facts cause you don't tend to believe the maths. My mathteacher says it's true. My Fysicsteacher says it's true. On university - people who study math - learn this proof as true. Do you need more? Need some more math? sure: 1-0.999... = what?

2004-12-17 [deus-ex-machina]: 1-0.99999.... = NOT 0. Come on Kayne, what kind of credible sources are teachers? :) Of course I need more - I need a credible source from somewhere which says this is right.

2004-12-17 [windowframe]: yeah - we need a source that we can consult - for all we know, you've just sat their and bullshitted to us, face it kayne, your wrong, and by constantly making such big fuss about it, your making it so much harder for yourself when you finally realise it's wrong...

2004-12-17 [Kayne]: I was asking what is 1 - 0.999...

2004-12-17 [windowframe]: lets re-do Kayne's calcuation w/o the x. he says 'x = 0.999...' being as we can't use the whole of a recurring number, we'll just use '0.99999' so... x=0.99999, x 10 = 9.9999. - 0.99999 = 8.99991... oh dear, we seem to have encountered a problem.

2004-12-17 [deus-ex-machina]: and I told you it's not 0. Because you're saying 1 = .999... so 1 - .999... = 0... but it doesn't. Because there's something about 0.999 recurring that doesn't make it 1. So no matter how close it is to 1, it still ISN'T 1!

2004-12-17 [windowframe]: And for the record, Silvie is a nickname - nicknames are generally used only by friends - being as you blocked me from messe, and ended the relationship on ET, it's obvious that you don't want to be my 'friend' so don't call me Silvie.

2004-12-17 [deus-ex-machina]: and silvie did the math which i couldn't be bothered to do :P

2004-12-17 [deus-ex-machina]: OOOOH, I JUST CALLED HER SILVIE! *glomps her friend* ...sorry, LMAO

2004-12-17 [Kayne]: Oke SilverFire - You use a not)infinte row and those things just work differently. The 8 and the 1 will never appear. A finite row has no ending so therefore all numbers after the "." are the same. Do you get this? else withsomething else: Which numbers are more: the numbers who can be divided by 2 or numbers who can be divided by 1. ( And i mean numbers bigger then 0 )

2004-12-17 [windowframe]: "It seems to me that people are often too quick to dismiss the idea that these two numbers might be different."IS what people on the web have to say about this calculation

2004-12-17 [Kayne]: The first? you mean 10x = 9.999...?

2004-12-17 [windowframe]: And as to te one Templar mentioned, which you jump on: This argument gets its force from the fact that most people have been indoctrinated to accept the first equation without thinking."

2004-12-17 [Kayne]: No - You don't think at the equation. Cause it's an infinite number you can mulptiply by ten and the endless numbers after 0 stay the exact same way as they were before.

2004-12-17 [windowframe]: exactly - You have been indoctrinated to accept the first equation w/o thinking, when in fact, you should be thinking very hard, because, as templar pointed out, 1/3 is not exactly equivalent to 0.3* If we do the equation w/ a value that is actually equal to 1/3, (lets say 2/6) This happens: 1/3 = 2/6 , x3 = 1 = 6/6 ... 1 = 1 *gasps of shock*

2004-12-17 [deus-ex-machina]: it's wrong.

2004-12-17 [windowframe]: If you knew anything about Hackenstrings, then your entire proofs would break down - but I suppose you'd dearly love to remain ignorant of something which could totally destroy this crap, wouldn't you?

2004-12-17 [Kayne]: Nothing that you say can make this proof go wrong cause it is sollid. But introduce me anyway. And I would prefer if you stopped calling it crap cause while it is clear that you are telling crap.

2004-12-17 [windowframe]: *L* First point, this is 'non-crap' in yours eyes only - it is not 'obvious' that I am talking crap, you just don't want me to be right. Can you image the quantity 1?

2004-12-17 [Kayne]: 1 = 1 Yes I can. *Holds one finger up*

2004-12-17 [windowframe]: now hold up 0.9 recurring fingers. No, that's not one finger again, it's an infinite number - hold up your infinite finger, then. Ah wait - you don't have one, this could be a problem.

2004-12-17 [deus-ex-machina]: It's so solid no one believes you and you can't produce any evidence to show the obvious inaccuracies are actually acceptable?

2004-12-17 [Kayne]: Yes - an infinite recurring 0.9 finger = 1 finger. *Holds finger up* See SilverFire - you are taking math in to rl. That is not the thing I'm trying to say - it is a common "proof" that 0.99... = 1 but it doesn't work. Cause when we say that a 0.9recurring finger = 1 finger you say that is impossible. And then you ignore the math- proof.

2004-12-17 [windowframe]: I told you *not* to hold up one finger, so what do you do - hold up one finger. Who wants to comment on the IQ levels of the author of this page? I'm not *ignoreing* the maths proof actually, I'm disproving it - you just won't let me.

2004-12-17 [Kayne]: How helps disproving it by going in to "rl" while this is clearly something that just doesn't work in real life.

2004-12-17 [windowframe]: Lets put this more simply for you. 1 is a single number, a single digit, a definable quantity, 0.9* is not a single number, not a single digit and not a definable quantity.

2004-12-17 [Kayne]: Why isn't it definable? If you write it as 1 you habe the same number. Ask your math teachter for my sake.

2004-12-17 [windowframe]: *already did*. *sigh* again, right... 1 = 2. disprove it.

2004-12-17 [Kayne]: No - Fifst proof that it is. Then I will point out your obvious mistake. What did he say?

2004-12-17 [windowframe]: I just proved it did, look 1 = 2. They're the same just accept it. look *holds up finger* one, *holds up finger again* two. If that proof works for you, then it sure as hell works for me.

2004-12-17 [Kayne]: See Silvie you are talking Bullshit and this time you know it - don't waist my time.

2004-12-17 [deus-ex-machina]: actually, she's being perfectly reasonable. in the last few comments she was just showing you how illogical you have been in explaining your 'fact'.

2004-12-17 [windowframe]: That's Still SilverFire to you, bub. No, I am not talking BullShit, no, I am not wasting your time, to be frank, you're acting like you're stuck up your own arse - the nature of infinites, actual or potential is highly philosophical - therefore, different people have different opinions on how they can be handled. Deal. My opinion is different to yours, that doesn't mean it's bull, or irrelevant, it means it's different. If you can agree to disagree w/ **ppo, why is it so hard for you to agree to disagree w/ us? Why do you constantly have to try and shove this down our throats?

2004-12-17 [Kayne]: Cause you are - from a mathematiques ( How do you spell that ) point of vieuw - Wrong :/ And I just love stuffing that down your throat

2004-12-17 [deus-ex-machina]: I love how you're ignoring me. 0.9* does not have to be 1. Otherwise why would 0.9* need to be expressed at all if it could just be implied as 1? There's a reason why 0.9* is 0.9* is shown as such and not 1 because they're not the same freaking thing.

2004-12-17 [windowframe]: No, apparently you are unaware of how closely philosophy and maths are related - infinity is one of the only areas of maths where you can't have the black and white areas that you are trying to trace. You have your opinion, I have mine, You have calculations to prove it, so do I. Again, I empahsise the need for you to learn to deal. Besides - iippo doesn't agree w/ you either - why aren't you stuffing it down her throat?

2004-12-17 [Kayne]: iippo has feelings who can be broken. ( Low joke I know ). You have calculations to prrof your thingy? 0.0 *searches*

2004-12-18 [Aradon Templar]: Dude, kayne, Deus just proved you wrong. 1 doesn't equal .9*, because of the quite noticable difference between the appearances of 1, and .9*. How does one write decimals into fractions? One takes the number in the decimal, and puts it over 10^x, where x is how many places the decimal goes to. SO: .9* = (9*/10*). See? Now, kayne, 1 = x/x. If x were to equal 9*, then the denominator would have to be equal to 9*. But it isn't. It is 10*. Thus proved wrong.

2004-12-19 [Kayne]: See Templar first off al every number that doesn't have an infinte line of numers behind the . can be written as an infinite line. Example: 0.52 can be written as 0.5199999... Those 2 numbers have the exact same value. Now for the other part of your comment: I habe no idea what the hell you are saying. o.0 Just to clear thing out: 1/1 = the second 1 = denominator? // Fractions = ? // And one a final note: 10^x => 10^.9* = .9x // <= Is that what you were saying?

2004-12-19 [Kayne]: And one oher thing: If you are planning on never believing me, let me know then I'll stop trying. Or better ask your math-teacher and tell me what he thinks

2004-12-19 [Kayne]: And one oher thing: If you are planning on never believing me, let me know then I'll stop trying. Or better ask your math-teacher and tell me what he thinks.

2004-12-19 [Aradon Templar]: I'm out for winter break :) But I am going to ask when I get back. As for your other questions, the top number in a fraction (where you have one number underneath another number, and divide like that) is a numerator, and the bottom number is the denominator. So, 12 over 15 is a fraction. And the twelve is the numerator, and the 15 is the denominator.

2004-12-19 [Kayne]: Danke - Just another question. How much would 1 - 0.999... be?

2004-12-19 [deus-ex-machina]: not 0 :P

2004-12-19 [windowframe]: 0.0*1 1. Your first answer doesn't work for someone who doesn't believe your theory - it's only good for those who already accept it; and therefore useless as evidence. You can't say that "Those two numbers have exactly the same value" and just expect us to accept it - becuse obviously, we don't. You need to provide some proof that in our opinions is decent. You haven't.

2004-12-19 [Kayne]: *points to wikisubstance* That is the evidence. See SilverFire - there is your mistake. 1 - 0.9* cannot be 0.0*1. The * = infinite so that would mean that the 1 never comes. And therefore 1 - 0.9* = 0

2004-12-19 [windowframe]: on the contrary - there is no mistake. It just means that the 1 is part of the infinity. You and I have different opinions of the nature of infinity, and neither can be really proven - so you'll just have to accept that you aren't wrong - but neither are we.

2004-12-19 [deus-ex-machina]: but neither would that value that would make 0.9* exactly 1... there's always going to be a difference between the two numbers that doesn't give an end product of 0.

2004-12-19 [Kayne]: :/ Oke - I'll deal with the fact that you think you aren't wrong.

2004-12-19 [windowframe]: No. Don't deal with that fact, Deal with the fact that we aren't - and neither are you. Or is that simply beyond your ability? To accept that two opposing views aren't wrong? That's where your lack of respect becomes plain show. That even when you act like your trying to be reasonable, your pathetic attempt at arrogance is still shown.

2004-12-19 [Kayne]: Now SilverFire - If you can explain to me when something in math can't be sure thus I will accept the fact that I might be wrong.

2004-12-19 [windowframe]: I'm not asking you to accept the fact that you might be goddamned wrong you loon. I'm askin you to accept the fact that both points of view are plausible. What exactly, is so hard for you small little mind to comprehend about that? And for teh record - if your English gets any worse, don't expect a reply - it's barely understandable as it is.

2004-12-19 [Kayne]: And yet again - you don't reply to a direct question but you attack both my grammar and other meaningless stuff. But oke - I'll accept the fact that both points of view are plausible if you can explain how there can be a mistake in math.

2004-12-19 [windowframe]: Well, to be fair - how can I reply to a question I can't understand because of the English? You critisise me for asking you to write better - but I asked so I could actually answer the damn question. Decide what you want already, an answer, or no comments on your English. PLus - you didn't even ask a question - *can see no question marks in recent comments*

2004-12-19 [Kayne]: If you can explain to me when something in math can't be sure thus I will accept the fact that I might be wrong. Looks to me that I asked for an explanation. Ow but wait - you would probably don't want me too accept it. Anyway again no answer to my indirect question. How the hell is it possible that there can be a mistake in math?

2004-12-19 [windowframe]: 2 + 3 = 75. Oh look - there's a mistake. in maths *gasp*

2004-12-19 [windowframe]: and your right kayne, I don't want you to accept that you might be wrong. I don't care what you think about your own beliefs - what I'm asking is that you accept other's beliefs as 'plausible' instead of dishing out this highly patronising 'I accept you think you're not wrong' Bullshit.

2004-12-19 [Kayne]: No, there is a mistake made by the one who is writing. That "=" has no right in being there. Whilst in my proof every "=" has a right to be there.

2004-12-19 [windowframe]: And the one who has written, has written maths. There is an error in the maths.

2004-12-19 [Kayne]: Who is talking Bs now? There is no error in math. The error occurs when the writer writes a "=".

2004-12-19 [windowframe]: Once again, no one is talking BS. We're down to semantics again. Differences in opinion about the application of a language. Fucking Deal.

2004-12-19 [Kayne]: Oke. I deal. I deal with the fact that your opinion is plausible. Cause in your maths 2+3 = 75 isn't bullshit.

2004-12-19 [windowframe]: ... Retard. You really haven't understood our point of view at all; have you? Have you even tried. 1. In my maths 2+3=75, is bullshit, however - I call it an error in the maths, you call it an error in the pennr of the maths. Therein lies the only difference, you little pedant.

2004-12-19 [Kayne]: I was always tought not to have an arguement with people who start to curse. Anyway - I see where we have a difference so I'll deal with the fact that we disagree. Anyway - you study maths don't you?

2004-12-19 [windowframe]: not to curse? You've just used 'bullshit' yourself. That's more of a curse than 'retard'. Hypocrit.

2004-12-19 [windowframe]: And... I'm leaving this wiki now. I can see your point of view, I can accept why you believe what you believe - I can see Templar's point of view, and Deus's and I can accept why they believe what they believe. And I'm going to totally drop this issue. And if you want to be friends - you need to, too.

2004-12-19 [Kayne]: And if you want to be friends  => *Drops*

2005-01-22 [Sagacious Turkey]: if both sides are equal then if you multiply a number by both sides you should get the same number...

2005-01-22 [Kayne]: And we have the same number.

2005-03-02 [ilven]: WRONG: 9X= 8.999999...; what you did wrong is that you'r 0.999 actually this: 1/3= 0.333... -> 0.333x3= 0.999...; while it is 1, you forgot the restvalue!!!!

2005-03-02 [Kayne]: :p Waar zit dan de fout? *Advies: private message.*

2008-08-16 [Mortified Penguin]: That math is flawed! ...*eats ramen*... *refuses to believe it's validity*...

2008-08-16 [Mortified Penguin]: The example is correct until:

10x - x = 9x

9 = 9x

Why does "10x - x" become 9? It should really be 8.99991... Of course it will work out to be 1=.999 if you round up while working it out...

...point being...... I'LL KILL YOU- er, I mean, *eats ramen*...

2008-08-16 [Aradon Templar]: Actually, despite the fact that I disagree with the conclusion of this page, I will also argue that the math is correct, assuming that x=.999... like it says. Because when you multiply by ten, 10x becomes 9.999...9 rather than 9.999....0 like you've stated. The entire sequence after the decimal works out to equal 'x' again, so you have 9.x basically, and then you subtract the 'x'. I had argued originally that 10x is really 9.999...0, but I don't have the sufficient mathematics to prove it, and I doubt you do either.

2008-08-16 [Aradon Templar]: Unless, of course, I want to argue that .999... isn't equal to one, which is the conclusion this reaches if it were. But that's begging the question, assuming the proof is wrong to prove that the proof is wrong.