>>16991740
Because the "last little bit" is 0
infinitesimals can't exist in the standard real number system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedean_property

File: 1760588345535862.jpg (100.4 KB)

>>16991740
You just have to remind yourself that math isn't real.
Trying to explain/measure reality with ten symbol system is a laughable act, and in essence very limiting to mankind.

>>16991740
.333... tends toward 1/3, so its limit is 1/3.
Just take the limit and add it up.

>why is 3/3=1 and not 0.99999 forever?
It's equal to both. .999... is another way of writing 1 since the limit of .999... is 1. But, yes .333... * 3 is equal to .999... and is referred to as 1, since that's where it tends toward.

>>16991740
>why is 3/3=1 and not 0.99999 forever?
false, it is equal to .99999...

what do you even mean by 3/3 = 1? Clearly 3 = 3, 4 = 4. How do you know that 3-3 = 0? Define to us what it means to be equal.
Is a crab apple equal to a fuji apple? No? But they're both apples!
Is a white man equal to a black man? Yes? But white isn't the same as black!
Is 16:00 equal to 4:00 PM? Yes? But how is 4 = 16?

Math requires definitions of objects and relations. Equality and equivalence classes (=), order (< or >), upper or lower bounds, all of these you learn early on when you start doing math rigorously. In calculus, to find the area under a curve, you start with rectangles of well defined area, then keep adding them to fill up as many of the gaps as you can. As you continue to fill in the gaps under this curve, if you continue until the gaps get close to zero, isn't it the same as the area under a curve? What is .99999999... to you other than 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + ...? For each step we take, aren't we getting closer and closer to 1? For any arbitrary gap size, say .0001, can't I get a sum that's closer to the number 1 than that gap, say .99999? Aren't all the sums after .9999 closer to 1 by less than .0001? This is how equality is defined for these specific objects. To define clock times, you use mod arithmetic equality or equivalence classes, and similarly for even or odd numbers, (equality mod 2).

Right now you should also be asking, then how do you define a number? Just take a real analysis class or read an intro book.

>>16991803

Honestly, I think the problem is with us using base 10. We should use a real base system like base 10 instead.

>>16991740
Why is 1/1 equal to 1? Why is 10/10 equal to 1? Why does 1 divide easily into 10 parts but not 9 parts?
There's your answer.

>>16991740

Both are the same.

x = 0.999999
10x= 9.999999
Subtract
9x=9
x=1

0.999999 = 1

>nigger brained retards on /sci/ stuck on 1/3 forever
tiresome

File: 1500389311414.gif (2.4 MB)

>>16991900
>x = 0.999999
>10x= 9.999999
>Subtract
>9x=9

>>16991740
Because 1/3 is not exactly 0.333...; 0.333... is just the decimal way of getting infinitely close to a true third.

It’s like how 3 is not exactly a third of 10, but it’s the closest whole number you can use. Since you can’t divide 10 evenly by 3, you keep adding more 3s after the decimal to get closer and closer to a true third: 0.3, then 0.33, then 0.333, and so on.

So 0.333... is not really a true third like 1/3, it’s just the decimal system trying to represent something that does not have a decimal form, so you can’t really make computations with it in that form.

1/3 = 3/10 + 1/30
= 0.3 + 1/30
= 0.33 + 1/300
= 0.333 + 1/3000
:
= 0.333... + 1/inf
= 0.333... + 0
= 0.333...

>>16991740
God adds it suddenly when you get to the last number, but it's very fast

>>16991931
wouldn't it be 9x=9.0000000000000000000000000 texhnically

File: 1753223714848011.png (308.1 KB)

>>16991803
why this makes sense

I can't accept a fact that I've spent years on literally nothing

>>16992144
What's 9x9 retard

>>16992224
sorry to hear that, seems you can't even use a comma.

it's 81. No problem buddy. Take care.

>>16991740
But maybe... maybe you found a zero day exploit in reality and until math gets patched, we can.. turn numbers into slightly smaller numbers? Like when you go to a casino and can reliably turn a pile of money into a smaller pile of money.

>>16992300
9x9 is the same as 9x.9, dumbfuck, no matter how many 9s you put there it will never be 9, axiomatically stating that x=.999.. and then magically turning x into 1 two lines later is a perfect example why 0.999..=1 dogmatists are braindead retards

>>16991740
because [math]3 \neq 0[/math] and thus [math]3^{-1}[/math] is the multiplicative inverse of [math]3[/math] which, by definition, requires [math]3 \cdot 3^{-1} = 1[/math]

The little bit leftover approaches zero and at infinity, is zero

>>16991740
3/3 = (3 x 1) / (3 x 1) = 1/1 = 1

>>16991740
>Why is 3/3 equal to 1?
Were this not to be the case, three body systems would stabilize and matter would be forced into it's minimal possible energy state meaning energy in mass form and subsequently observable matter could not exist
>Where does the last little bit get added to 3/3 to have it equal 1?
This math likely arises from the slight asymmetry of the early universe - that "missing" bit is probably infinitely small, or at least as small as the difference between matter and antimatter in the early universe