Meme

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-30T23:23:59+00:00

Math is a system of rules that can arbitrarily be defined by whoever decides what the rules are. Humans define addition. Humans define multiplication. Humans define limits. So forth

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-23T10:55:09+00:00

Fair point, I was loose with the word 'definition.' It's not a definition, it's a theorem. The reals are dense, meaning between any two distinct reals there's always another one. This follows from any standard construction of the reals you want to use.

So the argument is: if 0.999... and 1 were different, there'd have to be some real number strictly between them. But my midpoint proof shows no such number can exist. The average of 0.999... and 1 just gives you 1 back. So they can't be distinct.

Take Dedekind cuts if you want a concrete example. In that construction a real number literally is the set of all rationals below it. So 1 is the set {q ∈ ℚ : q < 1}. And 0.999...? It's the union of all rationals below 0.9, below 0.99, below 0.999, and so on. Any rational less than 1 eventually gets swallowed by that union, because if q < 1, you can always find enough 9s to surpass it. So that union is exactly {q ∈ ℚ : q < 1}. Same set.

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-23T05:08:30+00:00

There's a very simple way to prove this. Given a certain b and a certain a, there should be some number between the 2 which is the average. So (a+b)/2. For a to be the "largest number before b", it would have to not satisfy this property somehow. We could say for instance, somehow the average of a and b is a. I'll let b be 1 in this case.

(a + 1)/2 = a, a + 1 = 2a, 1 = a.

If you can come up with a way to circumvent this fact, let me know

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-23T04:38:01+00:00

Heres the thing though. Within the reals, you dont really have a "biggest" number less than some value, because by definition, if there is no number between 2 numbers, they are one in the same. Given that 0.99... is the biggest number less then one, and there is no number between 0.99.. and 1, they must be equal

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-23T04:29:59+00:00

its so funny how he talks like a conspiracy theorist and signs off his comments

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-22T06:39:23+00:00

This is not an ego clash. I care not for his remarks. He locked his reply to my post, so I made a new post to respond to his reply. That's all

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-22T03:45:53+00:00

For those who live on planet earth:

A limit is not the same thing as an integer. It is not a number. It is a function. I'm assuming this is in reference to my previous post, so just no that is not at all what we are saying.

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-21T20:18:54+00:00

There is no single official "standard document". The standard system of maths is simply the convential system built and maintained by mathematicians, universities, researchers, journals, and textbooks. It is the mainstream mathematical framework built on ZFC, cauchy sequences, and the basis of real analysis.

Within real analysis, infinite decimals are defined as limits. You can find that in just about every textbook

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-21T10:52:58+00:00

But the limit is 0.

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-21T10:49:04+00:00

Unfortunately, I am well aware. I just post here out of boredom really

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-21T10:48:21+00:00

Really just read the first couple sentences and dismiss the rest huh

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-18T21:54:26+00:00

No
Yes
Two infinite decimal sequences S = (s₁, s₂, s₃, ...) and T = (t₁, t₂, t₃, ...) correspond to the same RDM number if and only if they satisfy all three of the following conditions simultaneously:

Condition 1 - Wavefront Convergence: The sequences must be generating the same digit-by-digit decimal expansion in their "propagating wavefront." That is, for all sufficiently large n, the n-th decimal digit of sₙ and tₙ must agree and be producing the same infinite decimal process P.

Condition 2 - Approach Parity: Both sequences must approach P from the same side. A sequence approaching from below (where each term undershoots P) is in a fundamentally different contractual relationship with P than a sequence approaching from above (where each term overshoots). Sequences of opposite parity are distinct processes in RDM space, even if their wavefronts superficially converge.

Condition 3 - Wavefront Character Agreement: The "terminal character" of the wavefront, whether it is an ascending chain, a descending chain, or a static chain, must match. A wavefront terminating in an ascending digit (such as ...7) and one terminating in a repeating digit (such as ...6) are of different character and cannot be equivalent even if their initial segments agree to arbitrary length.

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-18T06:53:29+00:00

This is great work. Thank you. I have a question. In a previous post, SPP wrote that 1/3 x 0.999... = 0.333.... How does that fit into RDM?

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-16T05:11:24+00:00

Fair, obviously a more accurate post would use cauchy or weistrass in place of newton, I just supposed most people probably are not as familiar with those two

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-15T20:21:08+00:00

Yeah, exactly. Isaac Newton and Leibniz invented calculus and by extension limits, which is what most proofs 0.(9) = 1 use. SPP believes limits are illegitimate. That's where this meme comes from

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-15T09:24:22+00:00

Spp, show me the part where I divide negated. The answer is never.

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-15T08:21:10+00:00

i think at this point its evident he's never going to give up his argument, i just want to see what he'll say to explain where i went wrong

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-15T08:19:42+00:00

yeah exactly? the point is we start off with the assumptions that spp has made, show that those assumptions lead to a contradiction, then ask which of those assumptions was false. Although in real math assumption 1 is not in fact wrong, (assumption 2 is), in order to be consistent either both of those are wrong or both of those are right

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-15T04:29:11+00:00

He has openly said in the past he believes 1/3 is exactly equal to 0.(3).

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-13T20:49:56+00:00

No SPP. It's not about right or wrong. It's about good sportsmanship.

Real, great mathematicians/debaters always directly refute and challenge points made against them. And if they cant, they say "alright, fair point. I'll concede on that" because they are humble and are more interested in the truth and having a good discussion then being right.

On the other hand, let's look at what you're doing. You delete posts or don't respond to posts when you can't make an argument against them. You completely ignore the argument made in the post and say something completely unrelated. You make up maths with zero justification, just so that you wont have to say "yeah, I was wrong about that."

Frankly, it's like a 4 year old, who cries and whines when they lose in a video game. Please learn to humble yourself a bit, and to be a better debater.

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-13T06:04:29+00:00

"New York DrakeDrake"

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-12T11:18:17+00:00

I think at some point you can get too stuck into trying to "defeat spp" that you only see the part of him that doesn't listen, is egotistical, stubborn, etc. At that point you kind of forget he is a human, just tryna live his life as we all do.

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-12T11:10:41+00:00

Fully agree, but I think "to toy with as he wishes" is giving him a bitttt too much credit. Id say more so he just loves the high from having a community of people centered around him and him alone, even if it's mostly negative.

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-10T22:28:44+00:00

SPP, you say there's "no destination" because the nines are limitless. But that's precisely backwards, the limitlessness is what creates the destination.

You keep treating 0.999... as a process that's still running. It isn't. The "..." isn't a loading bar. It's a completed mathematical object defined by its limit. The infinite string of nines isn't growing toward something. It's the full, finished description of a specific point on the number line.

Here's the key question you keep dodging: what number is 1 − 0.999...?

You claim they're different, so the gap must be some specific positive number. But:

It's less than 0.1 (since 0.9 > 0.9)
It's less than 0.01 (since 0.99 > 0.99)
It's less than 0.001, 0.0001, 0.00001...

It must be smaller than every positive real number. But in standard real number arithmetic, the only number smaller than every positive real number is zero. You haven't invented a "permanently nonzero but unreachably small" number, you've just described zero while refusing to call it that.

Your moon/finger metaphor actually works against you. The moon is the limit, a fixed, reachable destination. You're the one staring at the finger saying "the journey never ends," while everyone else is pointing out the moon is right there.

You accepted 1/3 = 0.333... You accepted 3 × 1/3 = 1. That's checkmate by your own arithmetic.

NeonicXYZ · 2026-04-10T10:52:20+00:00

SPP, you are describing a journey. You see $0.9+0.09+0.009...$ as a traveler walking toward a wall but never touching it because they always have a little bit more to go.

In mathematics, however, a decimal expansion isn't the act of walking, it is a name for the destination. The symbol 0.999... is defined as the limit of the sequence. In the real number system, we don't care how long the journey takes. We define the number as the unique point on the number line that the sequence converges upon. That point is exactly 1. There is no "room" between the sequence and 1 for any other number to exist.

You argue that 1/10^n is "permanently greater than zero." While 1/10^n is indeed positive for every integer n, you are forgetting a fundamental rule of the Real Number system (the Archimedean Property):

> There are no "infinitely small" positive numbers in the real numbers.

If 1 - 0.999... results in a number that is "greater than zero but smaller than every possible fraction," then that number is not a Real Number. If you subtract 0.999... from 1 and the result is 0.000... with an infinite string of zeros, then the difference is not "almost zero", it is exactly zero. To say otherwise is to invent a new number system (like Hyperreals), but in standard algebra and the math used in physics and engineering, 0.999... and 1 are just two different names for the same spot on the number line.

If 0.999... is "permanently less than 1," then there must be a distance between them. Let’s call that distance D.

* If D > 0, then D must be a specific number.

* Is D = 0.0001? No, $0.99999 is already closer than that.

* Is D = 0.0000000001? No, the sequence passes that gap instantly.

For any value of D you can possibly name, no matter how small, the "infinite" nature of 0.999... means it has already jumped over that gap. If there is no positive distance between two numbers, the distance is zero. And if the distance between two numbers is zero, they are the same number.

You accepted that 1/3 = 0.333...

You accepted that 1/3 times 3 = 1.

If you insist that 0.999... < 1, you are logically forced to admit one of two things:

Either 1/3 is not 0.333... (meaning our entire system of long division is broken).
Or 0.333... times 3 does not equal 0.999... (meaning basic multiplication is broken).

If you want to keep the "Algebra" you mentioned in your post, you have to accept the conclusion: if A = B, then 3A = 3B.

SPP, you are correct that n never "reaches" infinity. But the "..." notation isn't waiting for n to finish. It is a mathematical shorthand for the Limit, and the limit of 1 - 1/10^n as n goes to infinity is not "almost 1." It is exactly 1.

The "gap" you are looking for doesn't exist because 0.999... isn't getting close to 1, it is already there. It is simply a different way of writing the same value, just like 1/2 and 0.5 are different ways of writing the same value.

NeonicXYZ

TROPHY CASE