draik said: 0.333.... = 1/3 Or 0.111... = 1/9 Or x= 0.999... Or 0.999... = 9(1/10) +9(1/10)² + 9(1/10)³ + .... = (9(1/10))/(1-(1/10))=1 |
I still insist, that in any practical application of numbers in the real world:
First Situation (Used in Economics, Most Physics, Statistics)
.(3) ≠ 1/3 Correct
.(3) ≈ 1/3 Correct
.(3) = 1/3 Incorrect
.(9) ≈ 1 Correct
.(9) = 1 Incorrect
OR Second Situation (Used in education, some physics, some theoretical graphing)
.(3) = 1/3 Correct
.(3) ≠ .(3) Correct
There's a big difference between '=' and '≈'.
The only time '=' is an acceptable substitute when simplifying for the sake of education, for theoretical graphing, or when clearly marking .(3) as = to 1/3 and not to the value associated with the real number .(3).
In that last situation, .(3)*3 = 1 ≠ .(9) because .(3) is defined as 1/3.
This ambiguity has been discussed at length and only some extreme theorists and smart ass students pretend not to know the difference between .(3) as a real number and .(3) as a representation of 1/3.
If anything this draiks proofs just prove the flaws of ignoring the recognized ambiguity and the problem with using "close values" instead of exact values.
Lastly, using scientific notation [Σ(3*(1/10)^n)] is the same as saying .(3). Proofing with that notation doesn't make .(9) any closer to 1.
I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.