Wait what? (1+2+3+4+...

[Bridge]

@Bridge

Why is not the following proof valid to you?


We assume that 1 =/= 0,999... =>
(devide by 3) 1/3 =/= 0,333... absurd

Therefore 1=0,999...

How do you explain this?

First of all, I think it is absurd to suggest that you can have an endless series of 3s and yet not 9s. So is 1/3 in fact the exact same as 0.34? Furthermore, you can't use traditional arithmetic with nonreal numbers. You can multiply 0.333 by 3 and get 0.999, but who says that you get the same result with a nonterminating number? Regardless, 0.333 is a crude representation of the simple fraction 1/3. Certainly you aren't suggesting that 1/3 * 3 = 2.999…/3 is a valid answer. It makes unnecessary assumptions. But as I said, I will continue to reject your proofs as using faulty methods to evaluate numbers that it cannot process. There are plenty of examples of faulty systems that produce internally consistent but ultimately facile results, best summed up by the expression "garbage in, garbage out" (GIGO). In my opinion it's a loss of data and approximation - acceptable in most cases - but not robust proof. Clearly you disagree and there is no more discussion to be had.