It's not a debate, dimwit.
Let x=.9999999...
10x=9.99999999...
-x=-.99999999...

9x=9
x=1

0.9999<1

Yes it does. That is all.

If a sprinter ran a 100 in 10.9999 and another sprinter ran in 11.0000, it is certainly not a tie. One is less. These are numbers. This is not Nam, there are rules.

ghug and zultar are right. It is 10. One is not less.

For someone of your wisdom, we have to simplify things and be brief.

1/3 = 0.3333333.....
3*1/3=0.999999.....=3/3=1

If he can't understand the equations above, then he probably doesn't need to ask the question. :)

@2WL That number has a finite number of nines, diplomat was talking about an infinitely repeating decimal.

hahahaha
so if 20=1/3 so 1=60 60/3=3/3=20*3=3x=1/1?

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/508/watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme.png

Apparently taos here isn't only bad at playing diplomacy. He's bad at math as well.

20 does not equal 1/3, and even with that assumption, your math makes no sense.

Another way to think of it, but maybe not a better one: If the sequence .9999999...... goes on into infinity, you can say that the limit is 1, which means the number .9999999...... represents 1. Or in other words, they are the same thing. The proofs above are easier to do, but the concept of a limit gives us a mental picture.

i am also bad at trolling

LLLimit....limit....lllllllimit.

Big D said his knowledgeable friend already showed him some limits. I guess Big D wasn't amazed. Big D has his own concept of truth. He also doesn't exist.

Big D is struggling with precalculus, limits are too hard for his little brain to comprehend.

Or think of it like this: What happens if you subtract .99999..... from 1? You get .00000..... for infinity. Is that helpful?

Speaking of limits: http://memebase.com/2010/11/30/memes-troll-math-pi/

yes.

now for real.
why is that?
where is the 0.00001?

Hidden in Big D's closet.

there is more than one way to represent a half, say 0.5 or 1/2

equally i could write 0.5000000... the confusion comes from the fact that 1.000... = 0.999... but they are just different ways of writing the same number.

Now fo shizzle, there is no 0.00001 in 1 - 0.99999.... since 1 - 0.9999... = 0. You cannot arbitrarily say "man, writing these 0s all the time just to reach the 1 sucks, let's stop here and call it a day". There is no 1 there, just a series of 0s and you can never put a 1 behind them. It's not even a question of limits. 0.99999... doesn't approach 1 in limit (don't know the English jargon), it IS 1.

you guys are doing math equations. be simple no math use the <,>,= 1.0 is a whole number and 0.9999999... is not so therefore with NO MATH EQUATIONS it is not equal to 1. becuase 1.0 > 0.999999....... adding math equations it most likely will round it or actually make it so. but 0.9999999..... is not a whole number so it is not equal. Use simpler math like that.

Hear, hear!

Finally, FINALLY I SAW A NO-MATH EQUATION WITH = !!! NEVER AGAIN WILL EQUATIONS MAKE NUMBERS EQUAL BY USING EQUATIONS WITH EQUALITY SIGN!!! FINALLY A SIMPLER MATH FOR SIMPLER UNIVERSE!!!

0.9999 < 1
0.9999... = 1

@orathaic 0.5 is NOT the same as 0.5000...

fuzzy, are you aware of the fact that there are an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1? and you can construct new ones by taking any two numbers (q and p) and looking at the number half way between them (q+p)/2 this number is

(for example (1+0)/2 = 0.5 which is definitely between 0 and 1.)

For any two numbers between 0 and 1 which are not the same you can generate a new one.

What number is between 1 and 0.99999... ?
well it would be 0.5 + 0.49999... which equals what?

also 1.0 > 0.99999... if this is correct, then what about all those other proofs above which dispute your bare ascertain? You are basically saying 'because of my understanding of the definition of a whole number' - it just happens that in this case, your understanding is flawed.