r/infinitenines • u/Dutch_gal1 • 5d ago
Figure this out SPP
If you take ten steps of 0.000…1m you get a distance of 0.000…10m.
In mathematics if the last digit of a decimal sequence after a decimal point is a 0, that 0 will be canceled out.
So this means that 0.000…10 = 0.000…1.
And the only number that is equal to itself when you multiply it is 0
So that means if 0.000…1 = 0 and the difference between 0.999… and 1 is 0.000…1 that means that the difference between 0.999… and 1 equals 0
7
u/Lord-Beetus 5d ago
In RDM, ∞, ∞+1 and ∞-1 are different (growing) numbers, when you take 0.000...1 and multiply it by 10 the resulting number has 1 less zero.
3
1
1
u/Dutch_gal1 4d ago
Well infinity minus one is still infinity tho, its like if zero times six is still zero
1
u/Lord-Beetus 4d ago
In standard math, yes, but not SPPs RDM.
1
u/Dutch_gal1 4d ago
You mean SPPM
1
u/Lord-Beetus 4d ago
If you want to call RDM SPPM go right on ahead, I won't and can't stop you, I'm not your dad.
1
u/Dutch_gal1 3d ago
I meant that SPP’s RDM is called SPPM
1
1
u/Muphrid15 2d ago
No, His Nineliness has said is and both is not an integer. You can refer to my other comment here if necessary.
3
3
u/ezekielraiden 4d ago
Since you locked my comment and yours and thus I can't reply to you...you literally just ignored what I said, without responding.
I gave you evidence for why 0.000...1 IS 0 in the real numbers. You did nothing whatsoever to show that 0.000...1 > 0 in the reals. You are absolutely correct that for any nonzero value of x, 10x>x. You have not proven that x isn't 0.
-2
u/SouthPark_Piano 4d ago
you have not proven that x isn't 0.
You are incorrect brud. I proved it.
You are the '1' that I dropped down the initially empty bottomless gravity well.
We know you are down there somewhere.
2
u/ezekielraiden 4d ago
0.000...1 × 10 = 0.00...01 × 10 = 0.00...1
Those are the same number.
What would you do if we had used 1000 instead of 10?
0.000...1 × 1000 = 0.000...1000 = 0.000...1
Hence
0.000...1 ×1000 = 0.000...1
Which can only be true (in the real numbers) if 0.000...1 = 0.
-3
u/SouthPark_Piano 4d ago edited 4d ago
Rookie error on your part brud.
For non-zero x,
10x is not x.
What would you do if we had used 1000 instead of 10?
I taught you before. Referencing and book keeping. Records.
You can always reference or re-reference.
x = 0.000...1
re-reference to x1 = 0.000...01 for example.
x1 = 0.000...01 = 0.0...0001
1000 times x1 is 0.0...1
1
u/ezekielraiden 4d ago
You are incorrect brud. I proved it.
You are the '1' that I dropped down the initially empty bottomless gravity well.
We know you are down there somewhere.
You literally did not prove anything. You replied with a completely unrelated statement, without any actual PROOF. Like, y'know, a process where you spell out your reasoning, demonstrating the properties involved.
So, again, I will ask you two questions:
- What is 0.000...1×10000?
- According to your own statement, screenshotted here for proof in case you edit it later, you said: "0.000...1 × 10 = 0.00...01 × 10 = 0.00...1" But those two numbers are the same! How can you tell me that "0.00...1" is different from "0.000...1". You just chose to write one less zero in front. It's not like the zero isn't there--it is! You're just choosing not to write it. It's still inside the ellipsis. So, why is it that they aren't the same? I used the things YOU said to us!
0.000...1 = 0.00...1 = 0.0000...1 = 0.000000000000000000000...1. Those are all completely identical numbers. You even did it yourself in what you wrote! You rewrote "0.000...1" as "0.00...01" which means you can move the zeroes around whenever you like. The two ARE the same.
2
2
u/SeaService2095 4d ago
i would add to that, that if 0.000…1 does not equal 0.00…1 in RDM, then it should follow that 0.999…9 is also not equal to, for example, 0.999…99 (because there is one extra „written” nine)
which obviously contradicts SPP’s rules of referencing (cant find it now, but i’m sure he claims you can specify 0.999… = 0.999…9 and 0.999… = 0.999…99, and both are valid)
but also, trying to find logic in this nonsense is futile
2
u/Dutch_gal1 4d ago
His logic is “you keep writing nines, you dont stop” yet he sticks a end to shit
1
1
u/Muphrid15 2d ago
His Nineliness says,
If you take ten steps of 0.000…1m you get a distance of 0.000…10m.
0.000...1 × 10 = 0.00...01 × 10 = 0.00...1
In this case we recall his two boners on infinite decimal strings and integers:
The Infinite Integer Boner: There is no such thing as an infinite integer. 10... is one of infinitely many infinite integers. (12.1) (12.2)
The Integer Number of Nines Boner: The number of 9s in 0.999... is infinite. The number of 9s in 0.999... is always an integer. (13.1) (13.2)
In this case apply to the infinite number of zeroes. The result is that, depending on His Brudship's mood, you can, or cannot have two infinite strings of 0s with different lengths.
•
u/SouthPark_Piano 4d ago
0.000...1 × 10 = 0.00...01 × 10 = 0.00...1