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.
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.