>>12433668>Wrong you retardno u!
>>12433503This is difficult to express correctly. I'm not arguing against the definition of a number, but I'm arguing against when you can use limit definitions as part of a proof to prove/disprove 0.999... equals one. When someone jumps in with a counterargument "Well, take 1/3 = 0.333..." that's taking as fact the very sort of thing we're trying to prove, and then using sequences and limits and pretending that we're not talking about limits when the result appears, that's just wrong.
If you look at
>>12430063instead of reading it as
10 • 0.999... = the limit of blah blah
it should be read as
The limit of [10 • 0.999...] = the limit of blah blah
and we all agree with this, that the limit of 0.999... approaches 1.
But does 0.999... equal exactly 1? That's a different question, and using limits as in the previous example subverts the question and gives a false answer. (maybe you can use limits as part of a proof in some cases, but you'd have to be careful, maybe proof by contradiction).
