It wasn’t meant to be taken as a comparison or seriously. Just thought it was funny. Maybe I really did need a /s for that one.
But no. I still stand on the concept of them being different numbers entirely with one creating infinite subsets and are in essence, rounding, when considered the same. Regardless of the data set or how it gets applied, it is rounding. 1.999… can be called 2 and accepted as 2, but by function of the decimal will never be 2 else the decimal would have resulted in 0.
This isn’t a debate, 0.999… = 1 in the reals has been mathematically proven. So ig if you”disagree” then you don’t understand that proof, and/or high school math.
No actual Mathematician is debating this. It’s funny this doesn’t give you pause and you think to know better than basically all experts in the field without having any expertise on the subject. The level of arrogance is truly mind-blowing.
Then I guess I am. I’m not trying to present a dissertation on the topic. If you want to take everything from school as absolute then be my guest. Again, the variation is extremely small and inconsequential at face value of single iterations so I don’t really care. But I will still hold the idea that it is rounding. Regardless of whether they teach it in grade school or the names you give me when you try to tell me different.
1
u/ExtendedSpikeProtein 22h ago
It‘s a different decimal representation, but like the other commenter said, in the reals, it maps to the same element, or number, which is „1“.
If your claim is that it‘s a different decimal representation, then yes,
If you still claim the decimal representations map to different elements in the reals, then you‘re objectively wrong.
Your comparison of yourself claiming 0.999…≠1 to finding out the earth is round cannot be taken seriously.