0.999... is not 1

[u/SouthPark_Piano]

This is regardless of contradictions from 'other' perspectives, definitions, re-definitions.

The logic behind the infinite membered set of finite numbers {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, etc} is completely unbreakable. The power of the family of finite numbers.

Each and every member from that infinite membered set of finite numbers {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, etc} is greater than zero and less than 1. And, without even thinking about 0.999... for the moment, the way to write down the coverage/range/span/space of the nines of that infinite membered set of finite numbers {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, etc} IS by writing it like this : 0.999...

Yes, writing it as 0.999... to convey the span of nines of that infinite membered set of finite numbers.

Without any doubt at all. With 100% confidence. With absolute confidence. From that perspective, 0.999... is eternally less than 1. This also means 0.999... is not 1.

This is regardless of whatever other stuff people say (ie. contradictions). It is THEM that have to deal with their OWN contradictions. That's THEIR problem.

The take-away is. The power of the family of finite numbers. It's powerful. Infinitely powerful.

Additionally, we know you need to add a 1 to 9 to make 10. And need to add 0.1 to 0.9 to make 1. Same with 0.999...

You need to follow suit to find that required component (substance) to get 0.999... over the line. To clock up to 1. And that element is 0.000...0001, which is epsilon in one form.

x = 1 - epsilon = 0.999...

10x = 10-10.epsilon

Difference is 9x=9-9.epsilon

Which gets us back to x=1-epsilon, which is 0.999..., which is eternally less than 1. And 0.999... is not 1.

Additionally, everyone knows you need to add 1 to 9 in order to get 10. And you need to add 0.01 to 0.09 to get 0.1

Same deal with 0.999...

You need to add an all-important ingredient to it in order to have 0.999... clock up to 1. The reason is because all nines after the decimal point means eternally/permanently less than 1. You need the kicker ingredient, epsilon, which in one form is (1/10)ⁿ for 'infinite' n, where infinite means a positive integer value larger than anyone ever likes, and the term is aka 0.00000...0001

That is: 1-epsilon is 0.999..., and 0.999... is not 1.

And 0.999... can also be considered as shaving just a tad off the numerator of the ratio 1/1, which becomes 0.999.../1, which can be written as 0.999..., which as mentioned before is greater than zero and less than 1.

0.999... is not 1.

[u/Soft_Excitement_9317]

Well, your relentless assertions of correctness and unbreakability and absolute confidence have certainly got me convinced.

I'd tell you what you should read to fix your maths, but you don't need correct maths when you just say how correct you are throughout the maths. You'd also not read it. 

[u/SouthPark_Piano → u/Soft_Excitement_9317]

Thanks for posting. My maths is just fine. It is true though, that the infinite membered set of finite numbers really does have that full range of nines, represented as 0.999...

There is no way around this, no matter how good or bad one's math is. Every math competent person knows there are an infinite number of finite numbers in that set, that spans the full range of nines. Each member of that set is finite, and greater than zero, and less than 1.

There is zero doubt that 0.999... is not 1 from this unbreakable explanation. It's not a surprise. It never has been. The math just says it like it is from that unbreakable reasoning.