• zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    My favorite thing about this argument is that not only are you right, but you can prove it with math.

      • YTG123@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        The substitution property of equality is a part of its definition; you can substitute anywhere.

            • YTG123@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              For any a, b, c, if a = b and b = c, then a = c, right? The transitive property of equality.
              For any a, b, x, if a = b, then x + a = x + b. The substitution property.
              By combining both of these properties, for any a, b, x, y, if a = b and y = b + x, it follows that b + x = a + x and y = a + x.

              In our example, a is x' (notice the ') and b is 0.999… (by definition). y is 10x' and x is 9. Let’s fill in the values.

              If x' = 0.9999… (true by definition) and 10x = 0.999… + 9 (true by algebraic manipulation), then 0.999… + 9 = x' + 9 and 10x' = x' + 9.

              if you are rearranging algebra you have to do the exact same thing on both sides

              If you actually change any of the sides. Since, after substitution, the numeric value doesn’t change (literally the definition of equality), I don’t have to do anything – as I’m not rearranging. I’m merely presenting the same value in an equivalent manner. By contrast, when multiplying both sides by 10, since multiplication by 10 changes the concrete numeric value, I have to do it on both sides to maintain the equality relation (ditto for subtracting x'). But substitution never changes a numeric value – only rearranges what we already know.


              (Edit)

              Take the following simple system of equations.

              5y = 3
              x + y = 6
              

              How would you solve it? Here’s how I would:

              \begin{gather*} %% Ignore the LaTeX boilerplate, just so I could render it
              \begin{cases}
              y = \frac{3}{5} \\ % Isolate y by dividing both sides by 5
              x = 6 - y % Subtract y from both sides
              \end{cases} \\
              x = 6 - \frac{3}{5} \\ % SUBSTITUTE 3/5 for y
              x = 5.4 \\
              (x, y) = (5.4, 0.6)
              \end{gather*}
              

              Here’s how Microsoft Math Solver would do it.

              • 10x = 0.999… + 9 (true by algebraic manipulation)

                No, you haven’t shown that, because you haven’t shown yet that 9x=9. Welcome to why this doesn’t prove anything. You’re presuming your result, then using it to “prove” your result.

                What we know is that the right hand side is 10 times 0.9999…, so if you want to substitute x=0.99999… into the right hand side, then the right hand side becomes 10x (or 9x+x)… which only shows what we already know - 10x=10x. Welcome to the circularity of what you’re trying to achieve. You can’t use something you haven’t yet proven, to prove something you haven’t yet proven.