# A big controversy in math (0.999... = 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** Discussion\ **Created:** [April 23, 2026, 2:32am UTC](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669 "2026-04-23T02:32:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Daniel\_Grubbs](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/cl.desmos.com/daniel_grubbs/32/719_2.png) [@Daniel\_Grubbs](https://cl.desmos.com/u/Daniel_Grubbs)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2026, 6:41pm UTC](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669/41 "2026-05-20T18:41:25Z")
There is also an argument that our notation is just limited for the proofs that `0.9999... = 1`. For example, this proof does not hold if you change to a different base. > [@Guzman\_Tierno](#): > > here’s a simple one: > 1/3 = 0.3333… (just do the division) > now multipliy both sides times 3: > 3 \* 1/3 = 3 \* 0.3333… > and you get > 1 = 0.9999… … in base 3, would be: ```auto 1/10 = 0.1 10*1/10 = 10 * 0.1 1 = 1 ``` … or base 6, ```auto 1/3 = 0.2 3*1/3 = 3*0.2 1 = 1 ``` That doesn’t necessarily answer you question about calculations that use limits, but I think the general answer is yes use the limit. ---
**Author:** ![NTMDev](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/cl.desmos.com/ntmdev/32/7141_2.png) [@NTMDev](https://cl.desmos.com/u/NTMDev)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2026, 6:52pm UTC](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669/42 "2026-05-20T18:52:19Z")
> [@Daniel\_Grubbs](#): > > That doesn’t necessarily answer you question about calculations that use limits, but I think the general answer is yes use the limit. Okay, got it. So, we can prove that 0.999… = 1 in other bases? ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_Grubbs](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/cl.desmos.com/daniel_grubbs/32/719_2.png) [@Daniel\_Grubbs](https://cl.desmos.com/u/Daniel_Grubbs)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2026, 7:56pm UTC](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669/43 "2026-05-20T19:56:55Z")
More that 0.999999… is an imprecise representation of the value. ---
**Author:** ![Guzman\_Tierno](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/cl.desmos.com/guzman_tierno/32/6149_2.png) [@Guzman\_Tierno](https://cl.desmos.com/u/Guzman_Tierno)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2026, 9:16pm UTC](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669/44 "2026-05-20T21:16:21Z")
0.9999… does not converge to 1 … IT IS 1. ---
**Author:** ![imamathnerd](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/cl.desmos.com/imamathnerd/32/10338_2.png) [@imamathnerd](https://cl.desmos.com/u/imamathnerd)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 1:56am UTC](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669/45 "2026-05-21T01:56:09Z")
This is actual ragebait First of all, this man, the author of the article, is literally just a guy with free time, while sites like Wikipedia use actual, reliable sources that they show at the bottom. I scrolled to the bottom of this article and, what do you know, there are no sources, it’s literally just this one guy who is way overconfident. Also, almost every comment that I read was showing him how he is wrong. This is also his only math-related article, even though he claims that he has “disproven” many facts. Reminds me of a flat-earther. ---
**Author:** ![NTMDev](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/cl.desmos.com/ntmdev/32/7141_2.png) [@NTMDev](https://cl.desmos.com/u/NTMDev)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 1:56am UTC](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669/46 "2026-05-21T01:56:21Z")
Well I was getting all confused, cause Daniel is saying something about not converging. ---
**Author:** ![NTMDev](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/cl.desmos.com/ntmdev/32/7141_2.png) [@NTMDev](https://cl.desmos.com/u/NTMDev)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 1:58am UTC](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669/47 "2026-05-21T01:58:52Z")
Yes, I agree. He knows nothing about what he is talking about. It is incorrect to say that 0.999… x 10 = 0.999…0. I don’t know how anyone thinks this is possible. First, it is very obvious that any “0” at the end of a number can be neglected. Secondly, the “0” does not exist. You cannot have an digit after an infinite amount of digits. The “0” does not change the value of the decimal. Another thingif, according to this logic, 0.999… \* 10 = 0.999… 0 , then does 0.999… \* 10 = 9.999… 00? Then, does, 0.999… \* 10^n = 0.999 \* 10^n … (0)n? So are you saying that 0.999… \* 10 ^n = 0.999… 0…? How do you even have “repeating 0s”? That doesn’t even make any sense! And we aren’t even taking in account, you are having repeating 0s AFTER repeating 9s! **Edit** From the third equation, 0.999… \* 10^n = 0.999 \* 10^n … (0)n, can be simplifed into: 0 = 0.00… (cancelling out the 0.999… \* 10^n) Do you see the problem? What is a “0.00…”? Can you ignore those 0s? “No”, because they have some “infinitesimal” value that is absolutely nonexistent. ---
**Author:** ![imamathnerd](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/cl.desmos.com/imamathnerd/32/10338_2.png) [@imamathnerd](https://cl.desmos.com/u/imamathnerd)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 2:00am UTC](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669/48 "2026-05-21T02:00:29Z")
.999… is NOT 1 becuase is diferent looking actualy ---
**Author:** ![NTMDev](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/cl.desmos.com/ntmdev/32/7141_2.png) [@NTMDev](https://cl.desmos.com/u/NTMDev)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 2:01am UTC](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669/49 "2026-05-21T02:01:23Z")
Yes, and Daniel\_Grubbs showed (smartly) that you can express 0.999… = 1 easily in different bases: > [@Daniel\_Grubbs](#): > > … in base 3, would be: > > ```auto > 1/10 = 0.1 > 10*1/10 = 10 * 0.1 > 1 = 1 > > ``` > > … or base 6, > > ```auto > 1/3 = 0.2 > 3*1/3 = 3*0.2 > 1 = 1 > > ``` > > That doesn’t necessarily answer you question about calculations that use limits, but I think the general answer is yes use the limit. ---
**Author:** ![imamathnerd](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/cl.desmos.com/imamathnerd/32/10338_2.png) [@imamathnerd](https://cl.desmos.com/u/imamathnerd)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 2:05am UTC](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669/50 "2026-05-21T02:05:36Z")
@bhssingul this is not targeted at you btw, don’t take this personally, it’s against your source ---
**Author:** ![NTMDev](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/cl.desmos.com/ntmdev/32/7141_2.png) [@NTMDev](https://cl.desmos.com/u/NTMDev)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 2:10am UTC](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669/51 "2026-05-21T02:10:16Z")
[![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GRH8GfmWYAAY2a8.jpg) ](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GRH8GfmWYAAY2a8.jpg) 💀 two numbers and argument = personal ---
**Author:** ![F1NN](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/cl.desmos.com/f1nn/32/10536_2.png) [@F1NN](https://cl.desmos.com/u/F1NN)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 2:58am UTC](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669/52 "2026-05-21T02:58:44Z")
Read though this and nearly had to correct everything I saw, but thankfully the incorrect and rage-bait was corrected. I was crashing out when I saw 0.999… \* 10 equaled 0.999…0. Just the concept of a repeating number and then another number out of sequence is impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Guzman\_Tierno](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/cl.desmos.com/guzman_tierno/32/6149_2.png) [@Guzman\_Tierno](https://cl.desmos.com/u/Guzman_Tierno)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 12:39pm UTC](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669/53 "2026-05-21T12:39:04Z")
ok, let’s be precise then … 0.999 … and 1 are two ways to indicate the same exact number. ---
**Author:** ![NTMDev](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/cl.desmos.com/ntmdev/32/7141_2.png) [@NTMDev](https://cl.desmos.com/u/NTMDev)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 12:50pm UTC](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669/54 "2026-05-21T12:50:30Z")
Yes thank you Guzman ---
**Author:** ![Cubic\_Sune](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/cl.desmos.com/cubic_sune/32/4722_2.png) [@Cubic\_Sune](https://cl.desmos.com/u/Cubic_Sune)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 12:53pm UTC](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669/55 "2026-05-21T12:53:20Z")
Just because a number “looks different” doesn’t mean it IS different. For example, 2/2 sure looks different from 1. Same value, different representation. ---
**Author:** ![NTMDev](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/cl.desmos.com/ntmdev/32/7141_2.png) [@NTMDev](https://cl.desmos.com/u/NTMDev)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 12:54pm UTC](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669/56 "2026-05-21T12:54:34Z")
No, he meant: “0.999… is not equal to 1 just because they look different” I assume ---
**Author:** ![NTMDev](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/cl.desmos.com/ntmdev/32/7141_2.png) [@NTMDev](https://cl.desmos.com/u/NTMDev)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 12:57pm UTC](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669/57 "2026-05-21T12:57:19Z")
> [@bhssingul](#): > > yes ,but there still has to be an eight somewhere,and how many even primes are there? > what the odds of when picking any of the infinite primes,the odds you pick 2 is 1/infinity,and you are saying 1- 1/infinity=1{which is just 9 repeating=1} > then from that 1/infinity =0 and circling around,the odds of picking 2=0? Nothing personal @bhssingul , but this is absolutely nonsensical. ---
**Author:** ![imamathnerd](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/cl.desmos.com/imamathnerd/32/10338_2.png) [@imamathnerd](https://cl.desmos.com/u/imamathnerd)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 1:40pm UTC](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669/58 "2026-05-21T13:40:29Z")
I was being sarcastic ---
**Author:** ![Cubic\_Sune](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/cl.desmos.com/cubic_sune/32/4722_2.png) [@Cubic\_Sune](https://cl.desmos.com/u/Cubic_Sune)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 1:41pm UTC](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669/59 "2026-05-21T13:41:21Z")
Oh. My bad. I struggle with picking up sarcasm through text. ---
**Author:** ![port](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/cl.desmos.com/port/32/9839_2.png) [@port](https://cl.desmos.com/u/port)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 1:54pm UTC](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669/60 "2026-05-21T13:54:14Z")
mmm ok so 4 and 8 are the same number too [Previous page](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669.md?page=2) [Next page](https://cl.desmos.com/t/a-big-controversy-in-math-0-999-1/8669.md?page=4)