+0.99...
/closed

.9999¯ yes

Why is your ¯ on no number? It should be in the first numbers after the comma

I think he means .99999 repeating, you usually put the line above the number but can’t really do it easily on computer

This was exactly what I meant to say.

They always taught me to do 0.(9) if it’s infinite, if it has a pattern e.x: 0.789789789 you would do 0.(789)
Edit: or 0.6(789)

Same shit

but 0.6(789) could also be seen as 0.6 x 789 or not?

Yeah but we never run into that problem ever

+1 i never saw any line above it or smth, always these "0.(x)"

Been to both German and Estonian schools and can confirm, that ''0.x(y)'' or however it appears is taught in most other countries, the only time I've seen it was in Germany, where the line above an infinite number of x-s behind the comma is a regular.

>Been to two countries
>Can confirm for most countries
LUL

In Slovakia we use the line

1=2

No

Only idiots would say it's false...

I say false can u explain why im idiot

Because it's basic maths? You should have learnt this when you were like 12...

but i didn't can u explain pls

x = 0.999999
10x = 9.99999
10x - 1x = 9x
9x = 9
x = 1

9x =/= 9

+1

Yeah it does
Edit. when he's saying 0.999999 its representing 0.9 recurring. I assume you know that but this is the only way I can see you not understanding.

If you call 9x = 9 then x=1 so 13,41 > 9x < 4.5

( if you dont know x = 0,9999___

but why ??? and how ???

Why did 9.9999 suddenly got a x?

It’s 10x = 9.999 = 9+x
=> 10x = 9+x
=> 10x - x = 9+x-x
=> 9x = 9
=> x = 1
I think he did it too fast

Yes

No because if x=1 10x=10 and not 9.99999
This is completely retarded, x=0.99999 or x=1 not both

1/3 = 0,3333...
0,3333... * 3 = 0,999...
1/3 * 3 = 3/3 = 1
Therefore 0,999... = 1

+1
I think this is the simplest method to understand the statement :)

thx :)

u got it

finally some sense

yikes

x=0,11111
10x = 1,11111
10x-x =9x=1
but also:
9x = 0,99999

this is false men))

nice education lul

lol retards saying this is false...
x = 0.999...
10x = 9.999...
9x would be 9.000...
x would be 1

how u go from 10x to 9x

likewise 1=2.
Demo!
scientificproofmagazine.com/2010/11/28/f..

0.9999999...9 = 1 but that's definitely not how you prove it x)

For clarification: 0.(9) = 0.9999... with an infinite amount of 9's.
x = 0.(9) | *10
10x = 9.(9) | -x (=0.(9))
9x = 9.(9) - 0.(9) = 9 | /9
x = 1
Q.E.D.

#128

No it isn't. Give me a reason why it doesn't work.

10x = 9.(9) | -x (=0.(9))

Well, I'm not sure what's wrong with that, but I'll try to make the proof more comprehensive.
First you define x as 0.(9), where there are an infinite amount of 9's behind the decimal point.
Then you multiply both sides by 10. That gives you 10x on the left side. Now, on the right side the 9's behind the decimal point get "pushed" one digit to the left, because we're mulitplying by 10. But as there is an infinite number of 9's, the amount of 9's after the new decimal point will still be infinite. Thus the right side is 9.(9).
Now you subtract x on both sides. On the left side you simple get 9x. On the right side, you have 9.(9) - x, but x just happenes to be 0.(9). The 9's after the decimal point cancel out due to the subtraction, leaving you with just a 9.
Divide by 9, and you get x = 1.

that's false
Now, on the right side the 9's behind the decimal point get "pushed" one digit to the left, because we're mulitplying by 10

No it's not. Please provide some evidence, unless you're just trying to waste my time.

you didnt provide any evidence that 'the right side the 9's behind the decimal point get "pushed" one digit to the left, because we're mulitplying by 10'. THis is intuition ,but that's not a proof. So the whole proof is false

That's a basic mathematical concept. Do you want me to prove that 1+1=2 next?
>0.9999... | +0.(9)
=1.999...8 | +0.(9)
=2.999...7 | +0.(9)
=3.999...6 | +0.(9)
=4.999...5 | +0.(9)
=5.999...4 | +0.(9)
=6.999...3 | +0.(9)
=7.999...2 | +0.(9)
=8.999...1 | +0.(9)
=9.999...0 | +0.(9)
Again, prove that I'm wrong. You're pulling out arguments that don't exist.

there is a big difference in saying that 0.abc*10=a.bc and that 0.x(1)x(2)x(3)...*10=x(1).x(2)x(3)x(4)...

You are baiting me hard, aren't you?
Let a = 5, b = 2, c = 3.
Type into your calculator: 0.523*10. It will equal 5.23. This works for any abc.
But again, you were just baiting me the whole time. I did have a feeling, but it's only now that I'm sure of it. ^^

0.33... =1/3
0.66... =2/3
0.99... =3/3 =1

wtf can u explain ???

thats the explanation, it doesnt make sense when you think about it, but mathematically it is correct

but why wouldn't it be
0.33...=0.99.../3
0.66...=1.99.../3
0.99...=2.99.../3
?
Are mathematicians this dumb ?

just type 1/3 in a calculator. Thats facts. 1/3 = 0.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333...

but what about 0.99...=3/3 ??? my calculator just gimme a 1 when I type 3/3 !!! wtf can u explain ???

ofc it does. Because 3/3 is 1.
if you add 1/3+1/3+1/3 its 3/3 and thats 1.
but if you add 0.33... (which is 1/3) + 0.33... +0.33... it equals 0.99...
obv it doesnt sound right if you say 0.99... = 1 but thats mathematically proven. Its shit to explain like this on hltv but it is like that. Just google it if you dont believe me and need a further explanation

but I can't do that on my calculator !!! and if I could I would add a 4 in the end of 0.33333 I'm not dumb !!! Otherwise it's not 1/3 !!! Wtf !!!

there is NO end at 0.33...

but someone told me that there is a difference between something that "tends" to 1/3 and something that is "equal" to 1/3 !!!
he said that 1/3 just can't be written as a decimal number, and that this is even why we use fractions in the first place !!!
He said that you could use as many 333333 as you want it'd never be 1/3 !!!
WTF CAN U EXPLAIN ??!

Omg, just do this:
1/3= 0.333333333..
Then that 0.333333..x3 and it's 0.9999999..
Idk why no one said this

thank you I was beginning to think that I was the only dumb person here !!!

I have bad news for you, Francois...

2/3=0.6666666667 actually.

no. it is 0.66... the 6 never stops

put it through a calculator.
you'll always get 0.666666666667

calculator rounds the number

low iq or b8

Yes, correct.
/Close

actually, it's wrong.
You need + 0.111... to get the 1

yesn't

you just need to add .1 to the end to get the 1 and its not wrong.

Bait or?
There is nothing you can add to 0.999... to get it closer to 1.

Lets hope it is bait, or at least that he figures out he is wrong.

i can add 0.000000(infinite amount)1 then it'd be 1

No, because the 0.99999 never ends, so if u add 0.0000001 the 1 has to have an end while the 0.999999 still continues.
Nt tho

but i said 0.00000(infinite ammount) and 1 so when the infinite ends it will add 1 and bum bigbang bitch

U cant add 1 after an infinite amount. Thats not how infinite works.

well, who decides, it's infinite anyway?

Yes, its infite, it never ends, it has no end so u cant add 1 to its end

i mean, no one understands the concept of "infinite", everything should have an end right? So, its infinite+1 cry me a river. Can you prove me that infinite as actually infinite or has no end?

I wont be proving it to you, you will learn it in 6th grade in elementary school.

HSIANSJSNXNXNXNSJCKSKCNSKC

You can write it like this: infinity+1 is (N0=aleph null) N0+1 . The result is still N0 because: So sets A and B have cardinalities N0 and N0+1. And basic set theory tells us that we can define a bijection from any infinite set with cardinality N0 to any of its proper infinite subsets. Therefore, the two sets must have the same cardinality, so infinity+1 = infinity
EDIT: Search for aleph null and bijection and you will understand in no time

Thank you :)

that means you can never add a 1

These guys thinking they're smart with their maths and then not being sure if you're baiting -_-

The difference between 0.9 and 1 is 1/10, the difference between 0.99 and 1 is 1/(10)^2.
This meana the difference is 1/(10)^n being n the amount of nines you have.
If you have infinites 9 then the difference is 1/(10)^infinite and thats is equal 0
That means the difference between 0.9999... and 1 is 0, so they are equal

1/(10)^infinite how's that equal 0, im retarded pls explain, curious atm

Well, when you divide a number for a really big one it will get closer to 0. So if you divide 1 by an infinite number it will be almost 0. You cant prove it with a normal count since infinite is not a number is a concept but if you consider 10^n like 10*10*10.. and the multiplication is a bunch of sum. With calculus things you can know the sum converges on 0

I see, that makes sense. Thank you ♥️

This guy is retarded can confirm

HAHAHAHSHSJSJXJSNXJSNDKSNFOSNFKSNFKSNJF

no if you add 0.999... and 0.111...it will become 2 smh

Yes mens))))
Proof : imgur.com/a/n44DRB5

1/3 =/= 0.3333...

No lol

+1, which is more than +0.9999...

1/3=0.333...
2/3=0.666...
3/3=0.999... = 1

Nope. You're just rounding the 0.999...., that does make it the same as 1 since a fraction is missing.
3/3=1, not 3/3=0.9999....

bro if 1/3 * 3 = 1
1/3= 0.333...
0.333... * 3 = 1 = 0.999...

Again no.
1/3*3=1 removes having to deal with the actual fractions
That is why 3*0.3333333.... is not =1 since there you have those small fractions missing.

ok maybe

"0.3333333333..." is just an approximate value
1/3 is precise

ok maybe men)))

0.999... = 1
You cant add anything to 0.999... to make it a 1 so it equals.

No, just no.
1-0.999... is not zero which is what you're saying.

So what is it then?

It is 1-0.9999...
No better way of defining it with this place not being great for math symbols and stuff.

Let x = 0.9999…
Then 10x = 9.9999…
If we then subtract x from both sides of the equation, then:
10x – x = 9.9999… – 0.9999…
So, 9x = 9
Divide both sides of the equation by 9, and…
x = 1 … which, when we started, we said = 0.9999…

You got that wrong, all you showed there is that the same as
0.9999.. - 0.9999.. =0 which is of course true. When you subtract the part to the right of decimal point what remains is of course the rest.
The value 0.9999... is infinitely close to 1, but is not 1. You can round up to 1, but that is not the same.

Nope, you are wrong.

brazzer how 0.(9) can be 1 if it is 0.(9)
it will never hit 1, its always gonna be 0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

How many times do I have to explain it in this thread lol? Just go look at some other comments and you will see why.

ok you are right
wonder if i could answer on some math exam with
0.(9) since its equal 1 but written differently (if answer from a task would be 1)

Try and see, if the teacher doesnt like it then destroy him/her with facts and logic

Do you still not get it or?

This thread has gotten really silly.
The value 0.9999... is infinitely close to 1, but is not 1. You can round up to 1, but that is not the same as it being equal to 1.

Nope, you are wrong.

Repeating something wrong doesn't make it right.
Lets try this:
1-0.9999.. >0
1>0.9999....
Not sure I can make it anymore clear.

Let x = 0.9999…
Then 10x = 9.9999…
If we then subtract x from both sides of the equation, then:
10x – x = 9.9999… – 0.9999…
So, 9x = 9
Divide both sides of the equation by 9, and…
x = 1 … which, when we started, we said = 0.9999…
Not sure I can make it anymore clear. There is nothing you can add to 0.9999... to make it a 1. Therefore 1-0.999... = 0

"There is nothing you can add to 0.9999... to make it a 1. Therefore 1-0.999... = 0"
That is two separate statements, you can't use the first statements as evidence of the second.

It goes hand in hand. You are pathetic, really. You have no real arguments, I provided you many but it seems like your math skills just aren't there yet. See you in 5 years when you pass the 8th grade and will finally understand why 0.999... = 1

LOL Here comes the insults.
I have given you the arguments you're just not understanding logic.
Equal to means that what is on the two sides is of identical value, not that the two sides are almost identical and that includes when the difference is infinitely small. Ergo 0.999... = 1 is not a true statement.

Didnt read, oof
#259

x = 0.9999....
10x = 9.999....
10x-x = 9
9x = 9
x = 1
Therefore
0.9999.... = 1

Actually it isn't equal.
The value 0.999... approaches 1 but actually it isn't.
The decimal expansion of 1 is obviously 1 or you may write 1.000...
Both expressions aren't same but tend to be equal when sufficiently large amount of 9s are taken.

+1 limits and equalities aren't the same

Actually it is the same. There is no number between 0.9... and 1 and therefore it is the same. That was one correct argument, but there are quite a few more, see here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

That just means 0.999... is the nearest number to 1 which is also less than 1.
As shankman mentioned above, limits and equalities aren't same.

No, it doesn't. This also has nothing to do with limits.

Yes it has to do with limits
actually
1= lim k->infty sigma n=0, n=k (9/10)*(1/10)^n

Yes, and that is a of proving that 0.(9) is in fact 1.
See this: i.imgur.com/k9dgbB4.png
Also note the definitions

Actually you don't understand how limits aren't actual values.
No school kid will understand that.
Actually the limit n->infty is equal to 1 not the real expression.
You don't put limit there if it is equal. Do you understand?
Involvement of limit means you're taking approx value.

I do know my way around limits and the limit is actually a real value unless it tends towards infinity. In this case it is a possible way to define a number.
Read the article I linked and some of the references. A good summary is this:
homepages.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall..
Don't tell me that all of the fairly big names in the references are actually wrong because of "dude trust me".

Wtf are you on?
You know that limits aren't real value if it tends to infty and still you don't understand. ok can't argue more with you.

I'm not arguing about limits. Other than that: The limit is an actual value something approaches. A limit IS a value unless the limit is infinity.
First year student?

I'm not even talking about limit approaching some number. I'm talking about the points which don't exist on graph and infty is one of them. How can you talk about that part of graph which doesn't even exist?
Actually limit is approximation for all those points where the graph doesn't exist. It has nothing to do with infty. Obviously graph doesn't exist at infty.
Also I don't believe the text because it is like dude forget everything and follow what I say.
Everything goes in my brain, all what he says and all those students say. I've been through all these answers to a question and I follow my version of it because there is no answer to this question which is undisputed unless it is mix of everything.
Btw not a first year student.

"I'm talking about the points which don't exist on graph and infty is one of them."
That is literally what I am saying
"Also I don't believe the text because it is like dude forget everything and follow what I say."
It really isn't. The point of it is to explain it to you, not to tell you this without you thinking whatsoever. I see why you wouldn't want to trust my explanations or even wikipedias, but here are several widely accepted proofs in the references and especially in the books, written by well acclaimed mathematicians. These are trustworthy and not really disputed.

Actually I don't follow these proofs or explanations because there the disputed concept of 0^0. Calculators show it is 1 but it really isn't.
Imo student should've their own understanding of a disputed concept.
Btw for me infty is a huge number but not the largest number. I don't go by that concept of calling infty the largest number.

0^0 being 1 is not really disputed.
Also, there are different infinities and infinity is not really a number per se

Ok bro 0^0 is one of the limited forms. Don't you know?
Obviously I meant how you perceive infty. Not the actual def of infty.

Yes, but the most common one that is used is 1
Also, I don't know why a perception of infinity is needed when you have the definition

What??
0^0 is one of the indeterminate forms in limits.
Wtf you talking about?
Actually if you have brain, you'd need perception of anything. It isn't just about closing eyes and solving problems.

I know it is, but the most common value that is assumed for 0^0 is 1. Also, I don't actually need a perception of infinity to solve any problem and I really don't know what else matters in this context

Ok maybe you don't because you don't have to use brain in your questions.
Also the most common value of an indeterminate form doesn't make sense.

Please explain to me why you magically know that I don't have to use my brain in my question when you know absolutely nothing about me, and just because I don't have a real "perception" of infinity.
Please explain to me how it doesn't make sense to have a value that is used for something that is indeterminate. Having 1 as the assumed value is just for convenience reasons and doesn't really have a negative impact on anything, so why not assume 1 in most cases?

Ok wait how do you approach
lim k->infty 1/k. You obviously won't use brain and have some perception and would write =0 blatantly.
Now if the question changes to lim k->infty k-(k+1) what would you do here.
Now would you say infty is the biggest number so there can't be anything bigger than infty(yeah thats the definition) so either the answer is negative or 0.
Now if you take it as a large number, you won't have such intricacies in your mind.
A lot of things behave better in perceptions. This way of thinking helps in physics too.

may i ask what you study?

Why btw? I will PM you if you tell me the reason.

mathematicians agree on this though, prove em wrong

Agree on what?
They themselves don't agree on many things. nt
Just let me tell the reason spherical geometry was created.
Saying 0.999...=1 is like saying inversion gives exact answer as the synthetic methods in geometry.

but they agree on this, saying they disagree on many things doesnt change that
indian iq

ok lol just give me some official statement Danish.
Should just stfu when you don't know anything about limits,etc.
Read above thread for if you have some brain.

lol thinks hes smarter than mathematicians just because he took highschool math class

ok lol you just show me an official link where all mathematicians agree on this.
Haha I'm asking for the link. Y'all aren't taught English in schools or what?
Haha if I were thinking I was smarter, I would've created my own maths and haven't followed theirs.

lol wikipedia even has a section on confused highschool kids like you
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...#Skepticis..

#46

"Students of mathematics often reject the equality of 0.999... and 1, for reasons ranging from their disparate appearance to deep misgivings over the limit concept and disagreements over the nature of infinitesimals."
"Intuition and ambiguous teaching lead students to think of the limit of a sequence as a kind of infinite process rather than a fixed value, since a sequence need not reach its limit. Where students accept the difference between a sequence of numbers and its limit, they might read "0.999..." as meaning the sequence rather than its limit."

Read the fucking thread #44

44 doesn't say anything...

You have been proven wrong several times in this thread yet you still try to argue? Pathetic.

1/3=0.333...
2/3=0.666...
3/3=0.999... = 1

0.9=0.9
1=1
Thx me later

W0W

No, now go get your degree

Nah, but basically

It is the same number in mathematics, but a different representation. It is factually the same number

I wouldn't say "factually" but "practically"

It is factually, not just practically. There are numerous mathematical proofs for that

Link plz

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
This summarizes several proofs quite well, if you want more or more in-depth explainations there are several books/papers in the reference for that

Thanks, I'm going to take a look at it.

1/3=0.333...
2/3=0.666...
3/3=0.999... = 1

1/3 can't be accurately expressed in decimal format

He's right, here's the proof:
1/3= 0.333333
so 0.333333*3= 1, not 0.999999
You can make a quick google search, there are a ton of good explanations why it's like that

1/3 =/= 0.33333333
1/3 can't be expressed in decimal format.

Let x = 0.9999…
Then 10x = 9.9999…
If we then subtract x from both sides of the equation, then:
10x – x = 9.9999… – 0.9999…
So, 9x = 9
Divide both sides of the equation by 9, and…
x = 1 … which, when we started, we said = 0.9999…
Let this sink in for a minute

Ok, now this algebraic explanation makes sense.
The 1/3 one doesn't.

9.99999999...-0.99999...=8.99999....
Which mean x is less than 1 still.

You wrote x=0.999999
Then you wrote x=1 at the end. So your assumption is wrong.

0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 ! = 1

nope
only 1 = 1

1 === 1

x=0.9999.....
10x=9.9999.....
10x-x=9.9999...-0.9999...
9x=9.000...
9x/9=9.000.../9
x=1.0000
x=0.9999
0.9999...=1
1=0.9999....

999 is not equal to 1000
so why 0.9999999999 equal to 1
it's not

1/3=0.333...
2/3=0.666...
3/3=0.999... = 1

who cares?

0iq

1/3 = 0.333...
2/3 = 0.666...
3/3 = 0.999... ,but also 3/3 =1, therefore 0.999... = 1

yes it is, we learn this in 8th grade.

nice men))))

close enough

1/3=0.333...
2/3=0.666...
3/3=0.999... = 1

Thats not a valid proof tho

yes 0.(9) is 1

3+2 = 8

0.9 = 6.0

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
choose whichever proof you prefer

But what if I have the following calculation?
1 - Infinitesimal
The result should be 0.999999999999999999999999999
but if 0.999999=1 then the result should be 0.9999999999999999999999999999.....99998
and that doesnt make sense to me.

thats because infinitesimal doesnt really exist as a real number

Neither does 0.999999999999999, or?

its different because 0,999... is rational

You are saying that it can be expressed in a fraction with integers?

yes, 3/3 = 0.999... = 1

hm :/

yes its confusing.
infinitesimals aren't really real in a real number system

1/3=0.333...
2/3=0.666...
3/3=0.999... = 1

Yes I know all the classical proofs bro, thats why I asked my own question.

So on a graph .999... will touch the 1 line? That is what .999...=1 means.

Draw me an infinite line on a graph and we will see.

No need to. It will be infinitely closer to the line but never touch it.

Oh look, how cute...a "point 9 repeating" troll.
Let's see...where to start...your linguistic definition of infinity is not exactly relevant. As soon as you agree that a number like pi can have infinitely many digits (which I doubt you dispute), then we could change each of the digits after the decimal point to a 9 and get our "point 9 repeating" number. That concept exists completely independently of how you write it (with the dots or whatever) or of the English word "infinity" (which, incidentally, mathematicians use sparingly--mostly as the adjective "infinite" to describe sets). Lofty philosophical concepts of what infinity might mean have little to do with precise mathematical definitions.
If I had stopped writing the numbers, they would have rounded?? Numbers don't round by themselves. People round them because they decide they can ignore some of the digits for whatever purposes they currently require.
It looks like you're claiming that "point 9 repeating" not only doesn't equal 1, but that it's also not a rational number. That must mean that one-third of it ("point 3 repeating") is also irrational. But you didn't seem to think that the number 1/3 is irrational.
Holes in my math, huh? How about you bring my post and your response to 10 random mathematicians, and see whose they pick as having holes. Since your basic problem seems to be that infinity is too mystical to be quantified in algebra, I'll even grant you 10 highly spiritually inclined mathematicians.
You have also not answered the very basic challenge: If you claim that "point 9 repeating" doesn't equal 1, then the burden falls on you to find me the number halfway between the two. When you manage that, I'll listen more closely.
I'm not the one hiding behind algebra; you're the one hiding behind vague, non-mathematical definitions.

i arent read that

9+10=21

1/3=0.333...
2/3=0.666...
3/3=0.999... = 1

North=good team

-0.999..

true
if you see price in store 0,99$ you actually pay 1$ cause 1 cent means nothing

you piece of shit...
World Population Clock: 7.7 Billion People.
99.9999% of 7700000000 = 7699992300.
So, 7700000000 - 7699992300 = 7700.
Only 7700 smart ppl in the world.

w1/3=0.333...
2/3=0.666...
3/3=0.999... = 1

0.9999->1 that's it men

0.9999... < 1

1/3=0.333...
2/3=0.666...
3/3=0.999... = 1

approx.
but no matter how many 9s you add after "0. " it will never be juan.

No, it's just 0.9999999999....

1/3=0.333...
2/3=0.666...
3/3=0.999... = 1

2/3=0.666777
3/3=1

wtf pls do 1/3 in a scientific calculator

Flag checks out

You round it up. Thats not how it works.
2/3 = 0.666...

No it's not. Take a simple equation:
x=0.(9)
10x=9.(9)
9x=10x-x=9.(9)-0.(9)=9
x=1

Engineer detected

+1

Engineer? U mean 8th grader.

bro im in 5th grade 😎😎😎

I can see cuz ur proof sux

thank u men))))) 😎😎😎😎

It's not wrong, but nobody uses notations like that except for engineers

i'm not saying it's wrong, it's just shit.

x = 70 niBBa

true

X = gon give it to ya

never.

yes

0.999... = 0.(9) = 1
1/3 * 3 = 3/3 = 1
1/3 = 0.(3)
3/3 = 0.(9) = 1
can't explain better
/close

Haha I love this meme men)) ofc is true but also
false = true

these threads never die

agree lol

no

0.99999 = 0.1111111111111111011

how does a number equal a number that the first number is not?

ok

0.(9) != 1

+1 it's the same as 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32+...=2. You can use the same way to prove both of these.