Do any of you see a flaw/agree with this theory?

[Red]

that would be the same as

lim (1/10^(n-1))
n->∞

right?

in that case, it sure is the smallest.

I believe so. Except, what is "lim"? I've never heard of that term before. ????

And if this were to be offical (Which I'm pretty sure it already is. :D ), which term would be used, mine or yours?

limit.  It reads as "as n approaches infinity, this thing will approach this number"...in this case, zero, but it just never gets there.

Oh, I see. In this case, 0 is the limit, and multiplying (1/10^(n-1)) by infinity would get you 0, but since it's, well, infinity, you will never reach zero, correct? Also, if I'm correct, would that mean it's possible to get every number between X and 0 without ever actually reaching 0? Because if that's true, that plays well in my interpritation of time. 8)

Yes. Between any two numbers there is infinite numbers, so your, "interpretation" of time has that fact to back it up.

[bluaki]

I asked my 7th grade math teacher (2 years ago) when I thought the same thing if it's possible to have a nonending decimal and a digit after that and I was told it isn't :-\ (not that I completely trust answers from a math teacher on a subject beyond what they're supposed to teach)

Anyways, assuming 0.999...=1 and that 1-0.999...=0.00...1, wouldn't 0.00...1 be equal to zero?

[Zovistograt]

I asked my 7th grade math teacher (2 years ago) when I thought the same thing if it's possible to have a nonending decimal and a digit after that and I was told it isn't :-\

Anyways, assuming 0.999...=1 and that 1-0.999...=0.00...1, wouldn't 0.00...1 be equal to zero?

it's a matter of stating it with limits or not.  You can't really state it algebraically like that, or else you're just saying what the limit is.

[bluaki]

I asked my 7th grade math teacher (2 years ago) when I thought the same thing if it's possible to have a nonending decimal and a digit after that and I was told it isn't :-\

Anyways, assuming 0.999...=1 and that 1-0.999...=0.00...1, wouldn't 0.00...1 be equal to zero?

it's a matter of stating it with limits or not.  You can't really state it algebraically like that, or else you're just saying what the limit is.

I don't even know what a limit is :(

I blame the slowness of the public education system

[Zovistograt]

I asked my 7th grade math teacher (2 years ago) when I thought the same thing if it's possible to have a nonending decimal and a digit after that and I was told it isn't :-\

Anyways, assuming 0.999...=1 and that 1-0.999...=0.00...1, wouldn't 0.00...1 be equal to zero?

it's a matter of stating it with limits or not.  You can't really state it algebraically like that, or else you're just saying what the limit is.

I don't even know what a limit is :(

I blame the slowness of the public education system

I'd send you to Wikipedia, but I realize that trying to learn math from Wikipedia is like putting an elementary school student in a college calculus class, olol

A limit is what an infinite sequence is ultimately going to reach at the infinite term, or in other words, never going to reach but come really close.

[bluaki]

I asked my 7th grade math teacher (2 years ago) when I thought the same thing if it's possible to have a nonending decimal and a digit after that and I was told it isn't :-\

Anyways, assuming 0.999...=1 and that 1-0.999...=0.00...1, wouldn't 0.00...1 be equal to zero?

it's a matter of stating it with limits or not.  You can't really state it algebraically like that, or else you're just saying what the limit is.

I don't even know what a limit is :(

I blame the slowness of the public education system

I'd send you to Wikipedia, but I realize that trying to learn math from Wikipedia is like putting an elementary school student in a college calculus class, olol

A limit is what an infinite sequence is ultimately going to reach at the infinite term, or in other words, never going to reach but come really close.

Yeah, I realized that quite a while ago. I found this earlier, though.

Oh, ok.

[Shujinco2]

I asked my 7th grade math teacher (2 years ago) when I thought the same thing if it's possible to have a nonending decimal and a digit after that and I was told it isn't :-\ (not that I completely trust answers from a math teacher on a subject beyond what they're supposed to teach)

Anyways, assuming 0.999...=1 and that 1-0.999...=0.00...1, wouldn't 0.00...1 be equal to zero?

No, because that 1 in there states that it is, in fact, more than 0.

It would be 0 if it were 0.000...0, due to simplifying. In other words, 2 = 2.000...0 but 2 = 2.000...1, because it is ever so slightly bigger than 2.

BTW, = means Unequal to, because I don't know how to make the unequal to sign on the computer. :D

[Zovistograt]

I asked my 7th grade math teacher (2 years ago) when I thought the same thing if it's possible to have a nonending decimal and a digit after that and I was told it isn't :-\ (not that I completely trust answers from a math teacher on a subject beyond what they're supposed to teach)

Anyways, assuming 0.999...=1 and that 1-0.999...=0.00...1, wouldn't 0.00...1 be equal to zero?

No, because that 1 in there states that it is, in fact, more than 0.

It would be 0 if it were 0.000...0, due to simplifying. In other words, 2 = 2.000...0 but 2 = 2.000...1, because it is ever so slightly bigger than 2.

BTW, = means Unequal to, because I don't know how to make the unequal to sign on the computer. :D

you could just do this: =/=

But the problem is that if you say it like that, it doesn't work out too well.  That's why I'm saying that if you put it in limit form, nobody can argue that, say, 2 = 2.000...0001.  They can say the limit is (in that case) 2, but they can't say it will actually ever reach that point.

Once we start talking in terms of infinity, it gets a bit screwed up, olol.

[bluaki]

BTW, = means Unequal to, because I don't know how to make the unequal to sign on the computer. :D

you could just do this: =/=

I think != looks better for inequality, unless you're in a situation that might use factorials or whatever else that uses exclamation mark

[Shujinco2]

I asked my 7th grade math teacher (2 years ago) when I thought the same thing if it's possible to have a nonending decimal and a digit after that and I was told it isn't :-\ (not that I completely trust answers from a math teacher on a subject beyond what they're supposed to teach)

Anyways, assuming 0.999...=1 and that 1-0.999...=0.00...1, wouldn't 0.00...1 be equal to zero?

No, because that 1 in there states that it is, in fact, more than 0.

It would be 0 if it were 0.000...0, due to simplifying. In other words, 2 = 2.000...0 but 2 = 2.000...1, because it is ever so slightly bigger than 2.

BTW, = means Unequal to, because I don't know how to make the unequal to sign on the computer. :D

you could just do this: =/=

But the problem is that if you say it like that, it doesn't work out too well.  That's why I'm saying that if you put it in limit form, nobody can argue that, say, 2 = 2.000...0001.  They can say the limit is (in that case) 2, but they can't say it will actually ever reach that point.

Once we start talking in terms of infinity, it gets a bit screwed up, olol.

Well, basically, 2 is a 2, a decimal point and then an infinite amount of zeroes. Going by that, wouldn't 0 be a 0, decimal point, and then infinite zeroes? Which means putting a 1 in there makes it NOT zero.

I don't know about you, but I can understand this pretty well. And doesn't it work in all cases anyway?

[bluaki]

Somewhat related, is it possible to express the highest possible value of x in x<1?
I'd at first expect it to be 0.999... but that's supposedly equal to one.

oh and another thing, is it possible to make an overline in bbcode?

[Zovistograt]

I asked my 7th grade math teacher (2 years ago) when I thought the same thing if it's possible to have a nonending decimal and a digit after that and I was told it isn't :-\ (not that I completely trust answers from a math teacher on a subject beyond what they're supposed to teach)

Anyways, assuming 0.999...=1 and that 1-0.999...=0.00...1, wouldn't 0.00...1 be equal to zero?

No, because that 1 in there states that it is, in fact, more than 0.

It would be 0 if it were 0.000...0, due to simplifying. In other words, 2 = 2.000...0 but 2 = 2.000...1, because it is ever so slightly bigger than 2.

BTW, = means Unequal to, because I don't know how to make the unequal to sign on the computer. :D

you could just do this: =/=

But the problem is that if you say it like that, it doesn't work out too well.  That's why I'm saying that if you put it in limit form, nobody can argue that, say, 2 = 2.000...0001.  They can say the limit is (in that case) 2, but they can't say it will actually ever reach that point.

Once we start talking in terms of infinity, it gets a bit screwed up, olol.

Well, basically, 2 is a 2, a decimal point and then an infinite amount of zeroes. Going by that, wouldn't 0 be a 0, decimal point, and then infinite zeroes? Which means putting a 1 in there makes it NOT zero.

I don't know about you, but I can understand this pretty well. And doesn't it work in all cases anyway?

the problem is that if you go your algebraic route, someone can bring up the .9999... = 1 proof which could apply here.  Using limits takes away the need for that.

Somewhat related, is it possible to express the highest possible value of x in x<1?
I'd at first expect it to be 0.999... but that's supposedly equal to one.

let's see here

∞
Σ (.9/(10^-n))
n = 0

[HTA!]

Somewhat related, is it possible to express the highest possible value of x in x<1?
I'd at first expect it to be 0.999... but that's supposedly equal to one.

oh and another thing, is it possible to make an overline in bbcode?

Depends how you look at it.. seeing as 0 .999... will never truly be 1, but in math we say it is.

As for the decimal theory...
0.0...1 is in theory the smallest decimal possible, although at the same time I guess it could be said to be impossible due to the fact that its well, infinite. In theoretical terms I suppose it is, but really there is no use for such numbers that I am currently aware of.

[Riosan]

you all confuse me with your math talk

Depends how you look at it.. seeing as 0 .999... will never truly be 1, but in math we say it is.

As for the decimal theory...
0.0...1 is in theory the smallest decimal possible, although at the same time I guess it could be said to be impossible due to the fact that its well, infinite. In theoretical terms I suppose it is, but really there is no use for such numbers that I am currently aware of.

I say we end the thread here. The original decimal theory is both correct in saying that 0.0...1 is the smallest number possible and that it is both impossible because nothing can come after an infinite number of 0s.