Talk:0.999.../Archive 19

The above RfC "almost" ended in broad agreement (e.g., the editor bringing it to WP:FTN appeared to see his misgivings scattered), when one editor deemed it necessary to proclaim a prejudical outcome of this RfC. Not only that it would result in "no consensus, clearly", but also to the effect that the status quo ante would have to be maintained, therefore.

Obviously, this required the editor, carrying the main burden of the efforts to improve the article against the intentions of a plain minority in numbers, to reply in an objecting manner, enabling an ongoing struggle in this unlucky RfC. I do not want to heap more trouble on this, I (hopefully) unambiguously stated my preference, but I ask politely to bring this RfC to a due formal end, treating all opinions, in spite of possible imperfections, in a meaningful manner.

Please, keep this mathematical(!) topic out of ignorant carrying ahead of ideologies. Purgy (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I too am troubled by the systematic efforts of one editor to undermine the legitimacy of the RfC, and question whether this is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Anyone may request closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, although I believe most RfCs run a course for a maximum of 30 days. However, on the one hand, it seems to me that the discussion has not yet fully run its course, as various requests for clarification have apparently been neglected, and it seems premature to judge whether those comments have been abandoned. On the other hand, certain other aspects of the discussion are not really worth pursuing further in my mind, and are merely likely to lead to continued fomentation of ill-will among certain parties should the RfC be allowed to continue until its statutory conclusion. Thus it comes down to a question of, to what extent WP:SNOW may be applied to the outcome of the RfC, in the interests of sparing the community such continued hardships? I feel that any suitably experienced uninvolved administrator should be able to make that determination, and I would support a neutral entreaty to the WP:ANRFC requesting a senior administrator either to draw the matter to a formal close, or to commit to do that at some time in the future. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I have had quite enough of this sort behavior. Since this RfC was posted, you, Sławomir Biały, have posted FIFTY THREE comments related to the question asked in the RfC. It is difficult to find a single comment disagreeing with your desired conclusion that you failed to challenge, sometimes repeatedly. And now you have decided to make an accusation ("the systematic efforts of one editor to undermine the legitimacy of the RfC, and question whether this is in the best interests of the encyclopedia") of bad faith, without naming to individual you are accusing? You are clearly WP:BLUDGEONING the process. No, it is not true that you and you alone are working in the "best interests of the encyclopedia" and it is not true that those who fail to agree with you are engaging in "systematic efforts of one editor to undermine the legitimacy of the RfC". You really need to apologize, and then you need to back of and let someone else have a say for a change. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I did not mean to implicate you in the above, as you made constructive and valuable suggestions, for which I am appreciative. And, for the record, I do apologize to you. It was never my intention to cause offence or upset. It was an unacceptable presumption on my part to infer a withdrawal of your objection to "Version B" from your statement that "The rest seems fine" above, and I should have waited for a clearer assent on your part. I should have issued a personal apology earlier on your user talk page as well. However, I began to see other editors trying to ride your coattails shortly following what was (to my mind) the resolution of our dispute. While of course they bear responsibility for that themselves, I cannot escape the feeling that they are also worthy of your admonishment.

I further apologize if my style sometimes chafes the norms of such processes (see Wikipedia:WikiDragon for a much-needed light-hearted interpretation of such behavior). However, I have responded to many comments, which involved productive discussion related both the the material under discussion, and indeed other parts of the article as a result of this RfC. I have attempted to take the opinions of all editors respectfully into account, and even attempted to improve the proposal based on those opinions (although perhaps in a manner that you object to). I am not aware of any statutory limits on the number of comments that may be posted, including genuine requests for clarification. Since the discussions have actually lead to measurable and substantial article improvements, it seems like that should be taken as evidence that the massive volumes of discussion have actually been useful and productive, rather than unproductive argument-for-its-own-sake that would suggest WP:BLUDGEONing behavior.

However, I agree with you in part that I should step back at least from certain less productive venues of discussion that have become unnecessarily heated, and will refrain from such interactions in the future. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I never imagined that it was me that you were referring to. Also you can have good-faith, productive conversations, but it is still bludgeoning if you start one every time someone cast a !vote on an RfC. Making disruptive comments is an entirely different concept, which I do not see anyone here doing. It's not what you write that is the problem -- each individual comment and the replies to it have been productive. The only real problem is that there are just too many of them. Let's just drop this and get back to discussing improvements to the article, not user behavior, OK? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I strongly contest the edit summary of User:Calbaer: "rv. to last Purgy 794192130 version (editor attempting to impose desired outcome via edit war that is contrary to RfC he admitted to have lost)", as well as the recent edit war that he is instigating: , . The tendentious discussions below, to justify an entirely unsourced section (with a perverse request for citations) as preferable to a fully cited section that is mostly supported by direct quotations and close paraphrases. I think it is time to seek administrative intervention. Sławomir
  Biały 14:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverted lots of edits that did not cite any references, seemed WP:OR. Perhaps some consensus in talk can be built before making big content changes in the article. Although some of the content added reads like a debate of the article subject rather than encyclopedia content. Klaun (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion in the previous thread. Please comment there rather than starting a new section. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

That seems to be a discussion about the subject of the article, not the content. If the article is missing explicit links between content (or proposed content) and the sources, then it needs more explicit links between that content and RSes. Klaun (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

No, the above discussion specifically concerns the section on algebraic arguments, and in particular concerns the extent to which they "show" anything. What my edit was intended to do was to clarify what these arguments actually do show, namely that 0.999...=1 holds provided certain assumptions are valid. Furthermore, that edit is at least as explicitly linked to the RSs that are cited at the bottom of the section as the existing content. As I already said anove, those sources (Buers, Peressini, and Richman) discuss the fallacies of these arguments. But since folks seem not to want to represent those sources faithfull, I have removed the section until a version is drafted that complies with our policies. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Strange revert. None of the stuff which was reverted to had any citations either which I would have thought would be the prime requirement of a revert based on the rounds given. Dmcq (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, the supposed proofs are gone now. I think it's probably best simply to start over from sources, being careful to preserve the context of these arguments. They are not usually presented as proofs, but as illustrations of the limitations of arguments like these, so I've been very reluctant to include them at all, without significant caveats. But yeah, reverting to other at least equally bad versions doesn't seem like a way to make progress. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I've restored to the last version by Purgy (though, as noted above, I'm hoping to alter the wording). We've been discussing and refining this for weeks now, so just wiping it all out is an approach which explicitly defies the consensus-building approach we've been working hard on in all this time. That's especially true when the section has been here since the article made FA about a decade ago. If we want to rebuild it from scratch, the appropriate way of doing so would be on the talk page or in some other sandbox. Otherwise, we should alter it via edits that don't remove everything before introducing a replacement. If we want to add references, there is the the aforementioned Encyclopedia Britannica entry, which is exactly the same as the reasoning for "Fractions and long division." This is not "original research," by any stretch, just information without the level of footnoting we'd ideally want (and information that is controversial since it has no rigorous proofs, and thus some editors feel like it leads readers in the wrong direction). Calbaer (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You're citing an 18th century book, that isn't even a mathematics book. That's hardly a reliable source for mathematics. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

This is an article mostly about mathematics education, not strictly about mathematics; otherwise, we could just end the article after the first section. The "algebraic" arguments appear over and over again as way to illustrate the property. That's the whole reason some sources (according to what you say, which I believe but haven't checked) give them as flawed examples.

Advocating for removing this section - rather than modifying and/or moving it - won't get us anywhere near agreement on this. Insisting that it be constructed solely from universally agreed-upon sources, though ideal, is likely to be difficult as well. I've presented several ideas for how this section might be improved. Yet another is to leave out not only "proofs" but also "algebraic." Such a section ("common informal arguments"?) could be presented as common methods used to illustrate 0.999...=1 while emphasizing that their use was a matter of trying to illustrate to students who couldn't be assumed to have exposure to the subjects necessary for rigorous proofs: real analysis, limits, the Archimedean property, etc. And, as such, the proofs were necessarily incomplete (indeed, the gaps requiring as much effort to fill as to prove 0.999...=1 itself).

One thing that I am curious about, but which you need not answer, is why you were supportive of this article staying FA 7 years ago, but now find several parts of it fatally flawed. People are free to change their minds, but I must admit I am curious why it appears as though you've changed yours so dramatically. Again, this is not an argument against your opinions, just a curiosity on my part. Calbaer (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This is another deflection. A 200+ year old source is not reliable for mathematics education either. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section based on reliable sources on mathematics education, per your suggestion. Sławomir
Biały 13:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I like the spirit of your change, but I feel it needs to be hashed out in the talk section, since - as is - it seems deceptive and flawed, with several errors. (I've thus reverted it; the edit can be seen here.) References are improperly done, too; they point to non-existent anchors within the page.

But it's the way it's presented that's even more worrisome. Byers does not say what you say he says. "It surely does not mean that the number 1 is identical to that which is meant by the notation 0.999..." refers to the proposition 0.999...=1, not to the algebraic argument. (From a quick reading, he states no technical flaw in this argument. In fact, he claims that it actually convinces students. The only flaw he finds is that the students now believe the equality but don't understand it. That's very different than the characterization given in the recent edit, that the argument is unconvincing.)

Furthermore, the notion that, "most undergraduate mathematics majors, according to Byers," believe that 0.999... is not 1, is slightly different than what Byers says in his book. Instead, it's that "in my experience" this is the case. That's the difference between anecdotal evidence (which is biased, e.g., by the voices of the loudest students in the class or by the type of students at his school) and scientific proposal. Not to mention that it's unnecessary to state in this section.

There's also the problem of why you're presenting Byers' opinion on this and that, a sudden jump from math to what is basically social science (or rather social anecdotes). That makes for jarring reading.

It seems there's still a contradictory motive to present this information, but also to say, "This is wrong!" so fervently that such modifications leave the impression that the math is wrong or the result is wrong - neither of which is true. The problem is rather that there are portions left undefined or unproved, so that algebra alone doesn't form a formal proof. We should be able to preserve these most common of arguments, and say why they are both true and insufficient. Calbaer (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. Byers asks, just after presenting the proof "What is the meaning of these equations?" meaning the identity ${\displaystyle 0.999...=1}$ and the equations that preceded it (i.e., the proof he just offered). It's clear that we're citing Byers viewpoint, on the issue of why students are unconvinced. But if it's unclear, you can always ask for clarification. In particular, we now have a version of material that is entirely uncited with a request for citations, and a version which is now completely cited. I will now be removing the uncited content as having failed verification. Please see WP:V. Further reverts must now be justified under Wikipedia policies. Sławomir
Biały 14:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

As I've noted, we've been discussing how to improve this section for weeks. You've decided to ignore all that and eliminate the section because you didn't get your way via the means you initially proposed to do so, effectively taking your ball and going home. It's one thing to add citations. But a section without citations is superior to one that gives citations then misinterprets them. Most people aren't going to follow the citations - especially when the links to them are broken! - to see what's really said here. Calbaer (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The cited material does not misrepresent the sources. That is just a bald lie, as was your recent edit summary. This is clear disruption. Please see WP:CHALLENGE:

"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."

Be advised that continuing to insert this unreferenced OR against policy will likely result in sanctions. Sławomir
Biały 15:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

You call me a liar and attempt to override the results of your own RfC, and then threaten me with sanctions for undoing the latter? Come on.... Calbaer (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The mandate of the verifiability policy is incontrovertible. The rest is noise. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

That means you spend hundreds of edits filling this page with "noise." Why? (By the way, there are a bunch of reliable sources. The fact that the are no footnotes for them within the section is insufficient reason to suddenly wipe the whole section after you fail to get your way on it. Wikipedia is about converging to consensus, not citing one policy after another in order to justify why you should have the final word on all matters.) Calbaer (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no interest in further discussion with you if you are going to blatantly lie. WP:V is a bright line rule. Full stop. If you want to have a reasonable discussion, begin it by showing some good faith and not lying. Sławomir
Biały 16:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

It's too important to the showing the plausibility of the topic to most readers to leave out. It has been in forever, has concensus, and should stay in. If anything, about 2/3rds of the words can come out and retain the meaning. The math examples don't need to be removed since most can easily fall under routine calculations. If you were going to explain this topic to someone with hardly any math knowledge, starting with one of those would be the place to start. Please see WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue:

"However, many editors misunderstand the citation policy, seeing it as a tool to enforce, reinforce, or cast doubt upon a particular point of view in a content dispute, rather than as a means to verify Wikipedia's information. This can lead to several mild forms of disruptive editing which are better avoided. Ideally, common sense would always be applied but Wiki-history shows this is unrealistic."

WP:CALC:

"Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations. See also Category:Conversion templates.."

TVGarfield (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:CALC and "the sky is blue" do not apply here. I have reinstated the sourced revision of the section. Sources were requested by several editors. I hope this is a suitable compromise, subject to improvement by normal editing (while still maintaining close fidelity to the sources). Otherwise, an alternative is to remove the entirely unsourced section as having failed WP:V. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Note though, that it is still unsourced. Harv error: link from #CITEREFByers2007 doesn't point to any citation. Harv error: link from #CITEREFRichman1999 doesn't point to any citation. Harv error: link from #CITEREFPeressiniPeressini2007 doesn't point to any citation. Harv error: link from #CITEREFBaldwinNorton2012 doesn't point to any citation. Harv error: link from #CITEREFKatzKatz2010a doesn't point to any citation. You need top add three references to the References section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The references are there, but the citation anchors are broken. I have fixed the citation anchors. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 0.999.... Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060902040839/http://www.math.fau.edu/Richman/HTML/999.htm to http://www.math.fau.edu/Richman/HTML/999.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I mostly agree with the revert about this, but I actually think overlines would be better for those three long-period decimals: 1/7, etc., by making it immediately clear visually which digits repeat (while for 0.999..., it's not really necessary). Would anyone object to changing just those? --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, good idea. I went ahead, but not the strike-through part that the anon had done. - DVdm (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 0.999.... Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929095431/http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/PrintHT/Real_numbers_2.html to http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/PrintHT/Real_numbers_2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

In follow-up to the comments above about considering the origin of the ellipsis notation and the concept of decimals with infinitely many digits. Decimal notation is usually credited to Bartholomaeus Pitiscus (1561–1613). John Wallis (1616–1703), wrote about recurring decimals and sexagesimal fractions in his Mathesis Universalis (1657) and Algebra (1685). He worked with them, and introduced the term continued fraction in his Opera Mathematica (1695), and did a lot of work with infinite series. Johann Heinrich Lambert (1728 – 1777) worked out when a number had a finite decimal representation, and realised that irrational numbers have infinite decimal representations. The ellipsis was already in use back then. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that the above valuable facts do belong in a good article about number representation via decimals, and that this here article, necessarily dealing with the inherent delicate finesses of infinity, should engage itself just with the difficulties of "repeating" decimal representation of real numbers, and the difficulties this causes when confronted with an informal, only intuitive understanding of real numbers. Hints to constructions of other number systems (hyperreals, etc.), in which the equality under consideration might not hold, should make clear that this article is based on the real number system, in which the number represented by "0.999..." unavoidably equals the value of "1.000..." and all of its truncations, and that this system is not only the one overwhelmingly in use, but also the overwhelmingly convenient one to use.

Considering the wide proliferation of the "algebraic" pseudo-proofs, I think it is necessary to not only mention them in an article suiting my needs, but also to carefully point to the loopholes left in their sequence, which make up for most of the difficulties among the non-initiated, not accessible via informal historic use of "infinitely repeating".

In fact, I am advocating for trimming this article, and dramatically improving the coverage of decimal representation of reals methods used to denote reals by strings containing decimal number tokensrevised for non-technical use of representation 09:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC), but outside of this article, which should focus on the title induced topic. Purgy (talk) 07:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

In fact, decimal representation of reals is an oxymoron, as a representation is necessarily finite, and there are too many real numbers for having a finite representation for all of them. Thus the correct term is decimal expansion of real numbers. This misnomer is probably the origin of the misconception appearing in several articles, consisting of considering finite decimal representation as a (minor) special case of infinite representation. In fact, the important concept is the concept of decimal numeral, which is finite and used everywhere, while the concept of infinite decimal expansion is used only in mathematics. Even in mathematics, infinite decimal expansion is used only in some constructions of real numbers, in the proof of non-enumerability of real numbers, and, apparently in mathematical education in some countries. I have partially rewritten Decimal for making clear the distinction between finite decimals and infinite decimal expansions. Sections on infinite representations decimal computation and history deserve also to be rewritten, as well as the articleDecimal representation. D.Lazard (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience or embarrassment, caused by me using the word representation in a non-technical meaning. I did not want to present any oxymorons. Purgy (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I think a persistent problem has been that there is a tendency to regard "recurring decimals" as the same thing as "rational numbers". A recurring decimal is an infinite expression. It is not necessarily interpreted as a number. When Wallis writes ${\displaystyle 1/3=0.333...}$ (if he ever writes that), then I'm fairly certain he means that the result of dividing one by three gives three tenths, with a remainder leaving three hundredths, and so on. Thus "0.333..." is a process rather than an object, and the equals sign is not reporting the identity of two objects, but rather the outcome of a particular numerical computation. This is very different from what is meant by the modern notion of repeating decimal, so should not be discussed here without sources clarifying the ontology. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

A recurring decimal is indeed a representation of a rational number. It is not an expression, but a representation of a numerical value, i.e., a number. There is no "process" associated with such a representation, because it does not represent any operational steps. You can, however, argue that the concept of a mathematical limit is implied by the notation (but a limit is also not a process). You're going to have to provide a reliable source for your assertion that Wallis thought otherwise. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The notation ${\displaystyle 0.999...}$ absolutely is an expression, not a number: it is a zero followed by a period, followed by three nines and an ellipsis. To say that it "represents a rational number" fails to specify the means by which such a notation may represent a number. We might say that x=0.999... is the unique rational number with the property that 10×x=9+x. (Presumably this is the sense in which you mean that the notation "represents" the number? Or do you have some other idea in mind?) Or it might be a limit. We have sources that often recurring decimals are interpreted operationally (e.g., that 1/3=0.333... is reporting the result of a computation that can be carried on indefinitely). Would it be surprising if this was an interpretation to be found in Wallis? In any case, we equally well would need a source saying Wallis meant something else by this notation. Merely noting that Wallis used the notation solves nothing. (And Wallis even believed in infinitesimals, further complicating matters.) And regarding a "reliable source that Wallis thought otherwise", our current understanding if decimals is based on the work of Cauchy and Dedekind. It is simply absurd to suggest that Wallis' thoughts on the matter of decimals is anything like our modern understanding. It's that Whiggishness that I am responding to here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

You are muddying the waters unnecessarily here. How does the notation 9 represent a number? Even if Wallis did have a different interpretation of what the ellipsis in 0.999... means, how does that affect our current use of it; specifically, how does it change how we use it in this article? — Loadmaster (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, someone suggested Wallis' use of the ellipsis is somehow relevant to "our current use of it". I don't see the question "How does the notation ${\displaystyle 0.999...}$ represent a number?" is muddying the waters in any way. When you say "Repeating decimals represent rational numbers", you haven't said what "represent" means. In exactly what way does the notation ${\displaystyle 0.999...}$ "represent" a rational number? Is it the solution of some equation? Is it a limit, relying on completeness properties? Be specific! (And one need only looks in Wallis to see that he thinks of infinite series as a process that can be continued indefinitely, rather than a number. Significantly, for this reason Thomas Hobbes objected to Wallis' use of induction to establish "identities" involving infinite expressions.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

May I point to the remarks on "representation" by D.Lazard above? Imho, the inappropriate belief that ellipses weren't deepest mud, but already the clarification they're in dear need of, is the reason for much of the ongoing debate on this topic. Purgy (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I noticed by chance that this talk page has meanwhile 19 archives, but the index and the table of contents for archives mention only 14. Furthermore, the index page was last updated in 2013. Possibly, the "Arguments"-subpage caused this? Then there is some residue from an edit in semi-protected state. Could someone knowledgeable have a look, please? Purgy (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

There are two different links to archives, one in the headers, and one in a box. The link in the headers seems correct, although the linked index seems incomplete, at least for archive 19. I'll reorder the headers for having the archive link near the TOC, and remove the bugged boxes. Feel free to revert if I makes some errors, D.Lazard (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 9/9. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

What does this phrase mean? Any numeral written in base 10 is a decimal numeral. 0.999... is less than all decimal numbers (or numbers in any other base) greater than 1. Should the phrase be no less than all decimal fractions?. Koro Neil (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

No less than means the same as not less than. The article is about 0.999... being not less than 1. It is also not greater than 1 so it is 1 with the usual axioms for the real numbers. Dmcq (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the formulation was confusing: on some browsers (including mine), there is a line break between "all decimal numbers" and the list to which this phrase must be restricted. I have edited this sentence for fixing this confusing formulation. D.Lazard (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, My recent addition of a short description in the article was reverted with a request for explanation and reason why it is neccessary. As this is a recent requirement, the request is entirely reasonable. However, the detailed explanation would take a wall of text which would not be appropriate here, as this is a requirement for all Wikipedia articles. A reasonably detailed explanation can be found at Wikipedia:Short description, and more information at Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions. If anyone has further questions, please ask them at Wikipedia talk:Short description so that the answers can be available for everyone at a central place. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Not having been aware of its necessity, I reverted this (twice already, won't do again). Certainly, I am not in charge to sculpture how to deal with this necessity, but for the time being, and only if this is a really, really unavoidable necessity, I suggest "mathematical treatment of the ellipsis in 0.999...". Despite fundamental opposition to many spirits (sic! ghosts?) of WMF, I am not after any kind of fight. Good luck for the scuba project. Purgy (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

If I'm understanding this correctly, the current description in WD is "real number that can be shown to be the number one". I think that's probably better than Peter's version, "The number represented by infinitely repeating 9 after the decimal point preceded by zero". Peter's version is certainly literally accurate, but the current WD version is more to the point. --Trovatore (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Having looked at some of the documentation pages, and in particular the image at right, I think conciseness is more important than completeness of description. So I'm going to suggest "alternative decimal expansion of one". --Trovatore (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree with this one. Slightly provocative to some of our friends maybe, but to the point and correct . - DVdm (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no special attachment to any version of the short description and am quite happy to go with the editors who know the subject better, as long as there is one on Wikipedia that is appropriate to its purpose. I leave it in your capable hands. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

There are good arguments for having a short description, and many valid objections to the way it has been implemented without proper consultation and against consensus by the Reading team at WMF but this is not the place to discuss those. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

If the talk page consensus is that there is no need for a short description or that it is undesirable to have one, please put a non-breaking space in the template in the place where a description would go. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

While not everyone may be convinced of the benefits of the short descriptions, I'm having trouble seeing much downside. There'll be a little watchlist churn, and of course the content of the description is another thing to argue about, but other than that, if you don't see the descriptions then they shouldn't bother you, and if you do see them then it seems like they're good to have. I'm not thrilled with the Foundation on some other issues, but that's not a general argument for opposing all their initiatives. --Trovatore (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the short description suggested by Trovatore above and adopted since. I just updated it to "Alternative decimal expansion of the number 1", which is a tad bit clearer grammatically then "expansion of one". — JFG ^talk 14:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Definitely better. - DVdm (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It is clearer but it does break the 40-character limit. I know that's a "soft limit", so maybe it's justified here, but it concerns me that a lot of "short descriptions" I've been seeing aren't really all that short. I think it might be good to try to hold the line if we can. --Trovatore (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The limit does not seem to be an issue, and at 45 characters we are far from abusing the guideline. — JFG ^talk 17:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm concerned that a lot of people adding short descriptions don't really understand what they're about. The goal should be to give enough information that a user on mobile knows whether he/she wants to click on a link, and no more than that. For this article in isolation, I agree, the one you added seems OK, but the more we can keep to the limit, the better example we set for others. --Trovatore (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I have discovered that it is possible to construct an obtuse scalene triangle which has angles that measure 101.010101... and 50.505050... and 28.484848... Added together, these measures are equal to 179.999999... degrees.

Does this triangle constitute a "geometric proof" that 179.999999... degrees is equal to 180 degrees (the given number of degrees in a triangle) and that 0.999... is equal to 1? Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Not likely. We have this policy about wp:original research and wp:reliable sources... - DVdm (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

This wouldn't be appropriate to add to the article, but please do post it (maybe on my talk page if it's not appropriate here) as it sounds fascinating. a11ce (talk)

Moved to Talk:0.999.../Arguments. D.Lazard (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

To save all these pointless conversations shouldn't the article just redirect to 1? ;) JZCL 02:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Please, note the content of this article that is beyond the information given at 1, which is imho not pointless and also should not be accumulated there. I oppose to the suggestion of a redirect. For the discussion about deleting the "arguments"-page, please see there. Purgy (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose -- the theorem that the infinite series denoted by this notation converges to 1 is basically the subject of the article, distinct from the number 1 itself.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh goodness, it wasn't a serious suggestion! I was only trying to give some light relief for the editors here who so tirelessly have to explain the same arguments again and again... I am not meaning to waste anybody's time. JZCL 10:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@JZCL: I had seen it, but your smiley ;) must have been looked over. Next time try . - DVdm (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Should a comment on how 0.999... is not like the Feynman Point be placed in article? John W. Nicholson (talk) 10:38:40‎, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

A much better example for this article is

${\displaystyle e^{\pi {\sqrt {163}}}\approx 262537412640768743.999999999999250\dots .}$

That is, 12 nines after the decimal point, and one needs more than 30 exact digits for knowing that it is not an integer. For proving that it is not an integer without numerical computation, one needs Gelfond–Schneider theorem, which states that this is a transcendental number (for applying this theorem, one can remark that ${\displaystyle e^{\pi {\sqrt {163}}}=\left(e^{i\pi }\right)^{-i{\sqrt {163}}}=(-1)^{-i{\sqrt {163}}}}$). D.Lazard (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, maybe both? Simply state you thought but add "Even pi alone has what is called a Feynman Point which shows the error of assumption without checking the values continuance." John W. Nicholson (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Maybe a better way is to do it this way:

${\displaystyle e^{\pi {\sqrt {163}}}-262537412640768743=.999999999999\dots }$ does not equal ${\displaystyle 1}$ because with the next three digits we have ${\displaystyle .999999999999250\dots .}$

John W. Nicholson (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I oppose to including any example, how simple or promi-named it may be, illustrating the possibility of a finite number of nines in its decimal representation. These examples seem to bypass the fundamental difference between any finite string and the construction required for infinite representations. I think they lead astray in not focusing on the effects of somehow formalizing infinity.

How many consecutive nines are in ${\displaystyle 1-\pi \cdot 10^{-100},}$ in general, and immediately after the decimal separator? Purgy (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

In a first thought, I agreed with Purgy. However, in a second thought, it appears that ellipse notation (...) can be ambiguous, and this may explain the pedagogical difficulties illustrated by this article, and the size of the "Arguments" subpage. In fact, ellipses are not only used for indicating a simple pattern that is implicitly continued infinitely, such as for 0.999...; it is also used for truncation of a finite or infinite sequence of digits, such as ${\displaystyle \pi =3.14159\dots }$ instead of ${\displaystyle \pi \approx 3.14159}$ (in the article on π, this use of an ellipse is not used in decimal base, but it is used for the expression of π in other bases). IMO, this possible (and even common) confusion between two meanings of ellipses deserves a section that should be placed just after the lead. This section should makes clear that, in the case of a possible confusion, ellipse must not be used for truncation, and this could be illustrated by writing: For example, ${\displaystyle e^{\pi {\sqrt {163}}}-262537412640768743\approx .999999999999,}$ but ${\displaystyle e^{\pi {\sqrt {163}}}-262537412640768743\neq .999999999999\dots ,}$ since, with three more digits, one gets ${\displaystyle e^{\pi {\sqrt {163}}}-262537412640768743\approx .999999999999250.}$ D.Lazard (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I was reprimanded elsewhere already (approx. value of 𝜏?) for calling an ellipsis a method of notation, unworthy for any mathematician with some amour propre (or similar). Maybe this section in the article on ellipsis suffices, when linked to, but I also oppose to cover the variants of this notational flaw within this here article, since here the dots are better replaced by an overbar or by parenthesizing the last nine, both better excluding the inapplicable variants in the possible meanings of an ellipsis; and again, discussion of the variants distracts from the problem at the heart of this article. I do not deny that the ellipsis makes up a problem on its own, but I doubt that its ambiguity contributes to the reported problems with 0.999... = 1 . BTW, the inequality above may also be considered an equality when taking ellipsis as "some (possibly infinite) continuation". Purgy (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Moved to talk:0.999.../Arguments#0.999..._<>_1

I don't think we need that again—see Talk:0.999.../Arguments/Archive 11#Time to face reality

I believe there is a missing " in the p-adic number section. I do, however, not know where it is meant to be placed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7C0:31FF:3:9442:1FCB:771B:EF91 (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I support the notion that this article misses opportunities to put the problem into a historical context. (I have not just now re-read the whole article; I may have overlooked if it actually does.) Obviously, the existence of the article is a bit of a curiosity; we also have the article 1. What sets the subject of the present article apart from that one is not really about 0.999... (i.e., 1), but about certain finer points in the nature of decimal notation. Most of these these points are equally relevant for 2.74999..., 0.142857142857..., or even 3.14159265..., so why this article, when we have Repeating decimal, Decimal representation, Decimal, and others? But it is here, I (for one) like it. And, actually, Decimal representation link to the present article for these finer points. In the articles I mention, history is only (and briefly) covered in Decimal, and that only seems to be about finite decimal.

I am not competent to write what seems to be missing, but it is a valid point, that shouldn't be closed down simply because no specific proposals have been put forward.--Nø (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

PS. No, this is not a general discussion forum, and the author of the previous post with the same heading perhaps failed to clarify that (s)he was missing answers to these questions in the article. But I assume that was the intention.--Nø (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The history of decimal notation does not belong here; it is properly covered in decimal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

But it is not there either. The decision to assign a certain meaning to a certain set of symbols is always of historical significance. The symbols have been around since antiquity, but the article addresses only 19th century mathematics, and ignores everything that happened before that. --Algr (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Decimals have been around since antiquity. The notation we use dates from 1595. This article does not ignore mathematics before the 19th century; that is covered in the Elementary Proofs section. The 19th century was the era in which mathematicians attempted to place mathematics on a more logical and rigorous basis. The article is carefully written so the further you read down, the more advanced the treatment becomes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hawkeye, The article as it stands is like teaching relativity without mentioning Einstein. I wish you understood history well enough to appreciate the magnitude of what those proofs represent. In ancient times, the infinite was closely connected to the divine. Treating infinity as something a mortal could accomplish with symbols on a page could get you executed for blasphemy. Who was the first person to say that an infinite number of digits after a decimal point was something useful to imagine? How was that received by his peers? THAT is what history is. --Algr (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT, or stop complaining about it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Why that comment? Is it not legitimate to point out something that would benefit an article, without being able to fix it yourself? You can ignore the request if you like, but why denigrate it?--Nø (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The thing that is special about decimal representations that are eventually all nines is that they are the only ones where two different standard decimal representations can denote the same number. That doesn't happen with your ${\displaystyle 0.{\overline {142857}}}$; it's the only standard decimal representation of 1/7 the reason I say "standard" is to exclude things like decimal representations that allow negative digits or digits greater than 9 — these are legitimate things, but few in the audience of this article are likely to have come across them.

This seems to confuse people; most people, I hypothesize, have the idea that for each real number there's exactly one decimal representation (indeed, they may not distinguish the representation from the number in the first place). That confusion is the reason for this article to exist. --Trovatore (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

True; one of the things that are peculiar about 0.999... only applies to numbers ending in 999... in decimal form (or numbers ending in 111... in binary, etc.). However, this arises because infinite decimals exist and are assigned a meaning as a limit, so that is also what this article is about, 0.999... epitomizing the interpretation of infinite decimals. -- Anyway, I did not wish to start a discussion about that, but to point out that we do lack coverage of the history of infinite decimals - in this article, or in another (unless I just haven't found it - in which case we lack a wikilink in this article).--Nø (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The history of finite decimals is well summarized in Simon Stevin. As I said above, infinite decimals did not exist before 20th century and the introduction of infinite sets by Georg Cantor (here, infinite sequences of decimal figures). If you have reliable sources on the history of infinite decimals during 20th, be bold and WP:SOFIXIT. If such sources do not exist there is nothing to discuss here. D.Lazard (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

This is off-topic of course but — I think it's unlikely that infinite decimal expansions were unknown before Cantor. The actual infinite is implicit in such expansions, but it's implicit in the notion of real number in the first place — people just hadn't entirely come to terms with that before the mid-19th century (this development somewhat predates Cantor; we're talking at least about Weierstrass and Dedekind). But I bet you would find that people were talking about the decimal representation of 1/3 being ${\displaystyle 0.{\overline {3}}}$ long before that, though they likely didn't linger over explaining exactly what they meant by it. --Trovatore (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Nothing off-topic about that - on the contrary, it is exactly what I think is the topic. It would be great if someone, knowing this stuff and which sources to cite, could actually write it. I am not sure which of the articles about decimal numbers it would belong in, though (properly linked from other articles).--Nø (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I can possibly buy that some content of that kind might be useful in this article, but I'm not the one to write it. I was mainly responding to what I thought was an unsound inference, from infinite decimal expansions implicitly assume completed infinities and Cantor was the first mathematician to treat completed infinities as first-class objects in a way that really seemed like doing mathematics, and that really led somewhere, both of which are true, to no one used infinite decimal expansions before Cantor, which I find highly doubtful, though I don't have a source to directly refute it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

From the 1608 English translation of Stevin's book: It sometimes happens that the quotient cannot be expressed by whole numbers, as in the case of 4 divided by 3. Here, it appears that the quotient will be infinitely many threes with always one-third in addition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah ha! Time for some reading. Thank you! --Algr (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I made an edit. It was reverted. I don't think that the formal proof given belongs in the Elementary Proof section, I don't have a PhD in the subject, but it certainly doesn't seem elementary, in any sense of the word. I'm not saying it has no place on the page, simply that it doesnt' belong there. Cliff (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

This formal proof is simply the formalization of the content of the two preceding subsections. So, if it would not belong to this section the two preceding subsections should be removed also. If you know of a proof that is mathematically correct, and more elementary, please produce a reliable source for it. I doubt that such a proof exist, as there were many discussions, involving many editors, on this subject on this talk page, and nobody has proposed a more elementary correct proof. D.Lazard (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It is an elementary proof in the sense that it uses only basic techniques. An elementary proof is not necessarily simple, in the sense of being easy to understand or trivial. In fact, some elementary proofs can be quite complicated. The "Algebraic arguments" and "Infinite series and sequences" of "Analytic proofs" use elementary maths of the kind taught in primary school, but are not formal proofs. Dedekind Cut and Cauchy Sequence require undergraduate university maths. No part of the article requires postgraduate maths. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we're hitting a language barrier then. In the US, "elementary" is not commonly used this way, and strongly connotes simplicity and ease of understanding. I understand your meaning, and your use, and do not disagree with it. Maybe the section title needs to be changed? Cliff (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it completely, as it doesn't really add anything to the argument beyond the informal discussion a few paragraphs before; it just performs some trivial symbol manipulation before pulling the Archimedean property out of a hat to give the final result. The Archimedean property is the real meat here, and without incorporating a proof of that, this isn't really a proof at all. -- The Anome (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I've restored it. It has been there a long time and there is no consensus to remove. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7 and D.Lazard: Just because material is long-established is not a good reason to keep it. The "formal proof" is neither formal, nor is it a proof, since it hinges entirely on the Archimedean property of the reals, which is neither taken as an axiom, nor proved within it as a lemma. It in effect says only "1 - 0.999... = ε < 1/10ⁿ for all n in Z⁺; the Archimedean property holds, therefore ε = 0, therefore 1 = 0.999..." only in a more wordy way that illuminates nothing. And you can't prove the Archimedean property of the reals without formalizing the reals in some way, which leads us to the proper formal proofs further down the article, which address all of this properly. -- The Anome (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

As the standard definition of 0.999... is to be the least upper bound of its truncations. This is a theorem that such a least upper bound exists and equals 1; the equation 0.999... = 1 is a short statement of this theorem. As for every theorem, a proof is needed, and, as it is a theorem on real numbers, every proof must rely on basic properties of real numbers, here the Archimedean property. Generally, proofs are not given in Wikipedia, but there are needed for counterintuitive results. Specifically in this case, as the article is intended to beginners in mathematics, a proof is required. In mathematics, the only way to contest a proved counterintuitive result is to show that the proof is wrong. This is fundamental, but apparently not always taught in elementary courses.

So, this section is required early in the article, as the only correct answer to people who contest 0.999... = 1 is to say: "Here is a proof. If you disagree, you must show that this proof is wrong".

However, because of the modern meaning of "formal proof" (proof that can be checked on a computer), I'll change "formal" into "rigorous". D.Lazard (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@D.Lazard: You say " In mathematics, the only way to contest a proved counterintuitive result is to show that the proof is wrong." This is nonsense; as Christopher Hitchens said, that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. And what is asserted here without evidence is the Archimedean property. As students are taught, even in the most elementary logic classes, there is a difference between a sound argument and a valid argument.

For example, "if something-or-other, then 0.999... = 1" is an entirely valid argument. But it's not a proof of anything, because it pulls "something-or-other" our of the ether by mere bold assertion.

In the case of the "formal elementary proof" in the article, the Archimedean property is the missing link and the whole argument collapses at that point; one of the premises of the argument is simply missing. The Archimedean property is by no means obvious, and simply does not hold in some cases; for example, in the surreal numbers (although, of course, 0.999... = 1 is still true in the surreals, it's just that you can't pull the Archimedean property out of a hat to prove it).

And the reason it has to be pulled out of a hat is that you have no real definition of "real number" at that point in the article. You are, of course, quite right in your discussion of the standard construction of the reals, and the Archimedean property is indeed a real thing, and the proof is then correct. But the moment you start entertaining concepts like least upper bounds, you are no longer in the world of elementary mathematics, and you are in the realm of more sophisticated arguments, which the article provides just a few paragraphs below. -- The Anome (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems elementary, since it already defined at the top of the article that this is real numbers, so a property of real numbers is already elemental. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the Archimedean property is indeed a property of the (standard) real numbers. But so is 0.999... = 1. The "proof" relies entirely on the Archimedean property, and the lack of proving that makes a nonsense of calling this a rigorous proof.

I've now re-cast the exact same argument in terms of derivation from the Archimedean property; and re-titled the subsection to match. -- The Anome (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

There are two problems in your way of reasoning. Firstly, 0.999... = 1 is a property of real numbers. So, nothing can be said on this subject without supposing that the real numbers are known by readers. Archimedean property is a property that is assumed in every treatment of the real numbers, either as an axiom, or as a direct consequence of the axioms, or as a property that results from experimental evidence; the latter was the case before 20th century, and is still the case at elementary level, since an axiomatic treatment is far too technical for most users of real numbers.

The second problem here is that 0.999... is an infinite decimal, and some teachers do not understand that "infinite decimal" is a non-elementary concept. It requires the concept of actual infinity, which was so unnatural that it was not accepted before the 20th century. To be properly defined an infinite decimal requires either the concept of least upper bound or the less elementary concept of limit. So nothing proper can be said on infinite decimals without the concept of least upper bound.

Finally, some of your sentences suggest that you do not accept that the "real numbers" is the standard, and nonstandard real numbers are not real numbers. This may be your opinion, but it is WP:OR and cannot be used in Wikipedia. D.Lazard (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to write a second proof in the section "Algebraic arguments"? Here is an alternative representation using infinite sums for readers who do not understand or accept repeating decimals:
${\displaystyle x=0.(9)_{n}={\frac {9}{10}}+{\frac {9}{10^{2}}}+{\frac {9}{10^{3}}}+...=\sum _{i=1}^{\infty }{\frac {9}{10^{i}}}}$
${\displaystyle 10x=\sum _{i=1}^{\infty }{\frac {9}{10^{i-1}}}=\sum _{i=0}^{\infty }{\frac {9}{10^{i}}}}$
${\displaystyle 10x-x=9x=\sum _{i=0}^{\infty }{\frac {9}{10^{i}}}-\sum _{i=1}^{\infty }{\frac {9}{10^{i}}}={\frac {9}{10^{0}}}=9}$
${\displaystyle x=1}$ OneToZero (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi - shouldn't the link in the second sentence of the article link to the supremum (smallest number no less than all elements of a set), not the infimum (largest number no greater than all elements of a set)? (Not very good at Wikipedia, don't understand the etiquette - please excuse my not signing this.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.228.252 (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The second sentence links to Infimum and supremum, where the second paragraph defines "supremum". I do not see any problem. D.Lazard (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

At a second thought, there is problem, described in WP:SUBMARINE, and I have fixed it. D.Lazard (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, saying ".9 repeating equals 1" is not necessarily true. It is true for real numbers, but not necessarily for hyperreal numbers. I think the statement should be clarified. If .9 repeating holds for real numbers but not elsewhere, why could I not say 3 = 1, because 3 = 1 mod 2 and 1 = 1 mod 2? I believe the article should add "In standard analysis" before "This number is equal to 1.", due to the fact that it is not necessarily true.

--The big parsely (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)The Big Parsely

Could you say which sentence exactly you are unhappy with? Gesturing at hyperreals isn't enough, because repeating decimals give no way of coherently picking out hyperreals with nonstandard parts. The article already has 0.999...#Infinitesimals, which I think you are aware of. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, saying ".9 repeating equals 1" is not necessarily true. It is true for real numbers, but not necessarily for hyperreal numbers.

Hyperreal numbers are not only nonstandard and not necessary to account for in the lead section. If we took this approach here, to be logically consistent we would have to provide alternative definitions of the limit and derivative (which are not elegantly expressed using limits with a hyperreal framework) for every possible construction of math in every article where they are defined and in every section (even lead sections). Just to list 2 basic concepts that would be affected, not to mention series and all related articles on them. It's enough for these constructions to be explained in a subsection, in my view. Also, by the transfer principle statements of this kind (first order) such as .9~ = 1 that are true in the real numbers must also be true in the hyperreals.

why could I not say 3 = 1, because 3 = 1 mod 2 and 1 = 1 mod 2?

That's an incorrect statement, in modular arithmetic we would say 3 is congruent to 1 (modulo 2), not that they are equal. Freeze4576 (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

".9 repeating equals 1" is not necessarily true. It is also not necessarily false. It is simply nonsensical if the definition of ".9 repeating" is not given or if the context where this definition applies is not given. The article describes clearly the meaning of the notation .999... (this is nothing else as a notation) and proves that the number represented by this notation is the number 1. It is never said that the notation is used in other contexts. So there is definitively nothing incorrect there. D.Lazard (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It is also not true that the population of the Earth is 7.9 billion, if we e.g. don't use short scale, or if we use undecimal. It's sensible, however, to assume the standard meaning af words and notations, at least for a start (i.e. in the lead) - if relevant, we can get into the more exotic things further down in the article.--Nø (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't "like" the subject of this article. I'm used to the idea that "a number can be represented in one and only one way by a decimal", so it's uncomfortable, but I accept it because I know it's true.

Several authors are cited in the "Skepticism in education" section. Does any of them also talk about people who "dislike" the concept but still accept it, for example Tall's case studies? If so, could anything be added to the "Cultural phenomenon" section? A scholarly sentence/paragraph about popular opinion would be at least as good in this section as the current remarks about UseNet and World of Warcraft. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the introductory statement on the number represented by 0.999... will be mostly ignored or not adequately understood by the typical reader. I recommend adding the following to the Wikipedia page, particularly somewhere above where the proofs start.

There's a recurring complaint by editors who don't like to see highly technical content represented in Wikipedia. They say that the only people who can understand it don't need it anyway.

Most of the time they're just wrong about that. There is lots of technical content in Wikipedia that is not readable without some fairly meaty background, but that is very useful to those who have the background.

For the purposes of this article, though, the complaint has some merit. If you understand the real numbers rigorously, the identity of 0.999... and 1.000... is a trivial fact of minor interest (the topological implications can be a little more interesting, but this would not be the right title for that article).

The audience that will benefit from this article is composed primarily of people who don't understand limits. This is probably not the right article to teach them about limits.

That's why I think the best chance of delivering value from this article is to emphasize the Archimedean principle. --Trovatore (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

1/3 = 0.333..., so multiplying both sides by 3 we get 1 = 0.999...

This is the simplest way to show this identity, and I think it is very important for this article. Why is it only listed as an "argument" and not as a "proof"? Are there problems with this proof?

If there are indeed problems with this proof, I think we should include this proof and explain its problems in this article, because I think it's important for this topic. Cooper2222 (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It lacks the rigor of a true formal mathematical proof. We include it for pedagogical reasons. As the article states, it is easily understood, and satisfies most readers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Another answer that may (or may not) better address User:Cooper2222s doubts: The argument based on 1/3 is not wrong as such, but how do you know that 0.333... * 3 = 0.999...? It's true, but is it completely obvious, with no room for doubt? How? One can prove that usual algorithms for arithmetic operations with decimal numbers are correct for terminating decimals, but do we know they are valid for non-teminating ones too? The proper proof of 0.999... = 1, as given in the article, goes to first principles, therefore we know that 0.999... = 1, but it is satisfying and reassuring that less rigorous arguments like the one based on 1/3 get it right too. -- Note that you could easily construct a "proof" that 0.999... < 1, based on principles that are valid for terminating decimals, but the proof from first principles show this to be wrong.--Nø (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The claim 0.333... * 3 = 0.999... is going to be true under pretty much any interpretation. The harder step is actually 0.333... = 1/3. People accept that because they're used to it and it's the answer that comes out of short division, but what if 1/3 just doesn't have a decimal representation, and short division just doesn't give an exact answer here?

That would be the situation, for example, working in Fred Richman's "decimal numbers" (which don't allow subtraction or negative numbers).

But as I said above, we should try to explain the situation without requiring explaining limits, which are a big step for readers who need this article. The Archimedean principle is easier to explain, I think. --Trovatore (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Trovatore, you argue from the point of view of someone knowing a lot about mathematics and different number constructions. I try to argue from the point of view of the reader we are trying to help here. It is - such a reader would say - common knowledge that 1/3 = 0.333... (and it is true, too, even if the arguments are complicated and only valid for some constructions of the numbers). Allthough most number constructions that include 0.333... also agree that 0.333... * 3 = 0.999..., it is not trivial.--Nø (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's more trivial than the other equality involved, namely 1/3 = 0.333.... --Trovatore (talk) 07:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Since there appears to be some dispute over the section on ultrafinitism, I will say that I favor removing that section altogether, as the currently cited source from Sazonov does not mention 0.999... at all. It is trying to formalize a notion of numbers "not too big" to conceive of, so has no bearing on the current article whatsoever. It would take some significant original research to apply this to 0.999..., and at any rate ultrafinitism is a sufficiently fringe theory that there is no need to include it in the article. AristippusSer (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)r.

I agree to remove this section. D.Lazard (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Concur. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree to remove the section. I don't think it improves the article and it may confuse readers by giving untoward promotion of a decidedly fringe viewpoint. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not agree to remove the section. It seems fine and relevant when cited well, and I see no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water if you will - even if you happen to disagree with the view of ultrafinitism (or even feel it is not worthy of being a valid "view"). I believe it may be best for some users with strong feelings either way on the topic (as it seems to bring out, humorously enough) to distance themselves from the article.

A MINOTAUR (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC) A MINOTAUR (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

If nothing else I think we should allow for the talk page to ruminate before making any decisions. The last edit citing a "consensus" formed over roughly 12 hours by four people (3 of who were directly involved in original editing) seems a bit silly. A MINOTAUR (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:SNOWBALL. D.Lazard (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I actually do think that this POV is likely worthy of mention in some form. Ideally it should be done in a way that makes it clear that the ultrafinitist doesn't consider 0.999... to be something different from 1, but rather simply not a legitimate "thing" at all.

That said, I do not know where to find high-quality sources. At some point this article quoted a nearly incomprehensible rant from Doron Zeilberger, who by all accounts is a serious mathematician, but who was clearly not writing in a usable way in that particular piece of venting. --Trovatore (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@A MINOTAUR: The problem is not just with ultrafinitism being a minority viewpoint; it is that the Sazonov paper cited in the article does not support the section in any way, and thus the entire section as it was written was WP:OR.

In any case, I still fail to see how ultrafinitism is relevant here, as opposed to, well, just regular finitism. For instance, finitists would be OK with 0.999... with ${\displaystyle 2^{1000}}$ 9's after the decimal point, whereas ultrafinitists might possibly take issue with this, but it would depend on their particular formalization.

Again, I would be open to including a section on ultrafinitism provided it cites a reliable source by someone who is mathematically qualified and specifically addressing the application of ultrafinitism on 0.999..., but the source cited before was not that. And again, WP:OR means that this website is decidedly not the place to publish any original research or interpretation. AristippusSer (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Narrowly addressing the ultra-vs-regular finitism question: I think the usual distinction is that the "regular" finitist accepts so-called "potential infinity", a concept going back at least to Aristotle, whereas the "ultra" finitist may not accept even arbitrarily large natural numbers (test question: Is it obvious that the function ${\displaystyle n\mapsto 2^{n}}$ is total on the natural numbers?). It's possible to frame the equality 0.999...=1 as a statement about potential infinity, so "regular" finitists should accept it. --Trovatore (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

How I see it is that finitists can accept "0.999..." as a notation and agree that it represents the same underlying number as 1, but they would disagree that it represents an actual decimal expansion the way one might analogize from the basis of finite decimal expansions like 0.9. A priori it seems to me that ultrafinitists would not have any philosophical difficulty in accepting the same thing, just as they would not have problems with ${\displaystyle {\frac {1}{3}}}$ and ${\displaystyle {\frac {2}{3}}}$ either, only the interpretation of their decimal expansions as analogous to finite decimals.

In any case, this would all make a very interesting topic to discuss on a math forum, but let me stop myself from straying too far from the editorial discussion at hand. My point is, we need a reliable source talking about this if we don't want to violate the policy against OR, and the fact that the editor of the original section did not really attempt to address the finitism/ultrafinitism distinction certainly would not fill one with confidence in their original research, to say the least! AristippusSer (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the concerns about drifting off topic, but you have to let me respond. The point is that an ultrafinitist may consider 0.999... going to infinity to be simply nonsense, since they don't accept the idea of "going to infinity" even potentially. Keeping it on-topic, that's the possible ultrafinitist objection that could possibly be covered in the article. For a person with such a viewpoint, presumably ${\displaystyle {\frac {1}{3}}}$ simply does not have a decimal representation. --Trovatore (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I do appreciate this explanation a bit better, as I truly do largely just care about references being used accurately (and not somewhat haphazardly in order to justify various viewpoints). I suspect there are a few cases of the latter still present in the article, as this particular case of mathematical "pedantic-semantics" really seems to fire people up - but I suppose those are issues for another day.

Regardless, thank you for the more in depth reply. It shines a good light on your character. A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)