Here's a slightly more informal argument. Suppose you challenge me that 1 is 
not equal to 0.9999... What you are saying is that 1 - 0.9999... is not equal 
to 0, i.e., the difference is more than 0. But for any positive value 
arbitrarily close to 0 I can show that 0.999... is closer to 1 than that. If 
you were to say that the difference is 0.1, I could show that 0.999... > 0.9 so 
the difference is smaller. For every 0 you added to your challenge: 0.1, 0.01, 
0.001 I could provide a counterexample with another 9: 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ... In 
other words, there is no positive number that satisfies your claim, so equality 
must hold.

Have all good days,
David Sletten

On Oct 13, 2010, at 6:36 PM, Matt Fowles wrote:

> Felix~
> 
> You are correct that the sequence of numbers
> 
> 0.9
> 0.99
> 0.999
> ...
> 
> asymptotically approaches 1; however, the number 0.9999... (with an infinite 
> number of 9s) is equal to 1.  The formal proof of this is fairly tricky as 
> the definition of the real number is usually done as an equivalence class of 
> Cauchy sequences; a simplified version of the proof can be thought of as 
> follows:
> 
> For any two real numbers a and b there exists an infinite number of real 
> numbers c such that a < c < b.  However, there do not exist any numbers 
> between 0.99999... and 1, thus they must be same number.
> 
> As it turns out, it took mathematicians a long time to nail down formally 
> exactly what we naively think of as "numbers".
> 
> Matt
> 
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Felix H. Dahlke <f...@ubercode.de> wrote:
> On 13/10/10 22:28, David Sletten wrote:
> >
> > On Oct 12, 2010, at 5:44 PM, Brian Hurt wrote:
> >
> >>   For example, in base 10, 1/3 * 3 = 0.99999...
> >
> > It may seem counterintuitive, but that statement is perfectly true.
> > 1 = 0.9999...
> >
> > That's a good test of how well you understand infinity.
> 
> I'm clearly not a mathematician, but doesn't 0.99999... asymptotically
> approach 1, i.e. never reaching it? How is that the same as 1?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Clojure" group.
> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
> first post.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en

Reply via email to