TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

0.999...= 1

218 pointsby yurisagalovabout 5 years ago

47 comments

undecisiveabout 5 years ago
There is no proof that will ever satisfy a person dead-set against this. Ever since I brought this home from school as a child, my whole family ribbed me mercilessly for it.<p>If you tell a person that 3&#x2F;6 = 1&#x2F;2, they&#x27;ll believe you - because they have been taught from an early age that fractions can have multiple &quot;representations&quot; for the same underlying amount.<p>People mistakenly believe that decimal numbers don&#x27;t have multiple representations - which, in a way is correct. The bar or dot or ... are there to plug a gap, allowing more values to be represented accurately than plain-old decimal numbers allow for. It has the side effect of introducing multiple representations - and even with this limitation, it doesn&#x27;t cover everything - Pi can&#x27;t be represented with an accurate number, for example.<p>But it also exposes a limitation in humans: We cannot imagine infinity. Some of us can abstract it away in useful ways, but for the rest of the world everything has an end.<p>I wonder if there&#x27;s anything I can do with my children to prevent them from being bound by this mental limitation?
评论 #23007251 未加载
评论 #23007930 未加载
评论 #23007463 未加载
评论 #23007170 未加载
评论 #23008028 未加载
评论 #23008035 未加载
评论 #23007580 未加载
评论 #23007917 未加载
评论 #23008343 未加载
评论 #23010590 未加载
评论 #23007765 未加载
评论 #23013724 未加载
评论 #23007488 未加载
评论 #23009865 未加载
评论 #23008060 未加载
评论 #23015256 未加载
评论 #23007477 未加载
评论 #23035317 未加载
评论 #23008031 未加载
评论 #23007136 未加载
评论 #23010568 未加载
评论 #23008679 未加载
评论 #23014570 未加载
评论 #23007201 未加载
评论 #23008735 未加载
评论 #23007610 未加载
评论 #23008066 未加载
评论 #23008337 未加载
评论 #23007686 未加载
评论 #23008322 未加载
knzhouabout 5 years ago
Personally I&#x27;ve always thought &quot;proofs&quot; using &quot;arithmetic&quot; are right, but kind of stated backwards.<p>The point is that in elementary school arithmetic, you define addition, multiplication, subtraction, division, decimals, and equality, but you <i>never</i> define &quot;...&quot;. Until you&#x27;ve defined &quot;...&quot;, it&#x27;s just a meaningless sequence of marks on paper. You can&#x27;t prove anything about it using arithmetic, or otherwise.<p>What the &quot;arithmetic proofs&quot; are really showing that if we want &quot;...&quot; to have certain extremely reasonable properties, then we must choose to define it in such a way that 0.999... = 1. Other definitions would be possible (for example, a stupid definition would be 0.999... = 42), just not useful.<p>What probably causes the flame wars over &quot;...&quot; is that most people never see how &quot;...&quot; <i>is</i> defined (which properly would require constructing the reals). They only see these indirect arguments about how &quot;...&quot; <i>should</i> be defined, which look unsatisfying. Or they grow so accustomed to writing down &quot;...&quot; in school that they think they already know how it&#x27;s defined, when it never has been!
评论 #23007256 未加载
评论 #23005811 未加载
评论 #23004884 未加载
评论 #23004834 未加载
评论 #23004887 未加载
dwheelerabout 5 years ago
A formally rigorous proof of this (in Metamath) is here:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;us.metamath.org&#x2F;mpeuni&#x2F;0.999....html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;us.metamath.org&#x2F;mpeuni&#x2F;0.999....html</a><p>Unlike typical math proofs, which hint at the underlying steps, every step in this proof <i>only</i> uses precisely an axiom or previously-proven theorem, and you can click on the step to see it. The same is true for all the other theorems. In the end it only depends on predicate logic and ZFC set theory. All the proofs have been verified by 5 different verifiers, written by 5 different people in 5 different programming languages.<p>You can&#x27;t make people believe, but you can provide very strong evidence.
评论 #23007630 未加载
评论 #23008389 未加载
评论 #23009751 未加载
评论 #23009746 未加载
jl2718about 5 years ago
The proof relies on the assertion that the supremum of an increasing sequence is equal to the limit. This is mathematical dogma, and should be introduced as such. Once that is accepted, it becomes obvious.<p>This is illustrative of what I see as a fundamental problem in mathematics education: nobody ever teaches the rules. In this case, the rules of simple arithmetic hit a dead end for mathematicians, so they invented a new rule that allowed them to go further without breaking any old rules. This is generally acceptable in proofs, although it can have significant implications, such as two mutually exclusive but otherwise acceptable rules causing a divergence in fields of study.<p>When I was taught this, it was like, “Look how smart I am for applying this obtusely-stated limit rule that you were never told about.” This is how you keep people out of math. The point of teaching it is to make it easy, not hard.
评论 #23009496 未加载
评论 #23010952 未加载
评论 #23009624 未加载
ginkoabout 5 years ago
I remember being doubtful when being presented with this in middle school, but after being shown this as fractions makes it obvious:<p><pre><code> 1&#x2F;3 = 0.333.. 3 * 1&#x2F;3 = 3 * 0.333.. 3&#x2F;3 = 0.999.. 1 = 0.999..</code></pre>
评论 #23004626 未加载
评论 #23004499 未加载
评论 #23004764 未加载
评论 #23007541 未加载
评论 #23007894 未加载
评论 #23004805 未加载
评论 #23004617 未加载
评论 #23004820 未加载
ping_pongabout 5 years ago
My 5 year old stumped me with this, and I had to look it up. He asked me why 1&#x2F;3 + 1&#x2F;3 + 1&#x2F;3 = 1, since it&#x27;s equal to 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... which is 0.999... How can that possibly equal 1.000...? And is 0.66... equal to 0.67000...?<p>I didn&#x27;t have a good enough answer for him, so I had to look it up and found this page. I tried to explain it to him but since I&#x27;m a terrible teacher and he&#x27;s only 5, it was hard for me to convince him. Luckily he has many years before it matters!
评论 #23007518 未加载
评论 #23008154 未加载
评论 #23008626 未加载
评论 #23008305 未加载
评论 #23007805 未加载
评论 #23007501 未加载
klodolphabout 5 years ago
An interesting consequence of this in proofs.<p>You’ll see various proofs involving real numbers that must account for the fact that 0.999…=1.0. There are, of course, many different ways to construct real numbers, and often it’s very convenient to construct them as infinite sequences of digits after the decimal. For example, this construction makes the diagonalization argument easier. However, you must take care in your diagonalization argument not to construct a different decimal representation of a number already in your list!
评论 #23004471 未加载
bytedudeabout 5 years ago
Flame wars over this used to be common on the internet. People intuitively have the notion that the left side approaches 1, but never actually equals it. They see it as a process instead of a fixed value. Maybe the notation is to blame.
评论 #23005027 未加载
评论 #23004479 未加载
评论 #23004492 未加载
orthoxeroxabout 5 years ago
I remember WarCraft 3 official forums being torn apart by this, with probably thousands of comments in the thread. Blizzard even had to post their official stance on the issue, but that didn&#x27;t calm those who insisted 0.999... was 1 minus epsilon and not exactly 1.
评论 #23004809 未加载
steerablesafeabout 5 years ago
Maybe the major source of confusion is that our decimal representation for whole numbers is supposed to be unique. Then when we extend it to rationals and reals this property fails at rationals in the form of a&#x2F;10^n.<p>Arguably the sign symbol ruins it for whole numbers as well, as +0 and -0 could be equally valid representations of the number 0. We just conventionally don&#x27;t allow -0 as a representation. There are other number representations that don&#x27;t have this problem.
评论 #23004614 未加载
评论 #23004574 未加载
评论 #23004815 未加载
heinrichhartmanabout 5 years ago
0.9999 = 1 is a consequence of the way we define rational and real numbers and limits. There are alternative definitions of numbers where this equality does not hold: Non Standard Analysis <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Nonstandard_analysis" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Nonstandard_analysis</a> being the most famous one.<p>But for the sake of argument, let&#x27;s just define numbers as sequences of digits with a mixed in period somewhere:<p><pre><code> MyNumber := { a = (a_1, a_2, ...) -- list of digits a_i = 0 .. 9; a_1 != 0. e -- exponent (integer) s -- sign (+&#x2F;- 1) } </code></pre> Each such sequence corresponds to the (classical) real number: s * \sum_i a_i * 10^{i + e}.<p>We can go on and define addition, subtraction, multiplication and division in the familiar way.<p>Problems arise only when we try to establish desireable properties, e.g.<p>(1&#x2F;3) * 3 = 1<p>Does <i>NOT</i> hold here, since 0.9999... is a difference sequence than 1.000....<p>So yes, you can define these number systems, and you will have 0.999... != 1. But working with them will be pretty awkward, since a lot of familiar arithmetic breaks down.
评论 #23008760 未加载
ltbarcly3about 5 years ago
This is &#x27;more intuitive&#x27; if you think about it this way:<p>If any two real numbers are not equal, then you can take the average and get a third number that is half way between them. Conversely, if the average of two numbers is equal to either of the numbers, then the two numbers are equal. (this isn&#x27;t a proof, just a way to convince yourself of this)<p>What&#x27;s the average of .9999... and 1?
评论 #23004521 未加载
评论 #23004682 未加载
评论 #23004550 未加载
sleepyamsabout 5 years ago
There is a nice characterization of decimal expansions in terms of paths on a graph:<p>Let C be the countable product of the set with ten elements, i.e. {0, 1, 2, ..., 9}. The space C naturally has the topology of a Cantor set (compact, totally disconnected, etc). Furthermore, for example, in this space the tuples (1, 9, 9, 9, ...) and (2, 0, 0, 0, ...) are distinct elements.<p>The space C can also be described in terms of a directed graph, where there is a single root with ten outward directed edges, and each child node then has ten outward directed edges, etc. C can be thought of as the space of infinite paths on this graph.<p>A continuous and surjective map from C to the unit interval [0, 1] can be constructed from a measure on these paths. For any suitable measure, this map is finite-to-one, meaning at most finitely many elements of C are mapped to a single element in the interval. For example there is a map which sends (1, 9, 9, ...) and (2, 0, 0,....) to the element &quot;0.2&quot;.<p>The point is that all decimal expansions of elements of [0, 1] can be described like this, and we can instead think of the unit interval not as being composed of numbers _instrinsically_, but more like some kind of mathematical object that _admits_ decimal expansions. The unit interval itself can be described in other ways mathematically, and is not necessarily tied to being represented as real numbers. Hope this helps someone!
cjfdabout 5 years ago
Ultimately this is more the definition of R than that it is a theorem. One can also work with sets of numbers in which the completeness axiom does not hold. E.g., sets of numbers in which one also has infinitesimals.
calibasabout 5 years ago
And this is why I prefer hyperreals.<p>0.999... = 1 - 1&#x2F;∞<p>We talk about infinity all the time in mathematics, teachers use the concept to introduce calculus in a way that people can more easily understand, but using infinity directly is almost universally banned within classrooms.<p>Nonstandard analysis is a much more intuitive way of understanding calculus, it&#x27;s the whole &quot;infinite number of infinitely small pieces&quot; concept, but you&#x27;re allowed to write it down too.
评论 #23008436 未加载
russellbeattieabout 5 years ago
I&#x27;ll just chime in with my completely ignorant theory that 1 - 0.999... = the infinitely smallest number, but is still, in my mind, regardless of any logic, reason, or educated calculations, greater than 0.<p>I understand and accept this is wrong. However, somewhere in my brain I still believe it. Sort of like +0 and -0, which are also different in my head.
评论 #23007285 未加载
评论 #23007636 未加载
评论 #23004812 未加载
JJMcJabout 5 years ago
Usually the concept of a limit, which assigns a meaning to 0.999..., isn&#x27;t studied until calculus.<p>There are approaches to mathematics that avoid infinite constructions, and a &quot;strict finitist&quot; would not assign 0.999... a meaning.<p>The stunning success of limit based mathematics makes finitism a fringe philosophy.<p>Remember, class, for every epsilon there is a delta.
traderjaneabout 5 years ago
Professor N.J. Wildberger is probably among the most well known &quot;ultrafinitist&quot; on YouTube.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=WabHm1QWVCA" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=WabHm1QWVCA</a><p>I mention him because I would think he sympathizes with those who have concern over the meaning of this kind of notation.
评论 #23004791 未加载
sv_h1babout 5 years ago
0.999...=1 is true in the mathematical sense, period.<p>However as a representation of physical world, there is a caveat. What we understand is physical world <i>appears</i> and <i>behaves</i> discretely, because at planck scale (approx. 10^-35) the distances seem to behave discretely.<p>Although common people don&#x27;t know&#x2F; understand planck scale, they do grasp this concept intuitively. What they are really saying is that in physical world there&#x27;s some small interval (more precisely, about[1 - 10^-35, 1]) which can&#x27;t be subdivided further, based on our current knowledge.<p>Same thing applies to planck time (approx. 5 * 10^-43) too.<p>So people are arguing two different things - the pure maths concept, or the real world interpretation.
sebringjabout 5 years ago
The thing that helps me &quot;understand&quot; it is that the universe has finite sizes of things like the Planck length for example being a theoretical thing at the smallest distance I would imagine. Now imagine it going smaller than the Planck length (finite) in terms of the difference of .9 repeating and 1 since infinitely small differences can do that. Essentially there is no way to tell the difference between .9 repeating and 1 then from a practical or theoretical perspective of measurement. So not imagining infinity lets us at least imagine smaller than the smallest measurable thing.
评论 #23010145 未加载
gigatexalabout 5 years ago
I hate to say it but I still don&#x27;t believe this, it just goes against all intuition that I have, but people much smarter than I have proven it so I take it on faith for doing things like calculus etc just my lizard brain won&#x27;t let me accept something that looks like less than 1 being 1 the same way that the limit of 1&#x2F;x as x goes to infinity is zero but it doesn&#x27;t seem like ti should be. The number gets infinitesimally small but it&#x27;s still some non-zero number -- I dunno this is probably proving my ignorance it&#x27;s just what it is.
评论 #23016055 未加载
评论 #23011184 未加载
edanmabout 5 years ago
I think if you&#x27;re trying to &quot;prove&quot; this using axioms, you&#x27;ve already lost.<p>The problem isn&#x27;t that you can&#x27;t come up with axioms to convince people you have a proof - the problem is with people not understanding that 0.99999.... is not a number - it&#x27;s <i>one</i> representation of an abstract entity called a number.<p>The problem is, the maths required to actually define the concept of a number is fairly complicated, so it&#x27;s hard to explain to someone <i>why</i> all of these axioms make sense in the first place.
fluganatorabout 5 years ago
Can someone help me out here with least upper bounds?<p>Generally the proofs of .9...=1 rely on the fact there is no number that exists that can be between .9.. and 1 and therefore .9... is equal to 1.<p>.9... is the least upper bounds of the set. My question is if .9... was removed from the set what would be the new least upper bounds. Another way of asking the question is if we define it in this context doesn&#x27;t any set bounded by a real number have a least upper bounds and aren&#x27;t all real numbers equal to each other?<p>Thanks!
jdashgabout 5 years ago
I think this is a notation and definition problem. To me, it behaves differently in `Y = 1 &#x2F; X`, which distinguishes quite strongly between `X = 1 - 0.9999` and `X = 0.9999 - 1`! If 0.9999 ought be exactly equivalent to 1.0, there ought to be no difference between `1 &#x2F; (1 - 0.9999)` and `1 &#x2F; (0.9999 - 1)`.<p>To me, 0.9999 indicates a directional limit, which can&#x27;t necessarily be evaluated and substituted separately from its context.
评论 #23018477 未加载
rs23296008n1about 5 years ago
I&#x27;m actually curious what impact it would have on various proofs if 0.999... wasn&#x27;t accepted as 1.<p>What gets broken? What consequences do we hit?
评论 #23004510 未加载
评论 #23004560 未加载
评论 #23004519 未加载
j-pbabout 5 years ago
I&#x27;m not a mathematician, but I would guess that the Surreal numbers developed by John Conway, do contain values that start with an infinite sequence of 0.9_ but &quot;end&quot; with something that makes them != 1.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Surreal_number" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Surreal_number</a>
jefftkabout 5 years ago
What if you have 0.9̅4? Can we say 0.9̅5 &gt; 0.9̅4 &gt; 0.9̅3? More on what happens if you allow this: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mathwithbaddrawings.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;08&#x2F;13&#x2F;the-kaufman-decimals&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mathwithbaddrawings.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;08&#x2F;13&#x2F;the-kaufman-decim...</a>
评论 #23008095 未加载
评论 #23010226 未加载
shrimpxabout 5 years ago
A dumb consequence of the axiom of choice? The reals are like a membrane with no atomic pieces. You can move in either direction infinitely and you can zoom in infinitely without reaching any “Planck unit” so to speak. So what does it even mean to pick out a “real number”? To me anything built on this concept is nonsense.
vfinnabout 5 years ago
Sorry for my naivety, but why one couldn&#x27;t prove by induction that adding 9s never close the gap, or let&#x27;s say, that by definition the operation is such, that it never closes the gap. If you can always halve the pie, then you can continue eating forever. To me it would be much easier to accept that (1&#x2F;3)*3 is not 1.
评论 #23008590 未加载
评论 #23007072 未加载
评论 #23005058 未加载
评论 #23007187 未加载
评论 #23004907 未加载
zestsabout 5 years ago
Is 1 a prime number? No, because we define it not to be. Why do we define it not to be a prime number? That&#x27;s the real question.<p>Is 0.999... = 1? Yes, because we define decimal numbers to behave that way. Why do we define them to behave that way? That&#x27;s the real question.
fourseventyabout 5 years ago
The best way to think about it is that 1 - 0.999... = 0.000...<p>The result of 1 minus 0.999... is 0.000 with zeroes that go to infinity. And I think its easier to reason that 0.000 with repeating zeroes forever is in fact equal to zero.
j7akeabout 5 years ago
This can be solved by using base 12 rather than base 10 to do the calculation...
评论 #23004765 未加载
2OEH8eoCRo0about 5 years ago
Yes it does but it seems like a less correct way of writing it. Like you could represent the number 10 as 10&#x2F;1 (ten over one) but why would you? Why would you represent 1 as .9 repeated?
ttonkytonkabout 5 years ago
Basically an infinite series of 9&#x27;s just means they&#x27;re all maxed so the .999... = 1 makes sense to me (kind of anyway).
juanmacuevasabout 5 years ago
# on Python (3.7.4) 1 == 0.99999999999999994448884876874217297882 # but 1 != 0.99999999999999994448884876874217297881
评论 #23010502 未加载
berkeleynerdabout 5 years ago
Perhaps the natural discomfort many face when confronted by this challenging formulation instead indicates that a limitation of the real number system has been perceived? I would encourage those who have this reaction to study hyperreal and other alternative systems as mentioned in the article. If this clicks for them they may help lead us in new direction mathematically and advance the state of the art.
评论 #23005119 未加载
alppleabout 5 years ago
Why do we accept .999... as a valid notation. Why not only allow 1 to denote this concept?
评论 #23018468 未加载
flerchinabout 5 years ago
I&#x27;d have figured &quot;approaches 1 from the left&quot; would be more accurate.
heavenlyblueabout 5 years ago
So is then ‘0.(0...)1 = 0’?
novacoleabout 5 years ago
So 99.999..% of the speed of light is just the speed of light?
评论 #23009902 未加载
clevbrownabout 5 years ago
Given infinity that doesn’t make sense.
grensleyabout 5 years ago
What is the largest number smaller than 1?
评论 #23010603 未加载
ameliusabout 5 years ago
How about the expression:<p><pre><code> 0.9999... &lt; 1 </code></pre> And consider that if a &lt; b then a != b.
评论 #23007247 未加载
评论 #23007230 未加载
seyzabout 5 years ago
&quot;In other words, &quot;0.999...&quot; and &quot;1&quot; represent the same number.&quot; - Ok, I&#x27;m done with this world.
ristosabout 5 years ago
I don&#x27;t think that 0.999... = 1 is actually provable. I think this and all of calculus is actually axiomatic, which has the following axiom:<p>Given ε = 1&#x2F;∞ then: ε = 0<p>Am I wrong in thinking this way? It seems as though there&#x27;s no way to actually truly prove that an infinite series converging towards zero actually hits zero (from a constructivist pov)
评论 #23007249 未加载
评论 #23007195 未加载
评论 #23007341 未加载
评论 #23007208 未加载
评论 #23007180 未加载
smlckzabout 5 years ago
Reminds me of the paradoxes of Zeno [1], especially the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise.<p>At least one can simply prove that 0.999... = 1 without much hard work. Maybe less controversial than the following:<p><pre><code> 1 + 2 + 3 + ... [somehow] = -1&#x2F;12 {{Riemann&#x27;s zeta(-1)?}} 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... [somehow] = -1 </code></pre> As well as the weird prime product (Product of 1&#x2F;(1-(p^-2)) for p prime) and the sum of x^-2 from x=1 to [<i>sigh</i>] being equal to (pi^2)&#x2F;6 are some example of infinite beauty of mathematics that I remember.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Zeno&#x27;s_paradoxes" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Zeno&#x27;s_paradoxes</a>
评论 #23007099 未加载
评论 #23007225 未加载
评论 #23007261 未加载
upofadownabout 5 years ago
&gt; ...infinitely many 9s...<p>How about we prove that an infinite number of 9s is impossible?<p>Assume that we have a finite number of 9s. Add a 9. The result is not infinite. Add another 9. The result is still not infinite. We can repeat this process for an infinite amount of time and still not have an infinite number of nines.<p>Any process that can not be completed in a finite amount of time can not complete and can not have a valid result based on that completion. Any process that can not be completed in an infinite amount of time is also bogus, but is in a sense even more bogus.<p>Added: Note that this is different than the case where we are asked to contemplate infinity with respect to continuous functions. By defining the number of 9s as a discrete (integer) value it opens things up to a discrete argument. These pointless navel gazing exercises always end up as a war of what everyone things things are defined as.
评论 #23010576 未加载
评论 #23007001 未加载
评论 #23006998 未加载
评论 #23007420 未加载