Once you add percision to that. He using a percison of 1., which technically will not work either. Because you usually round to the percision before adding anyways. I got into an argument with a friend of mine about this. Yes you can do it the way he wants to and end up with 3. But it not proper technique, with Percision and Accuracy both going out the window. The correct technique is the way you did it.

This is not true for every irrational number, it is very simple to write down irrational numbers that do not contain any instance of the digit '5'.  However the vast majority (in the sense of Lebesgue measure) of real numbers are normal, meaning that they contain every finite string of digits with the same asymptotic frequency as a uniformly random distribution.

Utterly false, sloppy reasoning.  You're just thinking the limit of compounding on decreasing time scales which converges to continuous compounding.  If you really think this is true, won't you let me loan you a penny with 0.1% interest per second compounded?

The Futuruma writers have way stronger math backgrounds than the vast majority of the people in this thread, not that they were being serious all the time...This thread is almost as depressing (in terms of demonstrating the failure of education) as those pseudomath posts on Facebook which get 100 wrong answers for every right one.

Not to sound arrogant, but it's a pretty established fact that 0.999.. equals 1.

Well, it is perfectly correct once you accept the axiom of choice, as far as I remember. That's not exactly a good argument in this discussion.

I think we're using the word "fact" wrong if it is contested.  In pretty much any math equation you will ever come by, it will equal 1.  However, it is not a fact that .999... itself is actually 1.  Every time I see someone trying to prove it, it keeps showing me that they are either using circular logic, or are approximating, then claiming they are the same thing.

infinite is not a number therefore it doesnt exist

The things which make a woman to a woman are finite so that example is not a good one, especially since you mentioned feelings, behaviour and looks, which are subjective anyway. According to your logic a woman who likes to watch Hockey, American Football etc. or has her head shaved (ignoring cancer) is a man and not a woman, even though she would still be a lot closer to the value 1 (which you define as woman), than any man could ever become.

You cannot draw a circle, so it doesn't exist.

I never met you in the real world, so you don't exist.

Some of you are still not making the difference between a mathematical object and the way we represent it. It's not because we cannot write a number that it doesn't exist. For example, you cannot write the number of particles in the whole universe (which is finite) but this number still exists!

in theory yes I do not exist if you dont see me...and if there is an infite amount of parallel universes then there is an infinite amount of particles..so if theres an infinite amount of particles,atoms etc...does this then mean we do not exist. mindblowing :*D

Nope, cuz a woman can watch Hockey, American Football and be bald womanly.