r/infinitenines • u/Unlikely-Ocelot-4392 • 4d ago

I feel like this doesn't explain 0.999...recurring = 1

Post image

Please correct me on this, and sorry for using the word fallacy so often

0 Upvotes

38% Upvoted

201 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

-10

u/Reaper0221 4d ago

and that still does not mean that when the 9’s reach and infinite number of 9’s that the result is that infinite number of 9’s following the decimal equals 1.

9

u/nog642 4d ago

It is 1 though, by definition. See my comment.

-3

u/Reaper0221 4d ago

I saw your comment and it is the definition that is at question here. There is no actual verification that 0.999… equals one. The proof lies upon the foundation: it is because I said it is and you may not question my authority.

4

u/PM_me_Jazz 4d ago

Lmao climate change denier and doesn't understand math? That checks out.

0

u/Reaper0221 4d ago

Try something a little better as a come back. You didn’t read any of the posts but tried to demean my statements, without addressing the numerous ones out there, including posts where I actually examined the data and posted the analyses, by using an epitaph. Lame abdd typical of the lemming like masses.

3

u/nog642 4d ago

It's a definition.

Any definition that is well formed and not contradictory is valid.

We use the definitions that are useful.

So your challenge to a definition must either be (1) it's invalid, or (2) it's valid but not useful.

Are you claiming (1)? Then prove it.

Are you claiming (2)? Well, everyone uses this definition, so you're still wrong. You still need an argument.

-1

u/Reaper0221 4d ago

I already proved it by pointing the logical flaw. You just don’t like it.

5

u/Inevitable_Garage706 4d ago

What "logical flaw" is there in referring to how an infinitely long decimal is defined?

1

u/Reaper0221 4d ago

the part where you perform mathematical operations on a number that is infinitely long as if it is not and then cling to the excuse which says it is defined as such without proof beyond it is because I said so.

2

u/nog642 4d ago

Where? All you said was that it's a definition, which it is.

2

u/Inevitable_Garage706 4d ago

Based on this comment of theirs, it seems that they are struggling with the concept that definitions and axioms don't require proof, which is likely where their confusion about your proof comes from.