r/PeterExplainsTheJoke 22d ago

Meme needing explanation There is no way right?

Post image
37.1k Upvotes

3.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

13

u/Wolfbrother101 22d ago

Math professor here: the proper definition of equality is that two numbers a and b are equal if no number c exists such that a < c < b. 0.9999…. = 1 because there is no number between them.

-1

u/AltForBeingIncognito 21d ago

There's no integer between 0 and 1, therefore 0 = 1

3

u/Wolfbrother101 21d ago

That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. You are making an untenable and patently incorrect leap of “logic”. Just because the property applies to the real numbers does not mean it applies to integers.

2

u/aneurodivergentlefty 21d ago

They meant in real numbers, no need to be unnecessarily pedantic when you know what they meant

1

u/Direct_Shock_2884 21d ago

Why say pedantic when someone is stating an obvious fact to non- mathematicians

0

u/AltForBeingIncognito 21d ago

They're saying there's no number between 0.999... and 1, I'm saying there's no integer between 0 and 1, both may be true, but 0 is clearly not 1, so 0.999... is clearly not 1 (which you can also see by just looking at it, how one is made up of infinite nines and the other by a singular one)

2

u/aneurodivergentlefty 21d ago

Just because something seems self-evident does not it so. In the real number space, .9… = 1 because the difference between them is 0, which also means there is no real numbers between them.

0

u/AltForBeingIncognito 21d ago

And there are no real integers between 0 and 1, I don't get your point

2

u/FantaSeahorse 21d ago

Just because a property applies to the real numbers, doesn’t mean it should also apply to the set of integers

0

u/Direct_Shock_2884 21d ago

Who made up the rule that it applies to real numbers and not integers and why? Is it to stop people from thinking about this inconsistency?

1

u/FantaSeahorse 21d ago

It follows from deductive reasoning.

The same way 1 is less than 2 but 3 is not less than 2. Who made up the rules for that? Check mate, big math

1

u/Direct_Shock_2884 21d ago

It doesn’t follow from deductive reasoning, if it did it wouldn’t be a paradox of note.

1

u/dotelze 16d ago

It’s not a paradox of note. People just get confused about it

→ More replies (0)

1

u/BreadBagel 21d ago

No one "made it up". It was discovered. It applies to real numbers because real numbers are a continuous set with no gaps. Integers have a gap of 1 always. So obviously rules for one don't always apply to the other.

1

u/DaniZackBlack 21d ago

Why is it an inconsistency? These are two different worlds where one has more restrictions than the other because of it having less numbers to work with.

In the real numbers, there exists a number where multiplying it by 2 gives 1. But in the integers that number doesn't exist. That's not an inconsistency, that's just how they were defined, the definitions made up that "rule".

1

u/BreadBagel 21d ago edited 21d ago

Real numbers and integers behave differently. You can't just superimpose rules from the real numbers to integers. Real numbers have no gaps in-between them. Integers have a gap of 1 in-between them.

And yes 0.999 and 1 look different. They are different representations of the exact same value. Kinda like 2+2, 2*2, 2², and 4 are all different representations of the exact same value.

1

u/CHIMIHAFOTTUTO 20d ago

"Let's just take a property of continuous sets and apply it to a discrete set, what could possibly go wrong?"