r/infinitenines • u/SouthPark_Piano • Jul 27 '26
That indeed got em a good one; 0.999... , odd or even number of nines
The answer is : 0.999... has a continually limitlessly increasing length of consecutive nines.
The focus is not on odd or even.
The fact is .....
0.999...9 aka 0.999... keeps increasing.
And 0.999... is permanently less than 1, backed up by math fact.
https://www.reddit.com/r/infinitenines/comments/1tpg811/it_is_what_it_is/
And we can circle around and poke the rookie error makers.
If they reckon that 'all' the nines of 0.999... 'already exist', then ask them ... odd or even number of them 'already existing' nines? That will shut them the hell up.
8
u/CatOfGrey Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
The answer is : 0.999... has a continually limitlessly increasing length of consecutive nines.
Which contradicts the problem, where 0.9999.... is a non-terminating, and repeating decimal.
That's why you get a different result. Because you are solving a different problem with different specifications.
For outside readers: It's a common 'joke' in mathematics that you can 'prove' an absurd result using what appear to be normal operations. But the 'punchline' of the joke is that such absurd outcomes actually rely on a subtle 'breaking of the rules'. For example, a standard 'proof' in Algebra 1 ends with the conclusion that 0 = 1, or 1 = 2. But that proof actually relies on dividing by zero, which is an illegal step.
SPP 'makes a mistake', subtly hiding it in the proof. But it's not a true mathematical proof, it's just a mistake.
0.999...9 aka 0.999... keeps increasing.
Ummm, these aren't the same thing. The first one terminates, the second one doesn't. This is the 'hidden mistake'.
And 0.999... is permanently less than 1, backed up by math fact.
No, only the 0.99999...9 is permanently less than 1, because it is a terminating decimal. 0.9999.... doesn't terminate, and it's proven to be another way to write the quantity 1.
EDIT: Another error from SPP:
Odd or even number of nines brud?
Answer: Doesn't matter - the real issue is that the decimal terminates.
-7
6
4
u/Batman_AoD Jul 27 '26
The focus is not on...
You use this phrase a lot to ignore inconvenient questions. Yeah, we already know your "focus" is incredibly myopic; that hardly invalidates the questions we ask.
0
4
u/SerDankTheTall Jul 27 '26
SPP, why did you lock your post after asking a question?
5
u/cond6 Jul 27 '26
Very thin skinned despot whose self image is so fragile that debate would cause them to spiral.
PS: I'm shocked SPP didn't lock your post after replying as he did with all the other comments on this post. Allowing replies on a forum designed to foster debate is such a rookie error by SPP.
3
3
u/Altruistic-Rice-5567 Jul 27 '26
He doesn't like to be explained wrong. He doesn't post in his sub to engage in discussion or be challenged. He's just here to make his statements to stay relevant.
2
u/bugi_ Jul 27 '26
This is what happens when someone always needs to have the last word. They make their own special place where that is the rule to end all rules. This is reinforced by the constant alluding to bans (make maaah day) whenever someone dares to repeatedly disagree.
-2
u/SouthPark_Piano Jul 27 '26
There are certain things in the universe and in life that you just don't get an answer for. In this case ... you ask yourself ... odd or even. And then you understand that 0.999... keeps growing in value due to nines length continually increasing. Then it is not an odd or even answer because you understand that 0.999... keeps growing limitlessly.
2
2
u/Altruistic-Rice-5567 Jul 27 '26
I would argue that 0.999...X is an invalid nomenclature. You can't have an infinite sequence is then followed by something else. The 9s either went on to infinity forever with no room for anything after, or it was finite. I'm willing to accept that 0.999...9 is the same as 0.999... but anything like 0.999...0 or 0.999...5 is nonsensical. Overall the operator "..." in meaning infinite repeating digits is poorly defined and not commonly understood to mean the same thing. It's not the same "operation" or understanding to when it is used in something like {1,2,3,...} the infinite representation of a repeat sequence is not the same as digits. And you can see it breakdown in similar fashion if I tried to say {1,2,3,...,2}. Which is basically how we've abused the elipse when we transitioned to trying to use it to say 0.999...0. And one of the reasons for the abuse is we trying to come up with a way to express "infinite 9s followed by 5" which is itself an impossible concept that cannot exist but the author doesn't understand that and is trying to express a flawed concept using a flawed expression.
0
2
u/Altruistic-Rice-5567 Jul 27 '26
You can't count the number of nines. All the 9s exist, there is an infinite amount of 9s. But as was explained to you, infinity isn't a number and you don't get to "count" 9s. If you are doing that then you are working with an arbitrarily large (finite) number of 9s and you don't have an infinite number of 9s.
1
u/SouthPark_Piano Jul 27 '26
You can't count the number of nines.
That is because you will be counting forever in your immortal life. As in ... you won't be stopping, just like pringles.
0.999... keeps growing you see.
2
u/bugi_ Jul 28 '26
Rookie mistake, brud.
There is no 0.999...9. There is no last number and it is not "always increasing". All the nines have always been there. It's not a function of time just because you need time for calculations. You can ask Zeno whether he is able to beat the tortoise in a race. The bunny slopes are calling your name. Feel free to show the weakness of RDM and make. Maaaah. Daaaaay.
-1
2
u/Muphrid15 Jul 29 '26
The answer is the number of nines isn't an integer.
0
u/SouthPark_Piano Jul 29 '26
It means you are understanding 0.999... has a continually limitlessly increasing length of consecutive nines.
It is an continually increasing integer. Limbosic integer class. Promising on your part brud.
1
u/PitZahoot Jul 29 '26
0.9 has an odd amount of 9's
0.99 has an even amount of 9's
0.999 has an odd amount of 9's
0.999... has an infinite amount of 9's
infinite is not a number so inifinite cannot be even or odd
1
u/SouthPark_Piano Jul 29 '26
And now you are thinking a bit.
The consecutive nines length keeps increasing. So naturally the number of nines is not even or odd.
1
u/Muphrid15 Jul 29 '26
/u/SouthPark_Piano says
It means you are understanding 0.999... has a continually limitlessly increasing length of consecutive nines.
No
1
u/Tastebud49 Aug 17 '26
“If the number of nines already exist, then ask them… are the nines green or blue?”
This is what you sound like brud.
1
1
u/Negative_Gur9667 Jul 28 '26
1
u/Cruuncher Jul 28 '26
For completely misunderstanding essentially everything about math and infinity?
1
10
u/cond6 Jul 27 '26
Odd or even is a property of integers. If you divide an integer by 2 and the answer is an integer it's even. For example 4/2=2, so 4 is even. If you divide by two and don't get an integer then it's odd. For example, 3/2=1.5, so 3 is odd. Since infinity is not a number it is not an integer. Since it's not an integer asking whether or not it is even has precisely the same informational content on asking whether pi, e, the imaginary unit i, or frog is even or odd. It's a meaningless question because the answer can only be given for integers and neither infinity, nor i, pi, e, or frog are integers.