Creative
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

3 proofs that 0.999... is the same as 1

First of all writing the number 0.999... isn't not valid but for the sake of this post let's allow it.

Proof 1:

This is probably the most easy to understand.

Let's assume:
x = 0.999...
Next we'll multiply both sides by 10, so we have:
10 x = 9.999...
Let's subtract
x
on both sides.
10 x - x = 9.999... - x
Since
x = 0.999...
we get:
9 x = 9.999... - 0.999... = 9
We now can divide each side by 9 because it's not equal to zero and we get:
x = 1

Because we assumed that
x = 0.999...
and we have that
x = 1
that means that
1 = 0.999...

Proof 2:

Because the real numbers are dense, that means that you can find always a real number between two real numbers. For example we can use the arithmetic mean:
(a + b) / 2
Let's assume that
0.999... ≠ 1
. That means that with the arithmetic mean we can find a number in between, with that we would get
0.999...5
? Which isn't a real number, there is nothing like a "last digit". And even it there was, that number wouldn't be in between 0.999... and 1. That means that our initial assumption is wrong thus 0.999... is equal to 1.

Proof 3:

This is basically the actual proof because it's per definition the same. Let's look at what we mean when we write 0.999... it means that ever digit after the 0 is 9. Let's rewrite that.
0.999... = 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ...
We can rewrite that further to
= 9 * 0.1 + 9 * 0.01 + 9 * 0.001 + ...
We can add "0" since it doesn't change the value, or more specifically let's add 9 and subtract 9. With that we get:
= 9 * 1 + 9 * 0.1 + 9 * 0.01 + 9 * 0.001 + ... - 9
Let's rewrite it again
= 9 * (1/1) + 9 * (1/10) + 9 * (1/100) + 9 * (1/1000) + ... + 9
= 9 * (1/10)^0 9 * (1/10)^1 + 9 * (1/10)^2 + 9 * (1/10)^3 ... + 9
We can pull 9 outside of the sum to get:
= 9 * [(1/10)^0 + (1/10)^2 + (1/10)^3 + ...] - 9
To write it a bit more abstract we get:
That this is 9 times the sum from i = 0 to infinity over (1/10)^i and from that we subtract 9 again.
This sort of sum is called geometric series, it's of the form:
The sum from i = 0 to infinity over q^i. There's a formula for the result of the sum if |q| < 1:
1/(1-q)
In our case q = 1/10 which is smaller than one, so we can use that formula here and we get:
= 9 * [1 / (1 - q)] - 9
with q = 1/10 we have:
= 9 * [1 / (1 - 1/10)] - 9
When we simplify it we get
= 9 * [1 / (9/10)] - 9 = 9 * [10 / 9] - 9 = 10 - 9 = 1
Thus by writing 0.999... it's the same as 1. And because that's ambiguous, it's not allowed to write it so that every number written as digits is unique.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
No. Why should we assume that 0.999... is precisely one? It isn't, it's an approximation to one, although a reasonably close one.
I don't accept this at all. Sorry.
helenS · 36-40, F
@Bel6EQUJ5 If you think it's not equal to 1, give us the difference please.
@helenS Well, his very first words above are "Let's assume". An assumption isn't a fact. That's the first thing wrong with this, in my opinion.
The three dots (...) signify a never ending sequence of digits, which of course means that the number in question has no precise value. The first integer - 1 - has a precise value. It's like when you ask what is one third of 100. That is 33.33333333333... it's close enough for most people, but of course it isn't precisely one third.
I've always had trouble accepting this particular "proof", because to me it just seems like trickery.
helenS · 36-40, F
@Bel6EQUJ5 Would you agree that the limit of the series
0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + (...) is equal to 1?
@helenS Yes, but... okay. I guess it doesn't matter that much. Maybe I've never been able to accept this particular "proof" because of the way it was taught when I was in school, and the way he presents it here is the way it was presented to me in maths class all those years ago.
Or maybe I'm just a bit thick.
Luke73 · 26-30, M
@Bel6EQUJ5 Which of the three proofs are you referring too?
@Luke73 The very first one.
Luke73 · 26-30, M
@Bel6EQUJ5 Yeah that’s the „weakest“ of them all.
helenS · 36-40, F
@Bel6EQUJ5 None of those proofs are rigorous. A rigorous proof would imply the usage of Cauchy/Weierstrass' εδ approach to limits.
@helenS Yes, limits. That's a good way of approaching this - pun intended! ☺
Luke73 · 26-30, M
@helenS The third proof is done correctly and completely valid.
helenS · 36-40, F
@Luke73 You still have to prove that "sum from i = 0 to infinity over q^i" is equal to 1/9 for q=1/10. You just said "There's a formula for the result of the sum" but a formula is a formula, and not a proof.
Luke73 · 26-30, M
@helenS It’s the geometric sum, I didn’t include the proof for that in this post but you can find it on Wikipedia for example.