818
I just cited myself.
(mander.xyz)
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
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
My favorite thing about this argument is that not only are you right, but you can prove it with math.
Not a proof, just wrong. In the "(substitute 0.9999… = x)" step, it was only done to one side, not both (the left side would've become 9.99999), therefore wrong.
The substitution property of equality is a part of its definition; you can substitute anywhere.
And if you are rearranging algebra you have to do the exact same thing on both sides, always
And if you don't then you can no longer claim they are still equal.
For any
a
,b
,c
, ifa = b
andb = c
, thena = c
, right? The transitive property of equality.For any
a
,b
,x
, ifa = b
, thenx + a = x + b
. The substitution property.By combining both of these properties, for any
a
,b
,x
,y
, ifa = b
andy = b + x
, it follows thatb + x = a + x
andy = a + x
.In our example,
a
isx'
(notice the'
) andb
is0.999…
(by definition).y
is10x'
andx
is9
. Let's fill in the values.If
x' = 0.9999…
(true by definition) and10x = 0.999… + 9
(true by algebraic manipulation), then0.999… + 9 = x' + 9
and10x' = x' + 9
.If you actually change any of the sides. Since, after substitution, the numeric value doesn't change (literally the definition of equality), I don't have to do anything – as I'm not rearranging. I'm merely presenting the same value in an equivalent manner. By contrast, when multiplying both sides by 10, since multiplication by 10 changes the concrete numeric value, I have to do it on both sides to maintain the equality relation (ditto for subtracting
x'
). But substitution never changes a numeric value – only rearranges what we already know.(Edit)
Take the following simple system of equations.
How would you solve it? Here's how I would:
Here's how Microsoft Math Solver would do it.
No, you haven't shown that, because you haven't shown yet that 9x=9. Welcome to why this doesn't prove anything. You're presuming your result, then using it to "prove" your result.
What we know is that the right hand side is 10 times 0.9999..., so if you want to substitute x=0.99999... into the right hand side, then the right hand side becomes 10x (or 9x+x)... which only shows what we already know - 10x=10x. Welcome to the circularity of what you're trying to achieve. You can't use something you haven't yet proven, to prove something you haven't yet proven.
They multiplied both sides by 10.
0.9999... times 10 is 9.9999...
X times 10 is 10x.
10x is 9.9999999....
As I said, they didn't substitute on both sides, only one, thus breaking the rules around rearranging algebra. Anything you do to one side you have to do to the other.
Except it doesn't. The math is wrong. Do the exact same formula, but use .5555... instead of .9999...
Guess it turns out .5555... is also 1.
Lol you can't do math apparently, take a logic course sometime
Let x=0.555...
10x=5.555...
10x=5+x
9x=5
x=5/9=0.555...
Oh honey
you have to do this now