GamerBoy705M to Software GoreEnglish • 1 year agoNot good enough for 100%pxscdn.comimagemessage-square28arrow-up1546arrow-down16
arrow-up1540arrow-down1imageNot good enough for 100%pxscdn.comGamerBoy705M to Software GoreEnglish • 1 year agomessage-square28
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink46•edit-21 year agowell 0.9999… is actually 1 because x = 0.9999... 10x = 9.9999... 10x (9.9999...) - x (0.9999...) = 9 9x = 9 x = 1 so 0.9999... is 1
minus-square@RedditWandererlink44•1 year agoThis is muuuch better demonstrated by 1/3 = .33… 2/3 = .66… 3/3 = 0.99… “Repeating” matters in approximations
minus-squareexscapelinkfedilink27•1 year agoYes, but 0.99999999999999999999 isn’t 0.999… and therefore not 1, so it’s still wrong.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink9•1 year agoThe software is wrong yes. I just had to share this information.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink4•1 year agoYou know I didn’t mean it like that, but you are technically right.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink3•1 year agoFirst thing that came to mind was this video by SingingBanana. Great maths channel and he is a frequently on numberphile as well.
well 0.9999… is actually 1 because
x = 0.9999... 10x = 9.9999... 10x (9.9999...) - x (0.9999...) = 9 9x = 9 x = 1 so 0.9999... is 1This is muuuch better demonstrated by
1/3 = .33… 2/3 = .66… 3/3 = 0.99…
“Repeating” matters in approximations
Yes, but 0.99999999999999999999 isn’t 0.999… and therefore not 1, so it’s still wrong.
The software is wrong yes. I just had to share this information.
your 4th line reads as 10x^2 - x^2 = 9
You know I didn’t mean it like that, but you are technically right.
First thing that came to mind was this video by SingingBanana.
Great maths channel and he is a frequently on numberphile as well.
0.999… is lim(1), not 1.
deleted by creator
What?
1 is a constant so lim(1) = 1