Instigator / Pro
2
1554
rating
15
debates
73.33%
won
Topic
#1655

0.999... is NOT equal to 1

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
2
5

After 5 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

garai
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
5
1507
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

First of all, whatever either said elsewhere, is not proof within this debate. Second, there's no need to accuse anyone of living in the matrix.

While I did not find pro's math convincing, it was more than I did not find his math convincing as opposed to finding con's counter case convincing (maybe breaking R1 into multiple paragraphs would have helped; and yes, for confusing stuff like this, it's really best to break the concepts apart).

I will say that infinite 9's to the left of the decimal, probably wouldn't change to infinite 9's followed by a 0 when multiplied within the base-10 system.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

This Math is really confusing my brain, and I feel like oromagi and Madman have covered the Math part really well, way better than I could have every tried. But here's my opinion on the non-Math things...

Neither of you guys had a format, or a full speech, even though you were given 5000 characters to do so. With a 5000 character limit, I would except solid arguments with a clear format and organized clash, but that wasn't present here.

Pro however contradicts himself using himself in the first round, which I find quite odd. He tries to disprove his own case, but ends up cancelling his case out. Con takes notice of this.

Due to that reason, and the other voters reasons, Con wins.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

PRO begins with solid evidence for the notion he has offered to disprove and then promises to disprove the notion using the same equation.

But PRO uses a new equation (10X - X =/= X - 10X), inserting a negative result and proving zilcho. Likewise, he replaces the irrational value of his equation with an infinite number which behaves quite differently.

Either side arguing for the "existence" of one irrational or infinite number is oxymoronic when by definition such numbers can't be accurately represented much less exist. e. I don't think PRO is using correct or legit notation for infinite nines but when CON tries to de- legitimize an infinite number of nines multiplied by arguing the irrational number he is not persuasive.

Ultimately, PRO loses this argument because he promises a magic reversal but we can see the chosen card peeking out of his sleeve.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro did two things wrong in this debate, despite being on the objectively correct side. I don't know how he even made these errors as I have personally outside of this debate provided him the killer proofs that 0.999... is not equal to 1.

The first thing he did wrong was to bother using the erroneous algebra construct that people use to hocus pocus 0.999... to be equal to 1, then to replace it with 999.0 (instead of 999.999... which would indeed end up making it equal to 1000.000 and that's the whole point, that algebra construct enables erroneous conversion). This was correctly attacked by Con, albeit with strange wording, in the following Round. Con of course is erroneous because the attack Con uses is that 0 can't follow infinite 9's. What Con should have argued was that the number at the start was not at all like 0.999... since it doesn't have infinite 9's following the decimal point.

Pro does start to tackle this in the way I have introduced Pro to outside of this debate but Pro does it wrong. Instead of pointing out that if 0 can't follow infinite 9's, neither can the imaginary '9' at the end of it all, Pro decides to play around even more with the abusive algebra which Pro should be showing is corrupt because you can't reverse engineer it (the fact you can never start with 1 and end up with 0.999... means that there is clearly something erroneous about the algebra, even if you completely flip around the equations, you never end up with 0.999... at the start, this key way of negating the algebra isn't employed by Pro in the entire debate). Pro starts to keep almost joking around with his 'proof' that 0.999... is not equal to 1 with some really confusing algebraic display that tries to show you can make something else happen with algebra and infinite series that involve 9. This had nothing to do with the debate. What Con does is also very silly and minimalistic, but I know why Con did that. Con is on the side that is a lie, therefore Con's best bet at winning is to avoid going into details and depth and instead sticking to rhetoric like "a 0 can't follow infinite 9's therefore you are wrong" well, neither can a 9... But Pro doesn't hit that point home.

Neither side brought up the 1/3 - 0.333... angle, this is a much stronger case for Con to make as it's backed up by school syllabus content (which lies but is considered highly reliable due to what it is). This then means that 1/3 * 3 technically equals 0.999... and the only way for Pro to counter it is to expose that 1/3 does not equal 0.333... but instead equals 0.333...0333...0333 infinitely over and over again. Pro doesn't do this but Con doesn't bring it up.

Since this debate is structured with Pro having the burden of proof and since Con does kind of 'hit home' a point about that 0 can't follow infinite 9's and pro doesn't turn it back on Con with the '9' following the infinite 9's, Con takes the win.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro opened with two mathematical equations that contradict each other. Con denied that the second equation was valid because he claimed ...9990 doesn't exist. Con then attempted a play on words to say that 0.999...0 doesn't exist because an infinite number can't end. Pro refuted these claims by pointing out that the existence of 0s at the beginning or end of a number does not prevent there from being an infinite number of 9s before the end or after the beginning.
Overall, neither side was able to prove their case. Pro relied on contradictory equations and Con stuck to attempts to refute Pro's claims.
The only source was Pro citing himself. Both sides had good conduct and S&G.