this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
57 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13468 readers
755 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here

Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This little guy craves the light of knowledge and wants to know why 0.999... = 1. He wants rigour, but he does accept proofs starting with any sort of premise.

Enlighten him.

all 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

if 0.333... = 1/3 then 0.999... = 3/3 = 1

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

lots of good proofs in this thread but this one gets points for being by FAR the shortest while still being completely based on intuition and makes complete sense with an average high school mathematics background

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

and wants to know why 0.999... = 1

\begin{align} 0.999.... &= 9\cdot(0.1+0.01+0.001+... ) \ &= 9\cdot( 0.1^1 + 0.1^2 + 0.1^3 + ... ) \ &= 9\cdot(\sum\limits_{k=1}^\infty ( \frac{1}{10^k} ) ) \ &= 9\cdot(\sum\limits_{k=0}^\infty ( \frac{1}{10^{(k+1)}}))\ &= 9\cdot(\sum\limits_{k=0}^\infty \frac{1}{10}*(\frac{1}{10^k})) \ &= \frac{9}{10}\cdot (\sum\limits_{k=0}^\infty (\frac{1}{10^k})) \ &= \frac{9}{10}\cdot \frac{1}{(1-(\frac{1}{10}))}\ &= \frac{9}{10}\cdot \frac{10}{9} = 1 \end{align}

The crux rests on a handy result on from calculus: the sum of an infinite geometric series looks likes s = 1/(1-r), when s = \sum\limits_k=0^inf r^k, and |r| < 1.

Sorry for the latex. When will hexbear render latex? This is a bit more readable:

(aesthetic edit for our big beautiful complex analysts)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Never thought of employing the geometric series for this, that’s clever.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

^_^ thank you!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

? Thats pretty standard though right?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

in computer programs, yes

not so much in analysis

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I'm seeing n and i used as variables in Rudin, predominantly n though, but Im accustomed to n being a constant.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The symbol 'i' is usually reserved for the imaginary unit.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

I've seen it used very frequently as a name for a variable, the imaginary unit i usually has a different typeface to distinguish the two is what Im accustomed to.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Your feedback is valid and I apologize for rendering such an ugly proof

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The thing that really got 0.999...=1 to click on my mind is the fact that you can't find a number between 0.999... and 1. You might think "Just put something at the end of 0.999...," but there is no end to 0.999....

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Yay, Dedekind cuts are finally useful!

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

so, start with:

x = 0.999...

now multiply each side by 10

10x = 9.9999....

now we subtract x from the left side, and 0.999... from the right, which is fine because they are equal:

9x = 9

and from there it should be fairly obvious that x is also equal to 1, which means 0.999... is also equal to 1

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

0.999..=1 because it's funny that people get so mad about it

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I agree, but the little guy does need rigour, or he will starve under crapitalism.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I didn't have any bread to bring him but I had plenty of roses

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

He's hungry
cri
Feed him

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I suppose I will post one myself, as I do not expect anybody else to have that one in mind.

The decimals '0.999...' and '1' refer to the real numbers that are equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences of rational numbers (0.9, 0.99, 0.999,...) and (1, 1, 1,...) with respect to the relation R: (aRb) <=> (lim(a_n-b_n) as n->inf, where a_n and b_n are the nth elements of sequences a and b, respectively).

For a = (1, 1, 1,...) and b = (0.9, 0.99, 0.999,...) we have lim(a_n-b_n) as n->inf = lim(1-sum(9/10^k) for k from 1 to n) as n->inf = lim(1/10^n) as n->inf = 0. That means that (1, 1, 1,...)R(0.9, 0.99, 0.999,...), i.e. that these sequences belong to the same equivalence class of Cauchy sequences of rational numbers with respect to R. In other words, the decimals '0.999...' and '1' refer to the same real number. QED.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I like how compact this one is ;)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Had a little trouble following this as plain text, so I wrote it up in LaTeX (it'll be a bit small if you try to read it inline--you'll probably want to tap to enlarge on mobile or open the image in a new tab/click this direct link to the image):

I tried to hew as closely to your notation as I could, but let me know if you spot any errors!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Thank you.

And no, I do not notice any errors.

I should re-learn Lateχ.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

I will be posting another another proof, one using the assumption that 0.999... is the sum of the series 9/10+9/100+9/1000+... (and that 1 is the sum of the series 1+0+0+0+...), unless somebody else comes here and feeds it to the little guy first.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

(I haven't done real math since forever)

Part 1: Proving If x,y are distinct positive real numbers and x < y, there is a z in R such that x < z < y.

Let y = x + e, where e is in R. e is also positive because:

x < y
x < x + e
0 < e

x < z < y becomes x < z < x + e. We can then choose z = x + 0.5e so that

x < z < y
x < x + 0.5e < x + e
0 < 0.5e < e
0.5e - 0.5e < 0.5e + 0 < 0.5e + 0.5e
-0.5e < 0 < 0.5e

Since we've shown earlier that e > 0, -0.5e < 0 < 0.5e is true no matter what e.

Part 2: Decimal Notation

Decimal notation is written as the sequence a~m~a~m-1~...a~1~a~0~.b~1~b~2~...b~n~, where a,b are in the set {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}. The sequence a~m~a~m-1~...a~1~a~0~.b~1~b~2~...b~n~ itself is of the number a~m~10^m^ + a~m-1~10^m-1^ + ... + a~0~10^0^ + b~1~10^-1^ + b~2~10^-2^ + ... + b~n~10^-n^.

Part 3: The actual proof through proof by contradiction

Let x = 0.999... and y = 1. This means there exists a z that is between 0.999... and 1. So let's construct z = a~0~.b~1~b~2~...b~n~. a~0~ has to be either a 0 or 1 and since there is no number smaller than 1 with 1 as its first digit, a~0~=0. z = 0.b~1~b~2~...b~n~

0.999... = 9*10^-1^ + 9*10^-2^ + 9*10^-3^ + ... while z = b~1~10^-1^ + b~2~10^-2^ + ... + b~n~10^-n^. If 0.999... < z, then

0.999... - z < 0
9*10^-1^ + 9*10^-2^ + 9*10^-3^ + ... - (b~1~10^-1^ + b~2~10^-2^ + ... + b~n~10^-n^) < 0
(9*10^-1^ - b~1~10^-1^) + (9*10^-2^ - b~2~10^-2^) + (9*10^-3^ - b~3~10^-3^) + ... < 0
(9 - b~1~)*10^-1^ + (9 - b~2~)*10^-2^ + (9 - b~3~)*10^-3^ + ... < 0

But as we've established in Part 2, b~1~, b~2~, b~3~, etc have to be from the set {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}, meaning (9 - b~n~) > 0 for any n. Therefore, (9 - b~1~)*10^-1^ + (9 - b~2~)*10^-2^ + (9 - b~3~)*10^-3^ + ... cannot be less than 0.

The theorem requires for x and y to be distinct positive real numbers and x < y, and since 0.999... and 1 can be trivially shown to be positive real numbers, this means that 0.999... and 1 are not distinct. In other words, 0.999... = 1.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Alright, so, the other proof that I promised:

If we define 0.999... as the sum of the series 9/10+9/100+9/1000+..., then for every neighbourhood U(1) it is true that there exists a metric ball B_N = B(1, 1/10^N), where N is natural, such that B_N is a subset of U(1).

For all natural n > N it is true that d(sum(9/10^k) for k from 1 to n, 1) = |1 - sum(9/10^k) for k from 1 to n| = |1/10^n| = 1/10^n < 1/10^N, meaning that for all natural n > N it is true that sum(9/10^k) for k from 1 to n is in B_N, meaning that it is also in U(1).

However, sum(9/10^k) for k from 1 to n is the nth partial sum of the series 9/10+9/100+9/1000+..., which, together with the fact that every such sum is in U(1) for n > N, means that 1 is the limit of the sequence of the partial sums of the series 9/10+9/100+9/1000+..., meaning that 1 is the sum of that series. That means that 0.999... is 1 by definition.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The ellipses mean infinity. Anything less than infinity and the equation is false. It looks unintuitive because infinity is unintuitive

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The ellipses mean infinity

No, it does not. The ellipsis notation is used to denote a repeating pattern. It is not used to denote points that are named 'infinity' in spaces like Aleksandrov compactification and the extended space of real numbers.

I am sorry, but your reply lacks rigour.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is this a bit? I meant that the ellipses, in this context, mean that the nines go on forever. Obviously there are other symbols used to represent similar ideas, like ∞

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm being serious. The word 'infinity' refers to some points from spaces like Aleksandrov compactification. It does not refer to any sort of repetition of any pattern. You cannot, for example, write '0.999∞' or '0.999infinity' to mean the same thing as '0.999...' or '0.(9)'.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

ok mothematician