[mod note]
Leo Bloom, we don’t allow post count parties in GQ. It’s fine to discuss this in other threads, but there was no need at all to bump this thread to do it.
No warning issued, but please don’t post to dormant threads just to comment on their length.
[/mod note]
At the risk of stirring things up again, I recently came across a pertinent paper by Reuben Hersh, that is worth a read. Here (PDF).
That is an interesting paper – I’ve downloaded it to reread at my leisure – worth the price of admission to this thread! 
(Don’t be discouraged by the tedious dialog in first 3 pages.)
And this is particularly germane:
OK, an honest question:
There’s another thread where You dopers prove that “2 does not equal 3, even for very large values of 2.”
Then how zero for very large values can equal one?
As I see, You can’t have it both ways or am I missing something.
Can you explain what you’re asking? I haven’t seen that other thread so I don’t know how it’s relevant. Nobody’s talking about “large values of zero,” whatever that’s supposed to mean; 0.999… isn’t zero, it’s one.
I think it’s related to Colbert’s Antinomy:
ETA: Or maybe not. Perhaps I’ve conflated Antinomy with Antimony.
The other thread. 2+2=5, for large values of 2. I copied the wording “large values of …” from that thread, so I supposed it would be correct, though it seems odd to Me ( not a native English speaker ).
I’m not a math-hero, so maybe that’s why I don’t get it. And maybe it really isn’t relevant. But if people can’t prove 0.9999…=1 the way that I understand it, then they haven’t proven it to Me at all. The way I see is, that any given number is only itself and not another number ( even if it could be written in a different way ).
And, yes, it’s been proven that the difference is infinitely small, but to Me that doesn’t make in non-existent.
But I’m not good with infinities, big or small.
This video is terrific (“didn’t read the thread, saw the movie”).
I’m guessing that you think that 0.999… is not equal to 1 because you suppose that every every real number has a unique decimal expansion? If that is the case, consider the following:
For a positive real number x, the following properties about it’s square root come from basic inequalities such as x*y < x if y<1:
sqrt(x)>x if x<1
sqrt(x)=x if x=1
sqrt(x)<x if x>1
Also:
sqrt(x)<1 if x<1
sqrt(x)=1 if x=1
sqrt(x)>1 if x>1
Where sqrt(x) is the positive square root of x.
Now suppose 0.999… is less than 1, therefore:
0.999… < sqrt(0.999…) < 1
What would be the unique decimal expansion for sqrt(0.999…)?
That doesn’t mean it’s not true. It’s rather arrogant to assume your lack of understanding is tantamount to proof it’s not true. Basically your argument matches Asimov’s quip that democratic anti-intellectualism devolves to the idea that my ignorance is as good as your knowledge.
2 is not 3. That’s clear. 0.99… IS 1. There’s no “large values” approximation going on. As noted in that thread, 2+2 = 5 for large values of 2 is a JOKE. It’s not a serious statement.
And none of that has any bearing here unless you already begin with the assumption that 0.999… is not 1, which is rather tautological. You don’t conclude by re-stating your assumptions. That makes no sense.
Freakenstein, have you read all of this thread? If not, please do so. We’d rather not have to repeat all the answers to your questions when we’ve already answered them.
If you’re not a native English speaker then reading through this thread might be a real problem. The video covers all the same territory (except for some of the higher set theory) in a simple straightforward manner. The problem there is that the narrator talks very fast and includes many puns. But if you can follow her, she does a great job of hitting all the places that normally cause confusion for non-math people.
And you show one of them. The difference between 9.999… and 1 is not infinitely small. It is 0. Exactly 0. They are indeed the same number expressed in two different ways.
Try watching the video and see if that helps your understanding.
Jumping in to the fray. hope I don’t get friction burns. too much posts to read so if pointed out already please disregard..
My contention is that a third of 1 is not point anything.. The 1/3 of of one is 1/3A (ONE third Absolute), or ONE of the other two parts which are themselves one,used to make up one. If you took that third of one as it self and said you were going to divide it into thirds you wouldn’t say you were going to divide a third of one by a third (or .33333…), you would say you are dividing ONE into a third..(apples and oranges aside) I am using a piece of wood for example so to speak. My OBSERVATION of the two ends of a third of the wood shows it does not go on point threeing or nineing forever. It has an absolute ending.
Invent a new terminology to explain it..
I suggest: 1/3A, one third absolutUM not 1/3 infinitum!
maybe I’m just a layman, what could I know?
vyVY
Again, please read the entire thread.
Seconded.
It’s actually pretty interesting throughout.
Look especially for posts by Indistinguishable.
If you had read the thread you’d have noticed that people have repeatedly posted that math is not a word problem. What you are saying is not math. It’s not anything at all, really, but it’s definitely not math.
Miss .999…, please meet the Vocal Fry thread.
I know what all these words mean separately, I even checked them out to be sure, but I have absolutely no idea what they mean together here.
This is what’s My problem with higher math. To Me math is numbers, not letters. I’m not bad with numbers itself, but I hate this kind of stuff, which obviously contributes to My problem.
Anyway I took a calculator and all was fine and well until I got this far:
I know the meaning of every single word of this, but together - no idea.
However
All I can say is that was a neat job. Thank You ( although I’m just 99.999… % convinced )
Great Antibob:
I didn’t say it’s not true, I just didn’t get it. There are lots of scientific stuff that I don’t get, but as scientists work based on them, I just believe it’s true.
Wendell Wagner
Sorry, two pages and and I didn’t understand a thing, especially as there was disagreement. If this would include only that posting by Asympotically fat all would be fine and dandy, be sure to bookmark that for future.
Exapno Mapcase:
Video - thanks, but way too fast.