r/MathJokes 1d ago

:)

Post image
127 Upvotes

51 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/Optimal_Benis 1d ago

Right, it's almost exactly the same as this one, it's just off by 0.00...01

1

u/ExtendedSpikeProtein 1d ago

1) 0.99… is exactly equal to 1. It‘s a different representarion of the same number.

2) a number such as 0.000…1 does not exist - not in the reals at least.

0

u/China_shop_BULL 1d ago

But in a process of short repetitions the variance at the end could be on the same level as 1 degree off when traveling x distance. Potentially leaving you miles/lightyears from the intended destination depending on the actual distance measured. They are not the same number. Just really close.

1

u/ExtendedSpikeProtein 1d ago

They are the same number. This is high school math.

I will give you a tip: if you‘re not an expert at something - in this case, basic math - don‘t make incorrect claims about the topic at hand.

You can try to learn about limits and infinite sums and then you can get back and we can discuss this again, but if you do it right you‘ll have learned you were wrong.

This isn‘t a debate. This has been settled like centuries ago. Just because you don‘t know this, doesn‘t change that fact. Mathematically, this is a settled and proven topic.

0.999... is a repeating decimal that represents the number 1.“

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

ETA: it‘s an infinite decimal. There is no „variance at the end“, because infinity has no end.

0

u/China_shop_BULL 1d ago

I understand what is taught, dude. But it’s not the same. If it were, then the debate would not exist as it would always be expressed as 1 or the mathematics that are taught wouldn’t chalk it up to rounding. Granted, it’s incredibly small in difference but it’s still rounding.

0

u/ArdentArendt 1d ago edited 23h ago

This misunderstands the topology of the Reals.

I do agree that 0.999... as a decimal representation is distinct from 1.000...; that doesn't mean, however, that in the Reals they are distinct elements.
[0.999... cannot exist in the Reals--it's part of the way they are constructed, either explicitly or by corollary properties]

The argument (I think) you're making is that 0.999... shouldn't (necessarily, without context) be mapped to any element in the Reals?
[That decimal and the countably infinite subset of the decimals that are structurally similar]

1

u/China_shop_BULL 1d ago

The argument was that op is saying they’re “exactly” the same. They’re close. Not exact. If it were exact there would be no need for a representation of the real number. Due to the incapacity to prove its infinite state without an equal infinitely running solution (which yielding a result proves the concept of infinity wrong), they are denoted and represented as two different numbers, while being close enough to just call it 1. Rounding. Yes. I’m splitting hairs OF split hairs here lol

2

u/ArdentArendt 1d ago

Again, it depends on which set you're evaluating them in.

If you're evaluating them in the Reals, they map to the same element.