0.999...=1

https://arbital.com/p/5r7

by Dylan Hendrickson Aug 3 2016 updated Aug 4 2016

No, it's not "infinitesimally far" from 1 or anything like that. 0.999... and 1 are literally the same number.


Although some people find it counterintuitive, the decimal expansions 0.999 and 1 represent the same Real number.

Informal proofs

These "proofs" can help give insight, but be careful; a similar technique can "prove" that 1+2+4+8+=1. They work in this case because the [-series] corresponding to 0.999 is [-absolutely_convergent].

Formal proof

This is a more formal version of the first informal proof, using the definition of Decimal notation.

%%hidden(Show proof): 0.999 is the decimal expansion where every digit after the decimal point is a 9. By definition, it is the value of the series k=1910k. This value is in turn defined as the [-limit] of the sequence (nk=1910k)nN. Let an denote the nth term of this sequence. I claim the limit is 1. To prove this, we have to show that for any ε>0, there is some NN such that for every n>N, |1an|<ε.

Let's prove by induction that 1an=10n. Since a0 is the sum of {0 terms, a0=0, so 1a0=1=100. If 1ai=10i, then

\begin{align} 1 - a{i+1} &= 1 - (ai + 9 \cdot 10^{-(i+1)}) \newline &= 1-a_i - 9 \cdot 10^{-(i+1)} \newline &= 10^{-i} - 9 \cdot 10^{-(i+1)} \newline &= 10 \cdot 10^{-(i+1)} - 9 \cdot 10^{-(i+1)} \newline &= 10^{-(i+1)} \end{align}

So 1an=10n for all n. What remains to be shown is that 10n eventually gets (and stays) arbitrarily small; this is true by the [archimedean_property] and because 10n is monotonically decreasing. %%

Arguments against 0.999=1

These arguments are used to try to refute the claim that 0.999=1. They're flawed, since they claim to prove a false conclusion.

%%hidden(Why is this wrong?): Decimal expansions and real numbers are different objects. Decimal expansions are a nice way to represent real numbers, but there's no reason different decimal expansions have to represent different real numbers. %%

%%hidden(Why is this wrong?): Decimal expansions go on infinitely, but no farther. 0.000001 doesn't represent a real number because the 1 is supposed to be after infinitely many 0s, but each digit has to be a finite distance from the decimal point. If you have to pick a real number to for 0.000001 to represent, it would be 0. %%

%%hidden(Why is this wrong?): The sequence gets arbitrarily close to 1, so its limit is 1. It doesn't matter that all of the terms are less than 1. %%

%%hidden(Why is this wrong?): There are infinitely many 9s in 0.999, so when you shift it over a digit there are still the same amount. And the "decimal expansion" 8.999991 doesn't make sense, because it has infinitely many digits and then a 1. %%


Comments

Eric Rogstad

These arguments are used to try to refute the claim that 0.999dotsc\=1\. They're flawed, since they claim to prove a false conclusion\.

If these are included I think it would be good to also include explanations of why each one is wrong.