mathematically you can divide something into pieces and put it together in a way that its infinitely larger.

What can i say, it's counter-intuitive. Show me all the algebra problems you like, but sticking 1 equal to .999999... just doesn't sound kosher.

But I'm assuming that most people have here have been through Algebra 2, where they usually prove this type of crap.

But I'm assuming that most people have here have been through Algebra 2, where they usually prove this type of crap.

My Algebra 2 class didn't, nor did it seem likely that it would ever be pertinent to an Aglebra 2 curriculum.

Yeah I was stupied to vote no, as it doesn't seem to be true, yet I remember back to my math and saw the errors of my ways.

I can understand how it seems counter-intuitive. No problem there. What I can't understand is why, after almost EVERYONE disagrees with you and several posts provide mathematical evidence written by PhDs in math, you STILL disagree. Maybe for things like math you should stop trusting your instincts: "That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say "I did look it up, and that's not true." That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works." - Colbert Report

1/9 = 0.111111111.... 2/9 = 0.222222222.... .... 9/9 = 0.999999999.... So the only real question here is whether 0.999999... is a mathematically inferior/incorrect way of saying 9/9.

well obviously because its infinite. Its gonna be the longest possible way to say anything. is something that is infinitely small actually nothing at all?

Obviously it is, as you just proved it yourself. Something infinitely small IS equal to zero. This is basically just a poll of how much you know about math. There is a correct answer and an incorrect answer to the question. There is no "my opinion". Lim [1/x] = 0 x->Infinity

stop proving me wrong, im trying to keep the thread going you sill chap <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/angry.gif"></A>

I guess i just figure that someone with a PhD in mathematics might just be able to come up with a more convincing argument than "1/3=.3333... ergo .333333...x3 = 3/3 = 1 = .99999..." or "No, i'm sorry, it is."

No, because it's assuming that 1/3 = .33333... I don't just have a problem with this at the .99999... = 1 level. It doesn't bode well to me with any fraction. The entire string of fractions and equivalent decimals seems flawed. I figure if it's such a simple concept, then there has to be a way of explaining it that doesn't start out with "1/3 = .33333..." Because what if that really ISN'T true? anyway, i'm just explaining my reasoning to neoptolemus, so don't bite my head off.

Because if they're so smart (and i don't doubt that they are) they should be able to explain it without using "1/3 = .3333..." That's like including the word you're defining in the word's definiton.