A strict non-standard inequality .999... < 1 — mentioned by A_D_E_P_T

Mon, 02 Jun 2025 08:42:53 GMT

FWIW, there's an old Arxiv paper with this same argument: https://arxiv.org/abs/0811.0164 It feels intuitively correct is what I'll say in its favor.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A strict non-standard inequality .999... < 1 — mentioned by GregBuchholz

Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:20:19 GMT

Of course that argument only applies when talking about the standard real number system. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.3018.pdf?origin=publication_detail http://arxiv.org/pdf/0811.0164.pdf ...of course you can make a pretty good case that uncountable, uncomputable, unnameable, unknowable "real" numbers don't exist. http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0404335 ...(the impatient should jump to chapter 5). And maybe also: http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~norman/views2.htm

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A strict non-standard inequality .999... < 1 · HackerPapers discussions

A strict non-standard inequality .999... < 1 — mentioned by A_D_E_P_T

A strict non-standard inequality .999... < 1 — mentioned by GregBuchholz