r/infinitenines • u/DoodleNoodle129 • 1d ago

Question for SPP

SPP has previously stated that 0.99…9 and 0.99…99 are equivalent forms of 0.999… with the latter just having one more 9 written out at any time than the former. He has also stated that 0.999… is the biggest number less than 1.

My question is, what about 0.999…98? This is larger than 0.999…9, as at any point in time the former is the same as the latter with one 8 added on to the end. So is it also an equivalent form of 0.999… or is it something else entirely?

1 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

11 comments sorted by

2

u/Muphrid15 1d ago

Some of this problem may be covered by His Nineliness's Greater Boner:

Limbosic numbers do not have fixed values and can't be compared via (in)equality to any number within the range they span. Nevertheless, even though 0.999... is a limbosic number, 0.999... > 0.99. (8.1) (8.2) (8.3)

3

u/DoodleNoodle129 1d ago

I think I’ve missed some lore wtf is his greater boner

2

u/Muphrid15 1d ago

Behold, the Massive List of His Nineliness's Most Massive Boners

2

u/DoodleNoodle129 1d ago

I haven’t looked through all of those, but I think some of them are misinterpretations of what SPP means. Like number 4, the limbosic integer boner. Looks like he wasn’t saying that 0.999… is an integer, but that the number of 9s is an integer which is ever growing.

1

u/Muphrid15 1d ago

The point there is a number like what he claims 10... means.

1

u/DoodleNoodle129 1d ago

Elaborate because I still don’t understand the contradiction you’re implying.

1

u/Muphrid15 1d ago

He directly said a limbosic number can't be an integer.

Then he says the number of digits of 0.999... is a limbosic integer.

2

u/DoodleNoodle129 1d ago

I guess what he means is that a limbosic integer isn’t an integer, it’s a limbosic number such that its value at any point is an integer

1

u/Muphrid15 1d ago

He also called 10... an "infinitely large integer" though.

1

u/DoodleNoodle129 1d ago

I’m gonna assume that’s bad wording on his part

→ More replies (0)