That’s not how fractions and math work though.

pi isn’t even a fraction. like, it’s actually an important thing that it isn’t

The problem is, that’s exactly what the … is for. It is a little weird to our heads, granted, but it does allow the conversion. 0.33 is not the same thing as 0.333… The first is close to one third. The second one is one third. It’s how we express things as a decimal that don’t cleanly map to base ten. It may look funky, but it works.

Pi isn’t a fraction (in the sense of a rational fraction, an algebraic fraction where the numerator and denominator are both polynomials, like a ratio of 2 integers) – it’s an irrational number, i.e. a number with no fractional form; as opposed to rational numbers, which are defined as being able to be expressed as a fraction. Furthermore, π is a transcendental number, meaning it’s never a solution to f(x) = 0, where f(x) is a non-zero finite-degree polynomial expression with rational coefficients. That’s like, literally part of the definition. They cannot be compared to rational numbers like fractions.

Every rational number (and therefore every fraction) can be expressed using either repeating decimals or terminating decimals. Contrastly, irrational numbers only have decimal expansions which are both non-repeating and non-terminating.

Since |r|<1 → ∑[n=1, ∞] arⁿ = ar/(1-r), and 0.999... is equivalent to that sum with a = 9 and r = 1/10 (visually, 0.999... = 9(0.1) + 9(0.01) + 9(0.001) + ...), it’s easy to see after plugging in, 0.999... = ∑[n=1, ∞] 9(1/10)ⁿ = 9(1/10) / (1 - 1/10) = 0.9/0.9 = 1). This was a proof present in Euler’s Elements of Algebra.

There are a lot of concepts in mathematics which do not have good real world analogues.

i, the _imaginary number_for figuring out roots, as one example.

I am fairly certain you cannot actually do the mathematics to predict or approximate the size of an atom or subatomic particle without using complex algebra involving i.

It’s been a while since I watched the entire series Leonard Susskind has up on youtube explaining the basics of the actual math for quantum mechanics, but yeah I am fairly sure it involves complex numbers.

pie never actually ends

I want to go to there.

1/3 is a rational number, because it can be depicted by a ratio of two integers. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re getting basic algebra level facts wrong. Maybe take a hint and read some real math instead of relying on your bad intuition.

non repeating

it’s literally repeating

The context doesn’t make a difference

In base 10 --> 1/3 is 0.333…

In base 12 --> 1/3 is 0.4

But they’re both the same number.

Base 10 simply is not capable of displaying it in a concise format. We could say that this is a notation issue. No notation is perfect. Base 10 has some confusing implications

This seems to be conflating 0.333...3 with 0.333... One is infinitesimally close to 1/3, the other is a decimal representation of 1/3. Indeed, if 1-0.999... resulted in anything other than 0, that would necessarily be a number with more significant digits than 0.999... which would mean that the ... failed to be an infinite repetition.

Yes, but similar flaws exist for your proof.

The algebraic proof that 0.999… = 1 must first prove why you can assign 0.999… to x.

My “proof” abuses algebraic notation like this - you cannot assign infinity to a variable. After that, regular algebraic rules become meaningless.

The proper proof would use the definition that the value of a limit approaching another value is exactly that value. For any epsilon > 0, 0.999… will be within the epsilon environment of 1 (= the interval 1 ± epsilon), therefore 0.999… is 1.

The ellipsis notation generally refers to repetition of a pattern.

Ok. In mathematical notation/context, it is more specific, as I outlined.

This technicality is often brushed over or over simplified by math teachers and courses until or unless you take some more advanced courses.

Context matters, here’s an example:

Generally, pdf denotes the file format specific to adobe reader, while in the context of many modern online videos/discussions, it has become a colloquialism to be able to discuss (accused or confirmed) pedophiles and be able to avoid censorship or demonetization.

0.999… is a real number, and not any object that can be said to converge. It is exactly 1.

Ok. Never said 0.999… is not a real number. Yep, it is exactly 1 because solving the equation it truly represents, a geometric series, results in 1. This solution is obtained using what is called the convergence theorem or rule, as I outlined.

In what way is it distinct?

0.424242… solved via the convergence theorem simply results in itself, as represented in mathematical nomenclature.

0.999… does not again result in 0.999…, but results to 1, a notably different representation that causes the entire discussion in this thread.

And what is a ‘repeating number’? Did you mean ‘repeating decimal’?

I meant what I said: “know patterns of repeating numbers after the decimal point.”

Perhaps I should have also clarified known finite patterns to further emphasize the difference between rational and irrational numbers.

EDIT: You used a valid and even more mathematically esoteric method to demonstrate the same thing I demonstrated elsewhere in this thread, I have no idea why you are taking issue with what I’ve said.

Similarly, 1/3 = 0.3333…
So 3 times 1/3 = 0.9999… but also 3/3 = 1

Another nice one:

Let x = 0.9999… (multiply both sides by 10)
10x = 9.99999… (substitute 0.9999… = x)
10x = 9 + x (subtract x from both sides)
9x = 9 (divide both sides by 9)
x = 1

That’s the best explanation of this I’ve ever seen, thank you!

If you can’t do it without fractions or a … then it can’t be done.

Sure, when you start decoupling the numbers from their actual values. The only thing this proves is that the fraction-to-decimal conversion is inaccurate. Your floating points (and for that matter, our mathematical model) don’t have enough precision to appropriately model what the value of 7/9 actually is. The variation is negligible though, and that’s the core of this, is the variation off what it actually is is so small as to be insignificant and, really undefinable to us - but that doesn’t actually matter in practice, so we just ignore it or convert it. But at the end of the day 0.999… does not equal 1. A number which is not 1 is not equal to 1. That would be absurd. We’re just bad at converting fractions in our current mathematical understanding.

Edit: wow, this has proven HIGHLY unpopular, probably because it’s apparently incorrect. See below for about a dozen people educating me on math I’ve never heard of. The “intuitive” explanation on the Wikipedia page for this makes zero sense to me largely because I don’t understand how and why a repeating decimal can be considered a real number. But I’ll leave that to the math nerds and shut my mouth on the subject.

I recall an anecdote about a mathematician being asked to clarify precisely what he meant by “a close approximation to three”. After thinking for a moment, he replied “any real number other than three”.

“Approximately equal” is just a superset of “equal” that also includes values “acceptably close” (using whatever definition you set for acceptable).

Unless you say something like:

a ≈ b ∧ a ≠ b

which implies a is close to b but not exactly equal to b, it’s safe to presume that a ≈ b includes the possibility that a = b.

Yes, informally in the sense that the error between the two numbers is “arbitrarily small”. Sometimes in introductory real analysis courses you see an exercise like: “prove if x, y are real numbers such that x=y, then for any real epsilon > 0 we have |x - y| < epsilon.” Which is a more rigorous way to say roughly the same thing. Going back to informality, if you give any required degree of accuracy (epsilon), then the error between x and y (which are the same number), is less than your required degree of accuracy

It depends on the convention that you use, but in my experience yes; for any equivalence relation, and any metric of “approximate” within the context of that relation, A=B implies A≈B.

Even simpler

0.99999999… = 1

But you’re just restating the premise here. You haven’t proven the two are equal.

1/3 =0.333333…

This step

1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 0.99999999…

And this step

Aren’t well-defined. You’re relying on division short-hand rather than a real proof.

Infinite repeating digits produce what is understood as a Limit. And Limits are fundamental to proof-based mathematics, when your goal is to demonstrate an infinite sum or series has a finite total.

Oh, that’s not even showing as a missing character, to me it just looks like 0.9

At least we agree 0.99… = 1

Do you think Goodwin could treat the burns himself?

Decimal notation is a number system where fractions are accomodated with more numbers represeting smaller more precise parts. It is an extension of the place value system where very large tallies can be expressed in a much simpler form.

One of the core rules of this system is how to handle values larger than the highest digit, and lower than the smallest. If any place goes above 9, set that place to 0 and increment the next place by 1. If any places goes below 0, increment the place by (10) and decrement the next place by one (this operation uses a non-existent digit, which is also a common sticking point).

This is the decimal system as it is taught originally. One of the consequences of it’s rules is that each digit-wise operation must be performed in order, with a beginning and an end. Thus even getting a repeating decimal is going beyond the system. This is usually taught as special handling, and sometimes as baby’s first limit (each step down results in the same digit, thus it’s that digit all the way down).

The issue happens when digit-wise calculation is applied to infinite decimals. For most operations, it’s fine, but incrementing up can only begin if a digit goes beyong 9, which never happens in the case of 0.999… . Understanding how to resolve this requires ditching the digit-wise method and relearing decimals and a series of terms, and then learning about infinite series. It’s a much more robust and applicable method, but a very different method to what decimals are taught as.

Thus I say that the original bitwise method of decimals has a bug in the case of incrementing infinite sequences. There’s really only one number where this is an issue, but telling people they’re wrong for using the tools as they’ve been taught isn’t helpful. Much better to say that the tool they’re using is limited in this way, then showing the more advanced method.

That’s how we teach Newtonian Gravity and then expand to Relativity. You aren’t wrong for applying newtonian gravity to mercury, but the tool you’re using is limited. All models are wrong, but some are useful.

Furthermore, I’m not aware of any arguments worth taking seriously that don’t use logic, so I’m wondering why that’s a criticism of the notation.

If you hear someone shout at a mob “mathematics is witchcraft, therefore, get the pitchforks” I very much recommend taking that argument seriously no matter the logical veracity.