The decimals '0.999...' and '1' refer to the real numbers that are equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences of rational numbers (0.9, 0.99, 0.999,...) and (1, 1, 1,...) with respect to the relation R: (aRb) <=> (lim(a_n-b_n) as n->inf, where a_n and b_n are the nth elements of sequences a and b, respectively).
For a = (1, 1, 1,...) and b = (0.9, 0.99, 0.999,...) we have lim(a_n-b_n) as n->inf = lim(1-sum(9/10^k) for k from 1 to n) as n->inf = lim(1/10^n) as n->inf = 0. That means that (1, 1, 1,...)R(0.9, 0.99, 0.999,...), i.e. that these sequences belong to the same equivalence class of Cauchy sequences of rational numbers with respect to R. In other words, the decimals '0.999...' and '1' refer to the same real number. QED.
Meh, close enough.
This is why we can't have nice things like dependable protection from fall damage while riding a boat in Minecraft.
The only sources I trust are the ones that come from my dreams
I can honestly say I learned something from the comment section. I was always taught the .9 repeating was not equal to 1 but separated by imaginary i ... Or infinitely close to 1 without becoming 1.
Reals are just point cores of dressed Cauchy sequences of naturals (think of it as a continually constructed set of narrowing intervals "homing in" on the real being constructed). The intervals shrink at the same rate generally.
1!=0.999 iff we can find an n, such that the intervals no longer overlap at that n. This would imply a layer of absolute infinite thinness has to exist, and so we have reached a contradiction as it would have to have a width smaller than every positive real (there is no smallest real >0).
Therefore 0.999...=1.
However, we can argue that 1 is not identity to 0.999... quite easily as they are not the same thing.
This does argue that this only works in an extensional setting (which is the norm for most mathematics).
Mathematics is built on axioms that have nothing to do with numbers yet. That means that things like decimal numbers need definitions. And in the definition of decimals is literally included that if you have only nines at a certain point behind the dot, it is the same as increasing the decimal in front of the first nine by one.
0.999... / 3 = 0.333... 1 / 3 = 0.333... Ergo 1 = 0.999...
(Or see algebraic proof by @Valthorn@feddit.nu)
If the difference between two numbers is so infinitesimally small they are in essence mathematically equal, then I see no reason to not address then as such.
If you tried to make a plank of wood 0.999...m long (and had the tools to do so), you'd soon find out the universe won't let you arbitrarily go on to infinity. You'd find that when you got to the planck length, you'd have to either round up the previous digit, resolving to 1, or stop at the last 9.
0.999 K̵͕̟̝̺̤͖͙̠̯̱̋̂̎ͅl̷̖̹͈̖̜͖͖̗͇̺̲͚̮̈́̍̀͜ã̸̡̯̬͙͚̜͈̈͐͗͊̎̑̄̚͜ă̶̡̙͖̗̈͑ͅt̶̨̡̛͖̻̱̲̝͆͌́͆̏̂̒̓̐͆ự̵͇̱̩̳͍̂̑́̃͑̿̂̀͋͝͝ ̴͓̟̖̹̝̦͉̺̟̲̭͎͓̓̐̉̆̔̉̐͋͋̕͜b̶̨̥͎͎̖͈̝͔̗̫̭̃̃͋̈́̈́͐̓͘͘ͅa̸̛̜͖̋̔͊̓̔̾͌̈́̒̊͠ŗ̴̨̛͕̭̻͎͖̭͍͇̽̌ͅå̷̛̝̫̝̜̥̔͊̓̕ͅḑ̴̛̜͎̘͕̦̘̺̃̅͗̋̍̽͂͆̀̓̕̚͠a̵̧̬͉̫̖̫̰̲͆̌̊̎́̑̍̅͂͘͝ ̸̧̺͚̲̲̖̭̠̽́̊̍͜ͅn̵̡̡̛͚̂͒̀͂̏͗̈́̏͜͝ḯ̷̛͖̪̞̖̪̰̗̟̟̗̟̣̐̔̌̑̐̚̕͜ͅḳ̶̡̥͓̟̤̖͈̘̜͎̈́̓̀̑͆͂̓̂̄̄̏̓̕t̶̯͚̬́͗̃̏̑͌̀̈́̔̕̚͝o̵͚̘̹̞͈̥̺̎ 1
Even the hyperreal numbers *R, which include infinitesimals, define 1 == .999...
