r/infinitenines

I mean this literally. Why should we make a decimal point followed by infinite nines have any meaning at all, and why should it make sense for it to have a legitimate value?

If .99999... is a limbostic number because it never reaches a stable value, wouldn't this mean it's just not a number? ( ie if we define infinite nines to be the limit of the series (9/10)^(x) as x approaches infinity, and this value were to hypothetically be undefined(because the limit diverges or something), then .999999... has no defined value period).

I'm not really caught up on the lore, and just want SSP to explain what value he thinks .99999999... actually holds any value at all if it isn't equal to 1.

You made a claim that the set of natural numbers is ever growing but failed to provide an example, twice. What, cat got your tongue?

Here is your last chance: since you claim that the set of natural numbers is ”ever growing”, give us one example of a number that belongs to this set at some point but doesn’t belong to this set at a different point.

If you can’t, you’ll concede that the set of natural numbers is not growing and, by extension, 0.999…=1.

Hi SPP, I'm really out here trying to understand.

Ok, you've identified this type of number called "limbosic numbers."

For those not fully up to date on the lore, "limbosic numbers" are numbers that "grow" over time.

SPP, you said "there are limitless limbo versions of 0.999... aka 0.999...9, all of which are states of 0.999..."

I'm going to try and put your idea into language that the people here can accept.

(I'm sorry if I fuck up my notations, it's been a few years since I really did math and you'd be surprised at what conventions you forget).

Let the set L be { 0.9 x (1/10)^n for all positive n}. So, {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...}. That would be a "limbosic number." It seems to me that when SPP says that 0.999... never equals 1, he just means that the number 1 is not a member of that set L.

Isn't that right, SPP, 1 is not a member of that set of states of the limbosic number 0.999... ?

We are taught that `(d/dx) (x^2) = 2x` , but this is a lie.

`(d/dx) f(x) = lim(h->0) (f(x+h) - f(x))/(h)`

`(d/dx) x^2 = lim(h->0) ((x+h)^2 - x^2)/(h)`

`= lim(h->0) (x^2 + 2hx + h^2 - x^2)/(h)`

`= lim(h->0) (2hx + h^2)/(h)`

`= lim(h->0) (2x + h)`

And, from rdm, we know that `lim(h->0) h = 0.000...1`

Therefore, the first derivative of x^2 is 2x+.000...1

All of calculus and physics is a damn lie. Wale up sheeple. Stop praising failed failed country musicians who marry football stars to be famous, and learn the truth as SPP has shared the truth.

*Side Note: this only applies to limits approaching from the right. Limits from the left are different.

If you take ten steps of 0.000…1m you get a distance of 0.000…10m.
In mathematics if the last digit of a decimal sequence after a decimal point is a 0, that 0 will be canceled out.
So this means that 0.000…10 = 0.000…1.
And the only number that is equal to itself when you multiply it is 0
So that means if 0.000…1 = 0 and the difference between 0.999… and 1 is 0.000…1 that means that the difference between 0.999… and 1 equals 0

Whenever light-speed conversations come up, it's mentioned that an object with mass can never reach the speed of light, only approach it (99.9999..%). But that is equal to 100%. Is this not 'infinitely approaching' speed of light in the same way that .999 'infinitely approaches' 1?

What you would mean by 0.99... is the number (?) defined as having a 9 in every decimal postion (sonething like that) effectively making it an element of S:={0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}^N (u_0=0, u_n=9 for all n>0).

Then usually the argument goes that if such a number exists then it is equal due to having no number between it and 1 (or any other way using indirectly the continuity of R).

But in S, both are indeed not equal. Then you say, let's project it on R then they are equal and that is the trick, their (canonical) projections on R are equal, not the objects themselves.

EDIT:

Then what is wrong with projecting? You could argue that you would like to have a bijective projection, just to feel that you are indeed manipulating the same space modulo that projection.

However you would also like the order in S to be preserved (namely lexicographical order, that is the "dictionary" order where given (u_n)_n and (v_n)_n in S, you compare each u_n and v_n until you find that one is bigger than the other, e.g. 0.22222 < 0.32222) so that you also feel that when you manipulate objects in S, you keep a sense of "being close to" that can be kept via your bijective mapping in R, especially when the topic is around 0.999... being "extremely close to" 1.0000. So in that logic, 0.999 < 0.9999 < 0.99999 and so on.

But there is no mapping that can satisfy both those two property as lexicographic order allows adjacent elements: E.g. x=0.2222... < y=0.322... but no elements of S exist in between.

Proof: if a bijective mapping f such that the ordering is preserve were to exist, you would have f(x)<f(y). But since those are real, you have g=(f(x)+f(y))/2 in between and since g is real and f is bijective, you have in S, z fuch that g=f(z). But since f preserves ordering, x<z<y which is impossible.

Does this explanation satisfies you u/SouthPark_Piano?

Limbosic numbers have some very strange properties. For instance, the number 999... (a limitless amount of nines) is larger than any number with a limited amount of nines aka natural numbers. But, if you double this number, you get something like 1(999...)8. This number is strange because it has a limitless amount of nines in the middle, bounded on either side by the one and the eight. You can see how this forms by doubling 9, 99, 999, etc. But what happens if we set a reference? 999... = ...999 = 9...999 (all ways of writing limitless nines above the decimal). However, the doubled form is equal to 1...998, which is obviously smaller since 1 < 9. Do limbosic numbers get smaller when multiplied like this? Or am I just doing this incorrectly? I haven't been able to find any good sources explaining the workings of supermassive limbosic numbers outside of this subreddit, does anyone (especially SPP) know where I can find some papers/articles/etc about them?

What's 3^0.999... ? How about 0.999...^5 ?

What's log_0.999...(4)?

You tried to weasel out of the question but it didn’t work.

Here is your second attempt: since you claim that the set of natural numbers is ”ever growing”, give us one example of a number that belongs to this set at some point but doesn’t belong to this set at a different point.

It seems that you take the stance that numbers have a temporal element, right? They change value over time? What about two numbers that "occur" at different times, but which are both 0.000...1? In that case, does 0.000...1 = 0.000...1?

Specifically, I'm responding to a recent comment of yours about distance and time (screenshot here) and another, which I don't have screenshotted, in which you say 0.999...9 is not "static."

So I like going on random subs and listening to their stories... Why everyone hate him? Is that a rookie error?

In base 16 (hexadecimal), 0.ff..... is closer to 1 than 0.99...... is to 1 in base 10 (decimal)