x = 0.99999...
∴ 10x = 9.99999...
9x = 10x - x
∴ 9x = 9.99999... - 0.99999...
∴ 9x = 9
∴ x = 1
Therefore proving that there must be an end to an infinite amount of digits. My mind has been blown.
Your error lies in the fact that you are trying to find x when you already know the answer. In actuality, the equation you used would progress as follows:Jon wrote:A friend just proved to me that 0.9 recurring is equal to 1.
x = 0.99999...
∴ 10x = 9.99999...
9x = 10x - x
∴ 9x = 9.99999... - 0.99999...
∴ 9x = 9
∴ x = 1
Therefore proving that there must be an end to an infinite amount of digits. My mind has been blown.
This, on the other hand, is a valid mathematical proof ... *mind blown*Rand al'Thor wrote:I swear that is part of GCSE
There's also:
1 = 0.3333333…
3
3 = 0.9999999…
3
∴ 1 = 0.9999999…
That was....Firefury54 wrote:Your error lies in the fact that you are trying to find x when you already know the answer. In actuality, the equation you used would progress as follows:Jon wrote:A friend just proved to me that 0.9 recurring is equal to 1.
x = 0.99999...
∴ 10x = 9.99999...
9x = 10x - x
∴ 9x = 9.99999... - 0.99999...
∴ 9x = 9
∴ x = 1
Therefore proving that there must be an end to an infinite amount of digits. My mind has been blown.
9x = 10x - x
9x = 9x
x = 1
Therefore, x would have been 1 regardless of you plugging in an arbitrary number for just 2 out of 3 x's (which fails to follow any mathematical rationale.). Tell your friend to forfeit his manhood and go back to the 5th grade.This, on the other hand, is a valid mathematical proof ... *mind blown*Rand al'Thor wrote:I swear that is part of GCSE
There's also:
1 = 0.3333333…
3
3 = 0.9999999…
3
∴ 1 = 0.9999999…
And 12-1=11 o.OOver Living wrote:11+1=12
ummm... that is valid proof.Firefury54 wrote:Your error lies in the fact that you are trying to find x when you already know the answer. In actuality, the equation you used would progress as follows:Jon wrote:A friend just proved to me that 0.9 recurring is equal to 1.
x = 0.99999...
∴ 10x = 9.99999...
9x = 10x - x
∴ 9x = 9.99999... - 0.99999...
∴ 9x = 9
∴ x = 1
Therefore proving that there must be an end to an infinite amount of digits. My mind has been blown.
9x = 10x - x
9x = 9x
x = 1
Therefore, x would have been 1 regardless of you plugging in an arbitrary number for just 2 out of 3 x's (which fails to follow any mathematical rationale.). Tell your friend to forfeit his manhood and go back to the 5th grade.This, on the other hand, is a valid mathematical proof ... *mind blown*Rand al'Thor wrote:I swear that is part of GCSE
There's also:
1 = 0.3333333…
3
3 = 0.9999999…
3
∴ 1 = 0.9999999…
Jon wrote:ummm... that is valid proof.Firefury54 wrote:Your error lies in the fact that you are trying to find x when you already know the answer. In actuality, the equation you used would progress as follows:Jon wrote:A friend just proved to me that 0.9 recurring is equal to 1.
x = 0.99999...
∴ 10x = 9.99999...
9x = 10x - x
∴ 9x = 9.99999... - 0.99999...
∴ 9x = 9
∴ x = 1
Therefore proving that there must be an end to an infinite amount of digits. My mind has been blown.
9x = 10x - x
9x = 9x
x = 1
Therefore, x would have been 1 regardless of you plugging in an arbitrary number for just 2 out of 3 x's (which fails to follow any mathematical rationale.). Tell your friend to forfeit his manhood and go back to the 5th grade.This, on the other hand, is a valid mathematical proof ... *mind blown*Rand al'Thor wrote:I swear that is part of GCSE
There's also:
1 = 0.3333333…
3
3 = 0.9999999…
3
∴ 1 = 0.9999999…
The value that I defined as x is 0.999...Firefury54 wrote:Jon wrote:ummm... that is valid proof.Firefury54 wrote:Your error lies in the fact that you are trying to find x when you already know the answer. In actuality, the equation you used would progress as follows:Jon wrote:A friend just proved to me that 0.9 recurring is equal to 1.
x = 0.99999...
∴ 10x = 9.99999...
9x = 10x - x
∴ 9x = 9.99999... - 0.99999...
∴ 9x = 9
∴ x = 1
Therefore proving that there must be an end to an infinite amount of digits. My mind has been blown.
9x = 10x - x
9x = 9x
x = 1
Therefore, x would have been 1 regardless of you plugging in an arbitrary number for just 2 out of 3 x's (which fails to follow any mathematical rationale.). Tell your friend to forfeit his manhood and go back to the 5th grade.This, on the other hand, is a valid mathematical proof ... *mind blown*Rand al'Thor wrote:I swear that is part of GCSE
There's also:
1 = 0.3333333…
3
3 = 0.9999999…
3
∴ 1 = 0.9999999…
Then maybe you care to enlighten me because I still fail to see how this is a valid proof. Even if we played it out the way you explained it; it doesn't make sense. Let me begin from where the misunderstanding was identified:
9x = 10x - x
x = 0.99999...
9(0.999...) = 10(0.999...) - (0.999...)
8.999... = 9.999 ... - 0.999 ....
8.999... ≠ 9
This is why your proof doesn't make sense to me. You cannot simply plug in a predetermined value for x for a part of the equation and not the rest ... Why would you solve for "x" when you already decided to use 0.999 ... for x? While it is highly likely that there is a valid proof for your statement, it was not confirmed with the proof your friend used.
Why did you delete the earlier post ngawwwwस्वस्ति wrote:This is why i think math is complete bullshit
that works the same:The Uzumaki wrote:Why did you delete the earlier post ngawwwwस्वस्ति wrote:This is why i think math is complete bullshit
Lol the answer to that isस्वस्ति wrote:that works the same:The Uzumaki wrote:Why did you delete the earlier post ngawwwwस्वस्ति wrote:This is why i think math is complete bullshit
9x = 10x - x
9x = 9x
x = 1
My Chinese friend showed me this 'proof' using i:Daft Punk wrote:A friend of mine proved that 9 = 5 using i in a formula. Our calculus professor couldn't explain why it didn't work. I'll see if I can have him send it to me, its a lot to do with how i is cyclical, but i don't remember it exactly.
-1 < 9u²Rand al'Thor wrote:My Chinese friend showed me this 'proof' using i:Daft Punk wrote:A friend of mine proved that 9 = 5 using i in a formula. Our calculus professor couldn't explain why it didn't work. I'll see if I can have him send it to me, its a lot to do with how i is cyclical, but i don't remember it exactly.
1 = 1½
= (-1.-1)½
= (-1)½(-1)½
= i2
= -1
lol
let's say: c = a × a - a × b:स्वस्ति wrote:This one is also making my head hurt: 1=2
a = b.
a + a = a + b
2 x a = a + b.
2 x a × a = a x (a + b)
2 x a x a = a x a + a x b.
2 x a x a - 2 x a x b = a x a - a x b.
2 x (a x a - a × b) = a x a - a x b.
let's say: c = a × a - a × b:
2 × c = c.
so:
2 = 1.
|
|