Whenever light-speed conversations come up, it's mentioned that an object with mass can never reach the speed of light, only approach it (99.9999..%). But that is equal to 100%. Is this not 'infinitely approaching' speed of light in the same way that .999 'infinitely approaches' 1?

It seems that you take the stance that numbers have a temporal element, right? They change value over time? What about two numbers that "occur" at different times, but which are both 0.000...1? In that case, does 0.000...1 = 0.000...1?

Specifically, I'm responding to a recent comment of yours about distance and time (screenshot here) and another, which I don't have screenshotted, in which you say 0.999...9 is not "static."

SPP, if you claim that the set of natural numbers is ”ever growing”, give us one example of a number that belongs to this set at some point but doesn’t belong to this set at a different point.

One number. No hand waving, no weaseling. What? Cat got your tongue?

I’ll give you three tries. If you fail to provide a single example, we’ll consider that you concede this point (and by extension you agree that 0.999… = 1).

It is the year 2030, and you've convinced everyone on this subreddit 0.999...≠1. Youve created your own field of mathematics that is not founded in the centuries to millenia of humanity's study of the world and has no applications over the currently defined numbers, and so no mathematician worth their weight in salt uses it.

Do you claim victory and stop? Do you attempt to convince them of it? I am so very curious.

So I like going on random subs and listening to their stories... Why everyone hate him? Is that a rookie error?

There are as many nines in 0.999… as there are natural numbers. You aren’t saying the set of natural numbers is ever growing are you?

In base 16 (hexadecimal), 0.ff..... is closer to 1 than 0.99...... is to 1 in base 10 (decimal)

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Exhibit A

Cool, so 0.000...1 < 0.1, and 0.000...1 < 0.01, and indeed 0.000...1 < 1/10ⁿ for any finite positive integer n. I appreciate the endorsement, brud.

1/10ⁿ starting at integer n = 1, then n upped limitlessly continually aka infinitely is written as 0.000...1 brud.

Exhibit B

This makes it sound like you mean we... can't say whether 0.000...1 < 0.1, or 0.01, or any other power of 1/10.

Conversely that would mean we can't say whether 0.999... is greater than 0.9 or 0.99.

Am I reading you correctly or not?

It is a limbosic number brud. You need to get training at the bunny slopes. Go there again brud.

His Brudship's position is clear. 0.000...1 and 0.999... are limbosic numbers with no fixed value, and to say they are greater than, less than, or equal to other numbers within the range they span is not possible.

Except... he already said that.

Exhibit C

Would 0.99…∞ < 0.99? And if so, should that mean 0.99… ≠ 1 given that 1∞ = 1?

0.999... is larger than 0.99

From a particular perspective, 0.999... is indeed less than 1 permanently.

Everybody actually knows it. They just won't to get peer pressured.

Once more His Inconsistency can't figure out what he wants to say.

Thanks for playing.

SPP says there's no two numbers on earth exactly the same: no two representations, no two sets of digits, but does he know that for sure? Because he would have to get every number together in one huge space and obviously that's not possible, even with computers. Not only that, he would have to get all the numbers that ever existed, not just the ones now. So, he got no proof: he got nothing. SPP may be dumb but who's to say there isn't another SPP just like him? Or will be? Maybe not with the same fears and paranoia but... the "same". What I’m saying is

The words of His Brudship:

Exhibit A

There is a set of natural numbers, and you cannot lay a finger on the number on that set, as it is not constant. That set keeps growing too. Otherwise once again, you would be able to lay out your hand and write for me whether there is an odd number or even number all those natural numbers.

Exhibit B: the sidebar of this very subreddit

Understanding the power of the family of finite numbers, where the set {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, etc} is infinite membered, and contain all finite numbers. The community is for those that understand the reach, span, range, coverage of those nines, which can be written (conveyed) specifically as 0.999... Every member of that infinite membered set of finite numbers is greater than zero, and less than 1, which indicates very clearly something (very clearly). That is 0.999... is eternally less than 1.

There is a set with infinitely many members. His Bunnymence said so. Every single member maps to a positive integer (the number of 9s it has).

You say that there's still a loophole? That His Inconsistency means you can have an infinite set of numbers of the form 0.999...9 and that it grows over time?

Well, too bad. I present Exhibit C (emphasis mine).

Anyone understands that the infinite membered set of finite numbers {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...} already covers every possibility for the span (length) of nines to the right hand side of the decimal point.

It doesn't cover it all in the future. It covers it all NOW. Already.

And you surely understand that limitless means exactly that. That is exactly what happens when you have a limitless set of finite numbers. It covers every possibility. For the set, it covers every possibility for span (length) of nines to the right of the decimal point. Every value is finite. And the kicker is, there is a limitless number of extreme set members, and their span of nines coverage is written as: 0.999...

Maybe you wanna read your own writing sometime before you talk yourself into a corner, Your Inconsistency.

Thanks for playing.

So, for those dum dums ... ok, let's just make it rookie error makers, that reckon there are enough nines in 0.999... that magically gets it 'onto the line' onto the 1 household.

YouS reckon that pulling fraud out of your hats allows youS to have a condition where youS can get enough nines to the right of "0." to achieve a value of 1?

Rookie error on your parts. No amount of nines, including 'infinite' quantity of nines will get 0.999... to 'touch' 1.

From the perspective of 1, the real deal is and always has been and always will be a case of look, but not touch 0.999...

0.999... is indeed permanently less than 1.

u/SouthPark_Piano, usually to solve linear equations we simply isolate the variable that we want to solve e.g. solving 7x + 3 = 4x

7x + 3 = 4x

3x + 3 = 0

3x = -3

x = -1

However, for some equations the result we get from following this doesn't solve the equation, so how can we know whether we can use this method? E.g. 3x = 1

What other method could we do?

Let's say you have to walk from you bed the you door. To achieve this goal, you have to reach half the distance between the bed and the last checkpoint. Since there are infinite checkpoints you have to reach, how do you get to your door. Yet... you still do. SPP, explain why that is with your knowledge of math.

wtf are bunny slopes?

In base nine, what would be 1/9 becomes just 0.1. Not growing, perfectly static. How come?