0.99999~ = 1 ?

One more thing, there are 2 types of irrational numbers:Algebraic such as the square root of 2 which can be found by simple algebra or can be formed by a compass and straight edge.Trancendental numbers such as pi & e(base of the natural logarithms) which can't.As for more irrationals, this is logical since any rational number can be multiplied by pi or e or both, or by 1/pi, 1/e, pi x e, pi/e, e/pi, or 1/(pi x e), not to mention such things as pi**n, e**n or their reciprocals.Edited by bluescat48, : typooos

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

One of the problems with the term infinity is that, infinity is not a number and the basic math functions don't work in the same way as with a finite number.For example there is an infinite set of numbers called integers.
There is another infinite set called rational numbers, all integers are contained in the set of rational numbers. Both sets are infinite so if one subtracted the integers from the rational numbers there would still be an infinite set of numbers left. The infinite set of integers added to the infinite set of algebraic irrational numbers & the infinite set of transcendental numbers gives another infinite set, the real numbers. This infinite set when added to the set of imaginary numbers (all real numbers multiplied by i (the square root of -1) gives part of the infinite set of complex numbers (numbers written in the form a + bi where a and b are real and i is the square root of -1Edited by bluescat48, : missing line + typos

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Yes as would the quantity 999.99999.... would equal 1000.00000....the same can be seen in the point that 1/7 + 6/7 = 7/7 = 1. Decimally .(142857).... + (857142).... yields .999999....This works for any repeating decimal where 1/n + (n-1)/n = n/nwhereas the decimal equivalent of 1/n being a repeating decimal that repeats any group of numbers ie .142857 it's additive inverse when added to the number gives repeating 9's. since 1/7 + its additive inverse, 6/7 = 1 and its decimal equivalent being .(142857).... added to its additive inverse .(857142).... = .999999....
therefore .999999.... = 1Edited by bluescat48, : = where + should have been

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

no matter how many nines you put you can still put another. Infinity is not a number. infinity is simply continuing without end. One can say there are are an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1, since all numbers greater than 1 have a reciprocal that is between 0 and 1.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

(emphasis = mine) Where in the OP does it mention Symbology? What the question was does .9999~ = 1 which it does.Edited by bluescat48, : missing [/qs]

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008