Firstly, the article doesn't postulate that 0.999 recurring = 1, it proves it (which is a significant difference)
Secondly, 0.999 does not equal 1, 0.999 recurring does equal 1. This may be a typo on your part, but it is important. From a mathematical standpoint saying that 0.999 = 1 is as valid as saying that -12 = 10,000,000,000 (although for practical purposes I admit it is quite different)
The later parts of the proof are really not required, they are just an attempt to get non-mathematical people to realise the truth, that 0.999 recurring does equal 1. The argument that they are written differently is completely irrelevant, as an example consider 0.5 and 1/2 Would anyone argue that they are not equal? I doubt it.
If you do want to question the proof, I suggest finding anyone, anywhere, who has any evidence that 0.999 recurring does not equal 1
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-21 12:55 am (UTC)Firstly, the article doesn't postulate that 0.999 recurring = 1, it proves it (which is a significant difference)
Secondly, 0.999 does not equal 1, 0.999 recurring does equal 1. This may be a typo on your part, but it is important. From a mathematical standpoint saying that 0.999 = 1 is as valid as saying that -12 = 10,000,000,000 (although for practical purposes I admit it is quite different)
The later parts of the proof are really not required, they are just an attempt to get non-mathematical people to realise the truth, that 0.999 recurring does equal 1. The argument that they are written differently is completely irrelevant, as an example consider 0.5 and 1/2 Would anyone argue that they are not equal? I doubt it.
If you do want to question the proof, I suggest finding anyone, anywhere, who has any evidence that 0.999 recurring does not equal 1