you must follow the correct order of operations PPMDAS, giving this fact, you can not subtract "x" from the equation before you multiply
x = .9999 10x - x = 9 ((10 * .9999) - .9999) = 9 (9.9999 - .9999) = 9 9x = y (9 * .9999) = y 8.991 = y
Heh, yup thats right... People seem to forget that x not only represents a number, it also represents that the number must be multiplied by the number in front of it... 9x, where x = 3 would be 9 X 3... The initial calculation done is really just a coincidence that 10 X 0.999 - 0.999 = 10 X 1 - 1...
I'm going to become our Governor, and make us first in education. (terror) for governor! No, the 'x' variable does not represent multiplication. It's simply the format that represent multiplicity. i.e. if it were to be 9y - it would still be multiplication. 'x' or '*' can represent multiplication - but normally you do not use 'x' as a multiplication notification for the simple reason that it can easily be mistaken for a variable.
Pfft, i think anyone knows that its not only x that can represent a value and i was just using 'x' as an example... If your gonna over complicate stuff then dont do it to me =/ Its annoying and stupid.
Your statement was wrong though. It isn't my fault it was wrong. edit: Before you call someone stupid, maybe you should make sure your own post is correct, stupid.
Ive just read back over it and i think we're both talking about two different things... When im saying about x, im saying about x as in x = 1 or x = 2 etc... Though in yours you seem to think that im thinking about x as in multiplying (*) What i was trying to say is that when x is displayed with a number before it (ie 9x) then x is multiplied by the number before it (9x = 9 * The value of x ). In response to that your reply sounded like you were trying to be a smartass by saying that not only can it be x, it can be y or z etc. If you do mean that my statement was wrong then, it really isn't, and if need be reply then ill demonstrate. Cba to start an argument for nothing =]
Aurori is right .9repeating is in fact equal to 1. there are multiple proofs the one he presented being the most simplistic. it's one of those things which is basically a given in upper level mathematics like calculus. again all he did was state .9repeating=X 10*.9repeating=10x 9.9repeating=10*.9repeating 9.9repeating-X=9.repeating-.9repeating=10x-x 9=9X x=1 hence .9repeating=1 and for further burden of proof another proof 9/9=1 1/9=.1111111111111111111111 9*.11111111111111111repeating=.999999999999999999repeating 9* (1/9) = 9/9 = 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999... next time before you do your own chastising and the like, remember that .9999*9 != .999999999999999999999999999999999999repeating*9
x = .9999R 9 = 10x - x 9 + .9999R = 10x 9.9999R / 10 = x .9999R = x Now if in fact .9999R does equal 1, this equation will work for any number. x = 1 4 = 5x - x 4 + 1 = 5x 5/5 = x 1 = x Now lets try this same thing with .9999R x = .9999R 4 = 5x - x 4 + .9999R = 5x 4.9999R = 5x 4.9999R/5 = x x = 0.9998 Proof enough, .9999R does not equal 1 See how the equation is flawed? It is just an illusion created by the moving of the decial place due to it being multiplied by 10
The variable does NOT represent multiplication though. That is what you stated. "People seem to forget that x not only represents a number, it also represents that the number must be multiplied by the number in front of it..." HRMS. Now piss off. If you had stated "When the variable is paired directly with another number, that is an indication for multiplication" then you would have been correct. Your wording was wrong. Plain and simple - deal with it. It has nothing to do with complication, and everything to do with your choice of words. i.e 9+x. Nine, is still in font of x. 9/x. Nine is still in front of x. Get it?
