**Complex Mental Masturbation > Simple Mental Masturbation > finite vs infinite**
Billy TMath is not done by "common sense" nor by popular vote, nor by opinion, BUT BY PROOFS.

I agree, however, we cannot discount common sense when it is needed and we all need and use it on occassion.

On this occasion common sense tells me, that your performing mathematically illusionary, mental masturbation i.e. I understand rounding higher, and in this specific case finite 1.0 = 0.999... your need to do two operations, to convert/map 0.999 to 1.0;

1) we stop infinite--- infinite recursion? ----ergo 0.999... becomes a finite 0.999,

2) we 0.999 to 1.0.

This is elementary or probably junior high school level of understanding, is my guess. i dunno

Several different proofs that 1 =0.999... have been presented.

Aledged "proofs", that I certainly do not understand so cannot verify that they are a proof and there are some who dispute those proofs with there math.

You nor anyone else has, and never-- nada/zip/zero ---will be able to, present a rational, logical, common sense and relatively simple explanatory guide to explain any of those alledged "proofs" for the 99% of humanity that will never ever deal with such complicated mathematics.

Some are even simpler than mine,

YOurs is NOT simple dude. Yeah Origins is simple but illogical and certainly not a proof, just as I belive none of them are truly "proof" only mathematically illusionary, mental masturbation.

but not as rigorous as require multiplying an infinitely long decimal expression to conclude that 1 and 0.999... are identical values,

If you think those two are identical, then;

1) you need glasses,

2) you do not understand the differrence between the concept of infinite and finite and those are incommensurate except in the situation of starting with a give macro-fiinite, value 1 line-segment, and then conceptually/abstractly initiating a micro-infinite( ... ) subivision of value 1 line-segment. In so doing, teh first 0.1 conceptually/abstractly divides the line segment into seperate line parts.

both rational and finite as they are the same , identical, number, only two different names for that same number.

For practical purposes we state that, for absolute truth we do not.

My proof, without need of multiplying an infinitely long decimal string, nor any limiting procedure that some valid proofs do use, and every step is logically derived from stated definitions, so it is quite rigorous.

No infinitely long decimal strings exist in our macro finite

__occupied space__ **Uni**verse. What we do to express infinite abstractions is "..." or "oo" etc....ergo mental masturbation.

In contrast you give ONLY your opinion and no supporting proof;

You give alledged "proof", as so others here claim to do, and tho I understand that there are many pathways-- see Feynman ---to the same resultant, if you want to continue to deny, that even those in your camp, have issues with each others mathematical approach, then continue to deny. The "proof" of such is in the many posts here, unless they go back and edit it out.

I don't need a "proof" as my eyes with appropriate glasses can see that 1.0 is not identical to 0.999....and common sense, what 99% of humanity uses when neccessary, tells me that a finite value 1 will never ever be equal to an infinite value 0.999..., except for practical/contrive purposes.

further more you can not find any error in the proof I gave and I even number the steps for you to tell what step you did not think was valid.

SUMMARY: YOU HAVE ZERO UNDERSTANTING OF MATH (and very poor comprehension of English)

Is that the best rational, logical common sense and explantory guide to your, Origins or anyone elses alledged "proof"? Ha dude, how many in your camp actually can follow RPenners and Chinglus mathamatics?

How many humans who have more math knowledge than me, can follow those maths/

And your also stating false nonsense in the latter above, because, your ego blocks you to simple absolute truths that any human only needs a working set of eyes along with some common sense to know that your blowing ego blocking hot air.

I will admit you now show a slight improvement in you written text: I. e. no longer write "infinite value 0.9999..." but still think that in same old false claim (only you ignorantly assert)* "that finite 1 can not equal infinite 0.999..." That is of course false as 0.999... is not infinite in value, only has an infinitely long decimal expression that has the value of very finite 1. (Much like 1/3 =0.3333.... has an infinitely long decimal expression for finite, rational fraction 1/3.)

* Still persisting in the ignorant claim that the value must be infinite if the decimal expression of it is infinitely long.

Huh? What are going on about now. Infinite is infinite dude. Your playing grammar games.

You don't even realize / understand that 1/4 = 0.25 is also infinitely long decimal expression given more correctly (no assumption about less significant decimal place / locations being zero needed as that is explicitly so stated.) as 1/4 = 0.25000000000000000000 ...

C,mon dude, your playing more mental masturbation games here. 0.999....is infinite approach to finite 1.0 and I believe I saw that posted early on in this thread.

Your given infinite value 0.2500....is inherently rounded off to a finite value 0.25. The cal. does this also. Get yourself and try the experiment for youself BT.

All of the spaces do not fill in the cal. and there are not zeros after the 5. Your playing more mental masturbation games again.

Come back and talk to me, when you can offer us a rational, logical, common sense and relatively simple, explanatory guide to your alledged proof, or especially Origins two lines of formula--- what a joke his is ---or RP's complex references to "mapping" mathematics.

1.0 is labeled A in column XX, and we move it over to column S and relabled/reidentify A as G and that is the "proof" that 1.0 = 0.999..."yeah RIGHT!!!!!" says Bill Cosby in his Noah's voice to a mathematical God.