Various demonstrations of how 0,9... = 1 can be given; here is a simple one.

1 : 3 = 0,3...
2 : 3 = 0,3... + 0,3... = 0,6...
3 : 3 = 1 = 0,3... + 0,6... = 0,9...

@valis, do you agree 3/3=1?

@Ezio I just showed that precise method; had our messages crossed?

Oh yea. I didn't see you posted it. Heehee.

Sure, gravity would exist without conscious life, but gravity is not math. Math is a representation of gravity made by conscious life, so no math without conscious life. Math is not any physical law, but a tool used to model physical laws (and many other things). Those physical laws exist completely separate from math.

Just because it's happening in your head doesn't mean it isn't real.

Math is as real as love, feelings and all other things that happen in your head.

I have to say this is a very entertaining conversation to follow.

Math is an idea that exists.

Teach the controversy.

"Those physical laws exist completely separate from math."

Not necessarily. You could say those physical laws ARE math.

For example certain mathematics such as the Fibonacci sequence, cell growth, the 3, 6 and especially 9, are so consistently found in the architecture of physics, nature and everything that its perfectly reasonable to argue reality has a mathematical basis.

I can come up with examples for 3, but where does 6 an 9 come up in the architecture of physics, other than as integer multiples of the number 3?

Yes!!! I love flatland!!!

Also to the .999999=1 thing

if that is true, then
1-.999...=.000...(1)
1-1=0

so according to this

.000...(1) = 0

this is why infinity x 0 is generally considered undefined.

this is less because of the properties of infinity, but because of the properties of ZERO

personally I find this conundrum in mathematics quite obnoxious, but this can help in some theoretical mathematics. This is why in my mathematics, i never will write .000...(1) AS 0, so people will realize in my proofs that this is an uncertain 0, not a (A/A)-(A/A) CERTAIN Zero

Isn't it .99 repeating being one, since there's no 0.(insert decimal number here) higher than it that isn't 1 or greater?

1/3+1/3+1/3 equals 1, of course.
But .33+.33+.33 (all repeating) would technically equal .99 repeating. That's the logic I see.. .99 repeating is 1 because as a fraction it's 3/3

I met some mathematician who was going around colleges who i guess was pretty famous, but i asked him about .99... = 1

i've always been skeptical, and i talked to him and my main argument was centered around 0 being equal to nothing, which he corrected quickly, saying that 0 is inconsistent.

0 = c / infinity
thus 0 x infinity (under my definition) would equal 0, but in math it is generally undefined.

I asked him about (X/X)-(X/X)=0 and once again he said that although you could theoretically have that happen, you'll find that X/X itself could equal .9999999 just as easily as it could 1 for when you subtract it

he said that the only other time he'll hear any argument about this was one of his colleagues who worked in a quantum mechanics field, and "that's some math I can only describe as silly" (and apparently his friend agrees with him on that point)

anyways, it was a LOT more concise and helpful than that thread we had on the forum a few months back

Well.. I imagine an unimaginable amount of sources would be more concise and helpful than a WebDip thread

Math is a language to communicate ideas and thoughts. to claim it doesn't exist is to claim any language exists. we use language to translate the pictures in our minds to others math serves the same purpose

^
It is a language. And language doesn't exist without those to speak it. It is a language of representation of ideas and physical phenomenon. But there was no math before someone started speaking the language. Just like there was no English a million years ago.
To those that say math is the physical phenomenon, that's not right. That's like saying a drawing of a tree is the tree. Math is a representation, akin to a drawing - it isn't the thing being represented/drawn. And to say that math existed before it was used by individuals to communicate ideas is like saying all drawings already exist before they are made.

Oh my... As usual the debate is kept strictly on track...

Basically, what I found the most interesting in the (simplified) question of "Is math real" is:

There are numerous mathematical theories, lemmas, conjectures etc. But the question is, when a mathematician describes a new theory, lemma or whatever, does he actually invent it or discover it? Are mathematical properties something that actually exists in the universe, or is it simply something that plays well with all the previous stuff we came up with? That's the main point (in my opinion). Of course math exists, and it's like a language and so on and so on, but what does it describe? Does it describe the laws of the universe, or does it describe itself?

Also, I feel like 80% of people posting in this thread didn't really understand the question itself. IMO this video presents the matter perfectly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbNymweHW4E

@yassem

discover vs creation

discover is that it exists without humans

creation means humans think it

I think that math is kind of like trying to see into space, and math is a TOOL, such as a telescope, to understanding things.

1+1=2

i'd propose that 1 and 1 and 2 are objects, but we define them with mathematics, the + and the =

by using these symbols, we can connect and determine the relationship of objects in the world

This relationship already exists, but without a conscious mind breaking it down with math, then it simple 'is'

however, if

1+1=2

if you say that is fundamentally true, an earthquake happens, 1 rock roles down a hill and moves next to another rock, it's 1 rock + 1 rock = 2 rocks.

It's still math.

so is this just trying to find the DEFINITION of math? clearly both situations are real, but which one more accurately defines mathematics?

Dictionary quest!!!
Mathematics:
the abstract science of number, quantity, and space.

Science:
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

sooo... math, as it is currently defined, is a way of studying, observing number, quantity and space.

Thus the one that we generally accept, is math is a TOOL, not an empirical reality.

However, as I've said before, ideas are no more than our neurons firing, which DO have a physical basis.

thus, math as a TOOL, is only physically real with humans in our brain, to observe the natural world.

math - in terms of what is being DESCRIBED - is technically synonymous with "matter"

am i right or did i miss something here? because everything keeps getting deeper and deeper.

Also, dictionary quest helped! Semantically!

James, I often struggle to find the words to use when I explain something, could I hire you to do this for me? You seem fascinatingly intelligent

@WyattS14

you can find my services here:

https://www.google.com

just type anything in, but watch out for the occasional bull crap/porn/lies/viruses/diplomacy websites.

all the usual scum of the internet

Occasional?

@James, while your arguments are absolutely true I don't think we are actually speaking about the same thing. Did you by any chance watch the video I posted? The thing is, even with the simplest mathematical concepts, e.g. 1+1=2 - are they ever valid outside of our own understanding of mathematics. Even with counting objects this is not so obvious. It's a bit like with the tree falling in the forest - if there is no-one two count the rocks, does one rock and another rock total to two rocks? And that is not mentioning aaaaaaaaaaall the other mathematical concepts, many of which are purely theoretical. Mathematical realism argues however that no-matter how purely theoretical a concept is, it is objectively a part of the universe, i.e. it is not us who invent it but rather discover some new property.

+1 Yasser

To those clever types in this thread who think they have isolated "mathematics" from everything else in the universe you have rather missed the point.

Pepin- youtube search number 9 theory. Or something like that.

Wait - so you're saying this thread had a single point, and that's a universal truth that it has a single point. Oh, ok, missed that part.

@yassem: "math is like a language." Seems to me that you're unintentionally taking the position that math is not "real." Languages are ways of describing reality so that we can share information about it, but they don't change reality themselves. No matter how you describe an object, the physical properties of the object don't change. And so if math is a language, then it is (like language) a human construction.