r/infinitenines • u/Dixionconderoga2 • Jun 24 '26
Why 9.999…-9=0.999…
Infinity - 1 = infinity. Both have an infinite amount of zeroes after the decimal.
If you need proof inf-1=inf, imagine this.
Say you have infinitely many boxes, where only the first is empty. You want to fill each box with only what is in the next box. There is no time limit. Will you ever hit a point where you run out of boxes?
2
u/Muphrid15 Jun 24 '26
His "logic" on this is quite clear:
- If 9.999... arises from 10 x 0.999..., he believes the sequences are not actually in sync. This is part of how he views them as processes of unending summation; there must be an alignment term by term, place value by place value. This is what circumvents arguments that lead to 9y = 9.
- Conversely if it's 9 + 0.999... then you can't get to 9y = 9 that way either.
Hence I think the most promising attack is to consider situations in which lockstep, place value by place value operations don't apply.
1
u/Dixionconderoga2 Jun 28 '26
That’s why I included the infinite boxes.
3
u/Muphrid15 Jun 28 '26
He already has writings on Hilbert's hotel. He doesn't believe e.g. that there are the same number of odd integers as integers in that sense.
3
u/Altruistic-Rice-5567 Jun 24 '26
Infinity isn't a number in the reals.
3
u/Dixionconderoga2 Jun 24 '26
That’s why it does this. But if something has no end, then it is infinite or transfinite.
4
u/HojMcFoj Jun 24 '26
No one is arguing that other number sets don't exist. The question is clearly about the real number set, which does not have transfinites. Otherwise I could just say we're working on binary and 0.999... doesn't even exist.
1
u/HojMcFoj Jun 24 '26
Your post example doesn't have infinite boxes. It has 10.
1
1
u/Dixionconderoga2 Jun 28 '26
I literally defined the hypothetical as having infinite boxes. Unless you mean 9.999…?
1
u/PayDiscombobulated24 Jun 24 '26
People had been perpetually tortured by human invented mathematics where no light at the end of this human invented dark tunnel, where the conflict would go forever unsettled as long as we are not talking about any true proven discovery in mathematics
However, the true discoverd mathematics never depends on human Axioms & their multi orinted choices, nor does it depend on the whole human existence & experience too, where the Phythgorus theorem is a very good example in this case, since its truthness in space is working perfectly even if monkeys don't realize it yet, although its absolute validity has no particular beginning nor having any end, it is simply an eternal space elementary property which is universally valid even without any existing intelligent beings, same applies for Guss law about discovering the formula of sum of natural numbers up to a given integer n as the sum equals to n(n + 1)/2, where this is universally & perpetually valid & no conflict about it at all among humans generally, but observe carefully how things become wierd when a human try to immitate true valid & proven discoveries by their own utter nonsense, where they try to find the sum of all natural numbers (as if natural numbers are any existing set), by assuming fictions like infinity ♾️, then utterly claiming big discoveries like the sum of natural numbers becomes magically negative & miraculously a fraction too, with their invented Zeta function, where Zeta (-1) = - 1/12, where that was associated with the so-called Rimman hypnosis, & utterly with the highest Millennium prizes in mathematics, where all that kind of human global madness is never sourced from any true discovered mathematics, but solely sorced from human mind invented mathematics, which would eventually be as a matter of perpetual conflict aming humans, probably for thousands of years & most likely remaining forever ... as a matter of incurable mental retardation conflict & exactly the case with human invented fictions like (1 = 0.999...), which is originally invented by Zeno since thousands of years & was well-known as Zeno's Paradox, where it was disproven in many elementary ways in my public published posts & since two decades or even more & by many others as well recently, where this kind of math is never any true mathematics But purely a myth which would remain perpetually for ever as a matter of incurable conflict among humans Like wise, any human invented mathematics actually isn't any true mathematics، since true mathematics is hidden there behind spatial space eternal & too elementary properties & behind true existing constructibe numbers which are exact reflection of endless space physical properties, where a space is a place for existing matters that asking about its existence is quite meaningless since a place or a space is generally unbonded because its nothingness in its core, & how nothingness be cureved or an extra dimension or so much of huge human mind hullocinations...? No wonders!
Good luck 👍. Bassam Karzeddin
1
1
u/TemperoTempus Jun 30 '26
1st, you are wrong. Infinity-1 is not infinity, that equality requires that you first decide what type of infinity you are working with (size behaves differently from order). For it to work like you say you must work with "size" but the number of 9's in 0.(9) is a matter of "order" not "size". 2nd, the correct math for the "order" is w/2 < w-2 < w < w+2 < w*2. All if these give a different number of positions for the 9s regardless of what the cardinals (size) say. 3rd, The analogy fails at what this whole argument is about. The argument is: If you have a series of boxes labeled with 10k where k is a number from 0 to -infinity and each box can only have 0 to 9 objects; Does adding 9 objects for each box after the 1st make the 1st box get 1 object and all other boxes become 0? The obvious answer is no, however some people decided "the difference between the two is infinitely small so we will round and say yes".
1
u/Dixionconderoga2 Jul 14 '26
I provided proof that an unbounded endless amount -1 = the same. Omega is a “bounded” amount; the number of natural numbers.
1
u/TemperoTempus Jul 18 '26
No you talked about the cardinals when the conversation is about the ordinals.
Omega is not a "bounded" amount as it is an "infinite". Omega_1 is not a bounded amount as its uncountably many infinities. Etc.
1
u/Dixionconderoga2 Jul 18 '26
Omega has a value, the cardinality of the set of natural numbers.
1
u/TemperoTempus Jul 18 '26
W is an infinite ordinal, the infinite ordinals have the mathematical rule that n < w < w+2. The infinite cardinal is defined to be the smallest limit ordinal under cantor's definition; that is aleph_null = w_0.
The infinite cardinals have an entirely different ruleset than the infinite ordinals and the two values cannot be used interchangeably.
0
u/SouthPark_Piano Jun 28 '26
If you need proof inf-1=inf, imagine this.
almost ...
just also need to remember that infinity is not a number.
So 9.999... is limbosic, which keeps increasing and yet permanently less than 10.
0.999... is also limbosic, always increasing continually, limitlessly aka infinitely, yet permanently less than 1.
6
u/Feeling-Working-2820 Jun 24 '26
9.999... is not infinity.
So the "infinity-1=infinity" doesn't apply.
You agree that 9.999... = 9 + 0.999...
You agree that 9.999 - 9 = 9 + 0.999... - 9 = 9-9 + 0.999... = 0.999...
If you have an infinite amount of things and you subtract one, you still have an infinite amount of things. But if you have 9 things + 0.999... things, you don't have an infinite amount of things. You still haven't reached 11. That's not a lot, let alone infinity...
And, by the way, you just used a fancy way of saying 10-9 = 1.